I'm starting to think that part of the extreme reaction to Poser and 3D art is one of style. There are a pile of 3D and 2D artists who react negatively to Poser from an issue of technique and they can easily be ignored because much of that reaction comes from a personal vested interest in whatever they're doing. There's another reaction that has more to do with the look of the product. That's a little harder to deal with and it ends in a stalemate where there's no right or wrong. It's strictly a matter of personal choice. Ultimately, I like the 3D look. There's something about that ultra-realistic look, lying somewhere between reality and something that's not quite reality, that I find appealing. That's not surprising because somebody wouldn't invest time in a technique that they didn't enjoy. Probably the closest comparison I can think of would be a pulp influenced style of artwork from the 60s that was prevalent on Men's magazine covers, Universal monster merchandised artwork, and painted trading cards, such as a mid-60s Batman set during the time when the TV show was a hit. It was a highly glossy look with a sheen of artificiality, but it was an interesting unique look that is gone from most painted work today. Poser has some of that look with a glossy atmosphere and sharply defined renders. I can't argue it being good or bad as much as that I like the look. There's something about the sharp glossy look of 3D that works for me, but not necessarily to everybody.

I like the contrasts between sharp, hard edged glossy stuff and organic stuff. 3D is now at the point where you can have both, even in Poser.

Yes, the way a piece hangs together is very important. Whether you're trying for realism or a more painted look, it's important to have the whole piece match.

My personal be noire is to see a painted-texture character in front of a photo background, or a photo-real prop. The contrast just sets my teeth on edge and makes me wince. A good example would be Koshini on the Daz Cyclorama beach photo background. I mean why?! Unless you're trying to play with people's minds...

That said, I do have a pic in my gallery with a toon-type character in an edging-towards-realism setting, but it was more of an experiment than anything else...
http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=639824

Message edited on: 07/04/2004 15:55

hmm..as long as it's composited well, looks fairly realistic and believable..it floats my boat..;) from my hours of experience with backgrounds (that's what, about 30 minutes?..;) I think it's just easier to create a quickie background..
some folks do this for serious artistic reasons, some of us do it for fun..there's always things to learn, and one thing you have to remember is how many beginners start here..just part of the price we pay..;)

What I like are characters/props that are absolutely believable and photo-realistic in situations/scenarios that are otherworldly - kind of makes you jump a little :) I have yet to achieve that degree of photo realism :(

I'm with Movida on this one I think. If the scene is done in an ultra-photoreal style, I prefer the scenes to be of something you can't readily find in the "real world", such as high fantasy or sci-fi, or extra-dimensional. Sometimes, but rarely, I come upon a scene where the characters are done in cell-shaded style, but the backgrounds are shaded in a much more realistic style (a good example of some stuff like this is high-end anime) which appeals to me greatly. The contrast of the two opposite styles used in the same scene, when done well, can stir the imagination to great heights. I'm not a huge fan of the "painted" look, which is primarily done in post (photoshop or the like). However, when done well, this too can be breathtaking to behold. :)

I have a certain respect for those who can make a render look like a photograph, but what I really love is completely unnatural figures with lighting and texturing that makes your jaw drop. ...and Jimmy Neutron.

I have wondered about this as I view the galleries here. In particular, I have noted that many Poser artist do tend to give their Poser images that "painted look". Some of these are very well done, and I am not finding fault. However, I did not find this to be so evident in the photography gallery. Is this perhaps due to photography being a more familar and accepted art form, whereas Poser and 3D images are more new to us - and therefore less familar in how they look to us - as an art form? I am curious about this. I would enjoy hearing more thoughts on this. -Brey

I've never gotten this good in Poser although I'm sure others probably have - I don't have the patience to fool with it.

Message edited on: 07/06/2004 21:37