Thanks SamTherapy (see thread below) for ressurecting this dead horse but its something I feel strongly about. Infact I would LOVE to see a new Gallery category for Non-Postworked images. Here are some reasons why it deserves a Gallery category all of its own:

if you had to reproduce the image again (say at a different size or dpi) then its going to take an awful lot of effort (if not next to impossible to get the EXACT reproduction of it) with a postworked image. Looking at a non postworked image, means you can imagine the image as a huge wall poster - unless you are using P6 with its current memory issues ;-)
It inspires owners of the 3-D package to strive for better images without feeling that they could "NEVER DO THAT". A non-postworked image demonstrates the skills of manipulating the package and not your 2d drawing ability. You still need skills though: lighting & scene composition, modelling ability etc. etc. - just a different set of skills and I for one appreciate those 'digital' skills
A non Postworked image could be turned into an animation with very little effort. Try animating an image with loads painted on clothes and hair!
it would be nice to see the power of various packages without the skill of the 2d painter being a factor. That way we can make more informed choices about the 3d package we want to buy

PLEAE NOTE: AS A DIGITAL ARTIST YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO USE ANY TOOLS OR COMBINATION OF TOOLS YOU WANT TO REALISE YOUR VISION

All I am saying is that, for the reasons above, I would love to see a separate gallery that shows off purely ones package manipulation skills.

There are times when you want to show off (or see) an image purely as a piece of artwork and times when you want to show off (or see) artwork that show what the 3D package is capable of in skilled hands. Right now there is no way to do this unless the artist has stated NO POSTWORK in the comments.
Also, it would open up a whole new marketing area perhaps where artists could sell their artwork confident that the image could be re-produced to any size for someone wanting to buy it.

Lets see how long it takes now for someone to misinterpret what I've said above as a personal attack on them for having the audacity for using postwork in their images....
Sigh!

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 03:10

I agree with you about the non-postworked gallery..but do have one comment. I don't think the size thing is an issue all that much. I tend to work large no matter what, so usually it can be reproduced at least at poster size, then I shrink it down to post. What's the use of doing all that work if it's not "useable"? Maybe other people don't mind, but being from the print industry, doing work on a low res image is the same as throwing my time away if I can't use it later for high res print. You've got a good point there... (zai...the overly-postworked artist)

Rendo Store | Freebies | RDNA Store

But are textures created in photoshop, psp or whatever acceptable? Can extra python scripts (for Poser) or plugins for other packages be accepted or not? Are third-party objects (daz, sixus,...) acceptable, or does it have to be pure Poser? I see your point, but setting rules is always so vague...where does the beach end, and where does the sea begin?

I have tried prudent planning long enough. From now I'll be mad. (Rumi)

Aeneas, I see where you are coming from but I think if you can hit the 'Render' button on your package and take the final output then that would be your criteria. So Even if you use Poser to Pose and texture your model, import it into Vue and hit the Vue Render button then it would be considered a 'Vue' No-Postworked image. I think things start to get fuzzy when you start using Alpha planes etc (although this would fail the re-size test since scaling the alpha plane bitmap would start to show pixelation) . So heres a set of possible criteria for a 'pure' digital non-postworked image. 1. No interaction with the image should be necessary after the 'Render' button is hit (except to add a signature and possibly fix the exposure of the image) 2. You can reproduce the image at any size required (obviously limited by the maximimum size the package allows you to render at) without loss of information 3. You can look at the scene from another angle without having to do any 2d postwork and still retain all the information in the original image. 4. The 3D package that should be associated with the image should be the last one used (ignoring packages used to add final signatures or exposure control)

Well, I need to move all my gallery.

Stupidity also evolves!

Everything I do in 3D is geared toward animation. I make absolutely sure that whatever I do after the render can be done easily if I decided to animate the scene. So I have no problems with this, except for: "1. No interaction with the image should be necessary after the 'Render' button is hit (except to add a signature and possibly fix the exposure of the image)" You realize that leaves out EVERY major professional 3D/CG studio in the known universe. LOL.

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

stealth1701..."and possibly fix the exposure of the image" One could argue that in itself be considered postwork. But I agree with what your saying it would nice to see what artists could do with a straight render. I know it's possible. Plus we could we all guareentee some good shouting matches about did they postwork or not! :) al

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

"Plus we could we all guareentee some good shouting matches about did they postwork or not! :) "

Oh, you just know that THIS would be a constant occurance. If it were an animation gallery, then probably not so much to worry about... but stills? It will never work. It's just too easy for someone to touch up things here and there in a paint program, so no one could ever be 100% sure that there's no postwork done to something unless you request to see a wireframe along with original texture maps or some other form of validation from EVERY submitter... just like they do at CGTalk. Hehe. I can see that going over big round here. ;-P Message edited on: 03/31/2005 05:59

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Pray tell me what is the difference between "fixing the exposure" and altering the saturation? Changing the hue range? Upping the contrast? Correcting the gamma? You wouldn't allow making a corresponding frame in PhotoShop, but would allow pixels to be changed to repair the lighting? You wouldn't allow touching up for poke-through, but would allow a desaturated image to enhance the moodiness? Whether you use a prepackaged filter to get a nice glow or sit there with the gamma curve to fix the exposure doesn't matter, you've done postwork. Even "saving for web" where the program mushes up the colors to get the image size down is postwork! Placing the signature is postwork! Reading between the lines, it appears that what you want to do is separate out the images where people have painted hair and clothes from the images where people use 3d models of hair and clothes. Sheep and goats? ...and I have to ask WHY? If you are doing your art just to make the image which conveys your thoughts and satisfies you, why are you worried about what others might or might not be doing? Carolly

"why are you worried about what others might or might not be doing?" I wonder about this myself Allow me to repost what I posted in the other Tedious thread about this "issue" Quoting myself:"Post working is an artistic skill Ive found the the people who are against it dont come from traditional art backgrounds and Dont have the skills to do it anyway :-) I know a long time poser user who proudly proclaims "P4 NO POST!!!!" in every description of his gallery images. and his work is quite Dull Flat & mediocre Like so many other anti-postwork "artists" Ive also noticed the "Anti post" crowd also tends to be recalicitrant Poser4 hold outs and even if they use poser 5 they NEVER Use firely, material nodes etc. just the P4 render and perhaps a few Purchased light sets and poorly lit Background props Alot of them also tend to still run WIndows 98 or Mac OS9 Claiming they dont need "Complicated" systems Like XP or MAC OSX. Just my opinions> End quote .

My website

YouTube Channel

I knew it wouldn't take long before someone COMPLETELY mis-interpreted the thread!!!!
Hauksdottir, please read the bit in BOLD in my original post. I KNOW it doesn't matter what technique anyone uses to produce their art - I just want to also have the option of seeing images done using the 3D Package alone (AS AN OPTION!!!!)
Adding a sig is not the type of postwork I'm talking about. Anyone with half a brain will be able to discern that an image with a sig obviously hasn't been completely done using the package - and frankly that won't be of concern. People put sigs on the image for copyright and personalisation, ITS NOT PART OF THE SCENE (usually).
I included exposure since we are just talking about increasing or decreasing lighting information that is already there in the scene rather than actually changing or adding anything.

Hmm. I can see your point, but perhaps an added "genre" option would be better than an entirely different gallery? After all, both are Poser artwork. We don't have separate galleries for P4, P5 and P6, nor should we. So why force postwork distinctions? On the other hand, having a "no postwork" genre option would allow those who want to post in that category to easily find like images, without alienating everyone else.

"Reading between the lines, it appears that what you want to do is separate out the images where people have painted hair and clothes from the images where people use 3d models of hair and clothes." Judging from this: "3. A non Postworked image could be turned into an animation with very little effort. Try animating an image with loads painted on clothes and hair!" I'd say you hit the proverbial nail on the head. ;-) I don't care either way. I'd be glad to offer wireframes and texture maps (when I'm not using procedural textures) if it ever came down to that. I've done it on CGTalk before. I just find the whole "anti-postwork" concept a humorous topic. It seems accurate to what Wolf has pointed out. With a few exceptions, it seems only beginners and moderate hobbyists care about such things. :-)

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

"Anyone with half a brain will be able to discern that an image with a sig obviously hasn't been completely done using the package" Ok, but what about depth of field effect that's done in post? Not everyone wants to wait an eternity for a render effect that can be knocked out in seconds in 2D just as well. Or composite shots where the 3D element was not touched other than to composite it onto the background? With P6, we'll be seeing a lot more of that because it's new features are geared toward it. By your definition, that's postwork?? These are all very much part of true 3D, but not according to your rules. See how it can get confusing real fast?

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Just one more thing, and then I'll go away. hehe. ;-) What about the new feature in P6 that lets you render a "shadow only" pass? This means, you render the image once without shadows, then you run this shadow only pass so that you can composite the shadows to the image in post. It provides much more control over shadow intensity and color in both stills AND animation after the render is done. My question would be, in this new hypothetical gallery, would this also be "illegal" postwork? Clearly, it's now an itegrated feature of Poser 6, and a legitimate technique that's commonly done by professionals in the industry all the time. Yet, it's definitely postwork.

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

maxxmodelz, this would fail the 1st test, since you are compositing the image outside Poser (I haven't played with Poser 6 enough to understand the effect you are talking about but from your post I assume that this combination is done postwork?) Like most things you can get a general idea of the things a person is trying to convey in a thread or you can nit-pick every typed word and formulate an argument based on that. I do hope people here are more interested in the former. Here is the general idea again for people who missed it. Love art for arts sake no matter how its produced BUT why bother categorising it under the package that you used to produce it if you are going to heavily postwork it anyway. Call it just digital art! Alternatively have the ability in the gallery to state which packages were used. That way, if only say Poser6 is listed then people will know its a straight render if its Poser6 and Photoshop then people will know its postworked.

"Love art for arts sake no matter how its produced BUT
why bother categorising it under the package that you used to produce it if you are going to heavily postwork it anyway"

Not trying to nit-pick everything you say, but if you're serious about this, I might be interested in participating. Most of my stuff only gets very minor touch-ups or color corrections in post.

However, the thing is... you keep saying "heavily postworked", then you say if you do ANYTHING other than a logo it's not acceptable?? Well, compositing shadows that were rendered FROM Poser itself (meaning, you set up all the lights that cast those shadows in the first place, they're not painted on) is hardly "heavily postworked".

Again, your definition of "heavily postworked" is murkey at best, and I dare say the vast majority of people who would participate in such a gallery, where the rules of conduct are so undefined, would be a beginner-level user, or someone who has no real interest in improving their skill level.

Again, I'm not hounding you here. I don't come from a 2D background, so painting over things isn't good for me either... I'm just saying that you're alienating a great majority of professionals who do certain types of postwork for the sake of workflow, and I'm NOT talking about paint-overs.

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 07:51

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

I have no problem with seperate galleries, if a piece of art is good, knowing how the person achieved the end result is not important. But I suppose if may be a good idea for people who get so bent out of shape about it. Pink

No Maxx my definition of heavily postworked is not "murkey at best" - if you have to add stuff to a SCENE that wasn't there in the original then its postworked. Let me give you an (extreme) example of why I don't like postworked images in galleries that are categorised by applications. I render a couple of images in Poser. Composite them together and tag on some realistic shadows (rendered separately) using the technique you mention above. Composite it on a Terragen produced background (complete with your nice 'postworked' shadows) and post it in the Poser Gallery. Someone comes along that doesn't have Poser and says, "Gee, Poser can do all that - must get me that application!" Or you post it in the Terragen Gallery and someone says "Gee, Terragen can have realistic people in front of natural looking backgrounds? Wow, must get me that application." See what I mean? Also, WHY would anyone want to post in a gallery that is exclusively for non-postworked images and then 'cheat' by doing a bit of postwork on it. That person would have nothing to gain - since everyone is using the same package. We push the applications to its limits and then ask the manufacturers to add the stuff into it that can only be solved at present by postwork. That way the next version becomes even more powerful and needs less Postwork. Why do we bother asking CL and the like for additional features like IBL, Radiosity etc, accurately modelled hair etc. if we are not interested in the package doing this. Surely the goal of a 3D package is to produce a realistic image out-of-the-box that properly casts shadows, folds cloth in the right places and makes hair look natural. If we are going to paint these on, then 3D packages and Poser in particular has matured as far as it needs to. Ok enough ranting from me, you have the floor...

There is a significant difference between images that are postworked so much that poser is essentially just the "base", and an image that has been postworked to correct for colour cast, clothing poke-through, mesh breaks and suchlike. But by insisting on a "purity" of non-postworked images, you place both of these in the same category. And that is why requests like this never work out. If enough people are going to participate in a "no postwork gallery", you need to accept that different people will draw the lines in slightly different places. Especially since, if an artist is skillful at correction-type postwork, you (generic "you") wouldnt' be able to tell the difference anyway.

"4. it would be nice to see the power of various packages without the skill of the 2d painter being a factor. That way we can make more informed choices about the 3d package we want to buy" ----- This pretty much sums it up. Why are so many of you having such difficulty with this concept? Gad. If I render a Poser (VUE, Carrara, Lightwave) scene with all its bells and whistles, and then render yet again the same scene from a different angle/camera, both renders remain intact products of the program in question and my ability (or lack thereof) to use it. Painting hair, clothing, etc in postwork shows off ones skills (or lack thereof) regarding Paintshop, Photoshop, et al. Cropping, signature compositing, watermarking, web-readiness and the like are postwork processes but they affect the post-render image mechanics as a whole rather than specific artistic "choices". Color correction, saturation, exposure control, etc. are questionable postwork processes. Granted, they don't modify the image in such a way as to prohibit immediate reproduction from various angles, but they do open for questioning the users ability to control these parameters within the program, PRE-render. I think what is being suggested is "Present the render as if you had NO OTHER programs with which to modify it--with the exception of whatever post processes deemed acceptible by 'whomever' (cropping, signatures, watermarking, etc)". All in all, I think a separate gallery is highly unlikely, especially when its something that can be accomplished with flags or appended to the image title. Also consider that nobody (and I mean nobody) who puts 30+ hours into a render is going to do that again from a second angle just to satisfy some no-post infidels. Nonetheless, a VERY intriguing idea. If you can't get it accepted here, there are always other avenues. ah heh heh He said "package handling abilities" heh heh

I imagine the next stage is this mindset will be a plea for a "poser4 classic" Gallery. NO IBL NO Subsurface scattering NO point lights NO AO NO Soft shadows No Displacement mapps. "possette" and "Dork" preferred :-)

My website

YouTube Channel

"No Maxx my definition of heavily postworked is not "murkey at best" - if you have to add stuff to a SCENE that wasn't there in the original then its postworked."

Uhm.. OK.

"Someone comes along that doesn't have Poser and says, "Gee, Poser can do all that - must get me that application!" Or you post it in the Terragen Gallery and someone says "Gee, Terragen can have realistic people in front of natural looking backgrounds? Wow, must get me that application."
See what I mean?"

Happens all the time in EVERY application. For instance, some newbies think that just because Alias/Wavefront's website says Maya was used in the making of LOTR, that they can get the software, learn it, and do what they saw there. When in reality, a number of different 3D packages were used in tandum to achieve the FX, and a great deal of high end postwork software that only a studio could afford was used to prepare it for film. The best way to find out what a program is capable of is to read it's features and try the demo.

"Also, WHY would anyone want to post in a gallery that is exclusively for non-postworked images and then 'cheat' by doing a bit of postwork on it."

That I don't know... but trust me, it will happen. Some kid will want to get his kicks by getting oooohhhs and aaaaaahhhhs to his picture, so he'll - as you put it - cheat the system by fixing some bad joints, etc. in post. And no one would be the wiser, because it's all still pictures. Unless you require wireframes and texture proofs, which would be impossible in this kind of gallery structure, I believe the gallery would eventually deteriorate into "cheater" heaven fairly quickly.

"Ok enough ranting from me, you have the floor..."

I'm done. Message edited on: 03/31/2005 09:00

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Hehe... I just hope that everyone who is in the "anti-postwork" alliance are not the same people who feel shunned or get pissed-off when high-end forum users shoot down Poser users as being "cheaters" because they use all pre-fab stuff. That would be terribly ironic. ;-)

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Thank you oilscum, FINALLY someone who understands!

Maxxmodelz - "Happens all the time in EVERY application. For instance, some newbies think that just because Alias/Wavefront's website says Maya was used in the making of LOTR, that they can get the software, learn it, and do what they saw there." - EXACTLY my point. You only have to go to Curious Labs Gallery and look at the mnumber of images in there that have been Postworked. If I was looking at Poser as a potential application for the first time and saw these images I would WRONGLY assume that it is capable of all the effects shown in the Gallery. Fact us most of us have got frustrated enough with Poser to know this isn't the case. This is in effect false product merchandising - something I'm sure no-one would be happy with if it were done in the Marketplace. All I'm saying is credit the art wth the tools that were used in the making of it - that way we can decide where our ooooohhhs and ahhhhhhs should be placed.

Oh and BTW, I don't get pissed-off when postworkers shun pre-fabbed images. Its a completely different set of skills. One requires 2d skills and the other 3d skills and like I said before - the artist can use whatever medium he/she wants to make the image. Please remember the original post - I'm not looking to ban postwork I just want them distinguished from non-postworked images. THATS ALL I'M ASKING FOR! Anyone else agree with that LAST statement????

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 09:22

"All I'm saying is credit the art wth the tools that were used in the making of it - that way we can decide where our ooooohhhs and ahhhhhhs should be placed." This I agree with. :-) In fact, I sometimes might forget to put when a render was composited or when colors have been adjusted myself. However, whenever someone asks, I have no problem telling them exactly how I achieved something - be it directly in Poser or after the fact. Except, of course, when if it comes to commercial work (not the marketplace, but actual client work)... those would be "ancient chinese secret". ;-)

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

an easy idea :) no postwork, period, not even sigs, nothing should be done after clicking the "render" button now you say you want a sig in your pic? 3d apps can EASILY (atleast for me and i suck ahah) have the sig there before clicking render dont tell me all of you "great" artists wanting to post in the "purist" genre, dont remember the basic things in your 3d app? add a plain square, position it, parent it to your camera, and save the scene as a "base" for your 3d projects to be on. And IMO using texture maps, trans maps, even bump/disp maps, a sig can blend into the scene, or stand out, just as much or better as postworking it i can easily postwork the hell out of an image, and make the image perfect, we have galleries for that already, and adding a "purist" genre does no harm, if someone wants to make a "pure" pic and post, they can first time i see someone say its imposible to make a sig inside of the scene, i swear im going to go insane o_o

"of them also tend to still run WIndows 98" What's the problem?, I am using Windows 95 for Poser, something wrong with Win95?, all wrong that I know is from Windows XP! and Win98. ""NO IBL NO Subsurface scattering NO point lights NO AO NO Soft shadows No Displacement mapps. " It make part of the rendering engines, the same way as shadows, refraction, reflexions, fog, procedural textures, radiosity, raytracing, etc. Many of them are multi-pass algorithms.

Stupidity also evolves!

BTW Maxxxmodelz - some excellent images in your gallery? Were they postworked? ;-)

"BTW Maxxxmodelz - some excellent images in your gallery?
Were they postworked? ;-)"

Thank you. ;-)

I do very little postwork for stills.Mostly just color correction or fixing of Poser's stupid tears/joints if need be. I actually do more postwork (compositing) for animations because of time constraints. However, since you asked, I'll be specific...

The James image was not postworked at all. Straight P6 render over a background shader/image using IBL and some specular-only point lights.
The Jose image had some sharpening done in Photoshop, but that's about it if I recall correctly.
The latest one I posted last night, Jessi's Discontent, was done with IBL and AO shadows, along with two specular-only point lights and some raytraced and sphere-mapped reflections for the eyes. I posted another thread about this one earlier, which is probably on the second page of the forum by now. The only postwork done here was some work on color adjustment, sharpening, a few minor "extra" highlights I thought would enhance it, and some smoothing of jaggies on certain areas of the strand-based hair. Sorry, but I wasn't about to render it out a second time with increased antialiasing, because it took somewhere between 6 and 8 hours to render, and I easily fixed the problems in post in a matter of 10 minutes total. ;-)

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 10:05

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Shit... my bad. James actually DID get some treatment in post. I gave him some DOF in post (depth of field) to blend him in a little with the background environment so it didn't look so "steril" with sharp edges.

LOL. I guess I can't play in your sandbox anymore. ;-P

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 10:12

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

I would love to see a Posette/Dork only gallery... I know of a couple on the net but they do not reflect the quality of work I have seen in the occasion image here and there such as ernyoka1's at http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=315404. I have heavily post worked image from mid-2000 in the gallery, my first render ever in fact aside from TOSed photo-real pure render portrait image of a friend of mine that was pulled perhaps because she was an amputee. The post work image Dork and unmodified Posette (it was a WIP only) is at: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=12939&Artist=momodot&Start=1&ByArtist=Yes -------------------- I have always had ethical quams over using photos to create textures... would a "True Poser Only" gallery exclude photo sourced textures or "hand painted" ones? I would like a No-postwork gallery and an extreme postwork gallery as well :)

I use postwork on all my images but one. I do understand what stealth1701 is trying to do. I do support his idea. I guess we all have to keep an open mind.
It is difficult to achieve most of the stuff we ask from our images, but not impossible. It a challenge tho.
DOF can be achieved in poser 5 as Stewer demonstrated in one of his tutorial.
a signature can also be done in poser by using a prop with a texture and transparency.
As for color correction. If you use the right color lighting, and a good amount of 'prework', adjusting the textures color, play with P5 nodes etc. You probably don't need color correction after the render.
Eventhough I use postwork and swear by it, I do appreciate a non-postworked image once is a while.

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 11:40

Software: Daz Studio 4.15, Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM, RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery My Other Gallery

Interesting topic again. On one hand, this pure pursuit will drive the technology forward. The new features of Poser 6 are coming out of the need for a better render at the outset. Nothing wrong with that. I have recently begun to see 3d models as a way of shaping "paint" tho. In most cases, that "model" you are seeing in the image is really a painted image wrapped around a 3d object. As displacement mapping technology improves, the map will be doing even more of the "modeling" work. So, texture maps are "post" from the beginning. If you are gonna do this, texture maps that are painted/photos would be out, and only procedural ones would be allowed. I am not sure if anyone would want to do this, as a V3 procedural texture I don't think exists. I think what you guys want is a "render only gallery". This gallery could be for all softwares, and be only about rendering.

If some people feel strongly enough about "no postwork" images, what's stopping them from simply putting that in their descriptions? Why would this take a separate gallery? I don't get it.

Gallery

Pardon me but isnt this entire debate moot anyway?? perhaps its been asked already but do you anit postwork advocates have any realistic means to enforce your pure gallery or will you expect rosity to $$$hire$$ computer forensic specialist to examine every upload to check for "inconsistent bit map data indicative of post manipulation" ???

My website

YouTube Channel

I don't think it would be a problem if people used the "mixed medium" gallery for those renders that have a lot of painting (clothes, hair, etc) in them. That's what it's there for. Unfortunately, there will always be those images that have only part of a Poser figure, exported to Cinema 4d...then rendered there...later composited with a sky rendered in Bryce or Vue... then painted over in Photoshop or Painter.... then posted in the Poser gallery. eh.

okay....what i am reading here is a thread devoted to Poser and no postwork. there are other apps, you know....and there are issues about postwork for all of them. it's kind of rude to strictly limit this issue to poser. or...lets take it a bit further....how about a gallery with no postwork, and if a person is using a modelling app...well, posting a render that is using vicki three and acting as if the whole thing was "modelled"....as opposed to posed by them. i could see one big "au naturale" gallery, but not just another poser gallery with or without postwork.

There was one thread about a year ago, with the same idea. The reason it won't work is that there's no way we can be certain whether or not they postworked their image. Some of these artists are so good that you can't tell, one way or the other. Any enforcement measures you might put in place would only serve to alienate and cause bitter arguments and accusations.

What I'm getting from all this is that there is very little point in having galleries devoted to the applications used to produce the images. Why have a Poser gallery at all? Or a C4D or Vue, or... well, you get the point. Why not have just one gallery with the various genres as at present, plus the ability to list which applications were used to produce the image? That way there wouldn't be a need for a separate 'non-postwork' gallery because it would be clear from the list of apps used.

Steve

Thats what I've been trying to say spedler - but you've articulated it far better.
At the end of the day, the primary point of Renderosity is to display digital artwork regardless of the appplication(s) used to produce it. But, if we could specify the tools that were used, those of us that were interested in looking at what could be done with the application alone could filter out images that were produced using only a specific application. Would need a better search tool though to be able to filter on various criteria.
Those who don't care how the image was produced can just look at the pictures from purely the artistic point of view.
What do you think Renderosity????

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 13:35

well, that wouldn't work because poser folks say they "model" in poser....and those of us who use modelling apps to make models would want to look at a "modelling" gallery....and, well you can see the dilemmna. also, since so much of the gallery is taken by poser renders those of us who use other apps would seldom be seen....i like not being buried within an hour if i post to lightwave gallery...i'd be very upset if i spent a month modelling a critter just to have it buried by a bunch of v3s in armor within an hour or less.

I understand where the idea for such a gallery comes from, but like many others I can see it as being a headache to define what is or isn't post-work. For example, most textures for objects are created in a 2D environment like photoshop. Obviously, this is not considered postwork. But what if I go into photoshop and create a detailed, 2D painted background, apply that background to a square prop, and then put that square prop behind my Poser characters and other objects. That's not post-work (it's more like "pre-work"), but the image would contain significant elements that are created in a 2d environment and were not actually rendered in three dimensions (but, in the final image, may fool the viewer into thinking they were). Or for that matter, just inserting a simple background image. If I take a photo with my digital camera and use it as a background, is that cheating? I certainly wouldn't be able to animate that picture (as some have suggested as a test for post-work) without it being obvious that the background was static and not rendered on the fly. Of course, if lots of people want such a gallery, why not create it. No skin off my nose.

thats why it should be a "purist" genre lightwave/purist poser/purist 3dsmax/purist adding 1 genre lets all the apps have a gallery to post "a signature can also be done in poser by using a prop with a texture and transparency." i said that already and how to do :P

Poppi, I agree, but that isn't how I would see it working. You would of course have to be able to filter what apps were used, so if you wanted to see images made with LW (at least somewhere in the process) then you would have to be able to do that. If you wanted to see images made in Poser with no postwork, then you ask for those where the only app used is Poser, not Photoshop, and/or Vue, or whatever, as well.

Steve

what about the all what's new category? i kind of like to browse that category....and, even those of us who use other apps probably would like folks to take a peek now and then. to not view certain apps...well, wouldn't alot of folks just not view lightwave and some of the others? this whole postwork thing may take care of itself. i remember when "no" postwork was the buzz, here...now, it is lots of postwork...that could change, though, as we see more and more images using 2d composite tube type things, or basically so much compositing that the image loses its 3d look. certainly, i can't be the only one who thinks this looks bad :*) i like painted hair and dresses and some are much better at it than others. but, i am routinely seeing folks virtually spoiling their images with little tubes, and filters, etc. eventually, the clue fairy must strike, and, perhaps the trend will swing back the other way. also, don't forget, there are alot of merchants who sell brushes for hair, wings, etc. they and their friends with regularity are the populace of the poser hot 20. i truly do not believe r'osity would bite itself in the wallet by dividing the galleries. there is even postwork layer clothing for sale, if you can believe that. i think it's best to just hope the fashion in the gallery changes....(GAWD i hate sparkle tubes on a lightwave render.)

I'm sure you're right about R'osity's income keeping the galleries set up the way they are. Not that I can necessarily blame them for that :-)

Steve

It could be render only gallery, that means absolutely no post, but the problem is it's gonna be a lonely place with about 5 pics in it! LOL!

the saddest part of all of this is....folks say they use postwork to make their art unique...yet, they are folking to the marketplace to buy premade, out of the box, postwork.

I think the problem with this debate really comes down to individual perception. Lets face it people are never gonna agree one way or another. The nice thing is it's such a perceptions and prefrences that keep all different types of artists inspired.

I myself don't necessarily get the purist argument, to me seems a tad close minded not to use all the tools at my disposal no matter what they are. And hey if my customers like enough of my stuff to hand over their hard earned pennies thats good too.

Me myself going by my particular buisiness couldn't sell a pure 3d rendered image to anyone, they just don't want them. I've found that realism just doesn't sell well, wether it's t shirts, mugs, mouse mats, web sites, or prints. So while some people can appreciate a pure 3d image, they don't necessarily want it to represnet their buisness, wear it, or hang it on their wall. Likewise even if it's a photo-manip I'm asked to do they want the pores, scars, spots and blemishs removed.
Peoples tastes vary I suppose.

I know it's already been stated on this argument that people don't understand why your would use poser and then paint over the top. For me this isn't strictly a hobby now, I am lucky enough to be ble to do my hobby now for a living. And if a customer wanted me to start from scratch with acrylics or watercolours to paint a person it would take me three times the time, and cost them three times the money.
Using a Poser figure and then painting over the top, knowing that the anatomy is right, and that it looks very professional is a tons quicker, and b for my customers tons cheaper. Also I think digital art looks better on web sets and layouts as a scan doesn't have the same vibrancy.

I suppose it depends on individual taste, I wish you luck in your render only gallery. I wonder if any of you have been asked to provide a pure rendered image over a postworked one. It would be an interesting comparision to know what the average non artistic joe soap thinks.

Pink edit: Gah, I can spell better than this honest, I just have PC head at the minute LOL

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 16:06

actually, for 3d modelling....people want to see the actual mesh wireframe as well as a render. it could render nicely, but if the topology is not right, it could produce some grotesque effects in posing or animating.

I didn't read the thread, but they do have these galleries, one is the poser gallery and one is the mixed medium gallery, I aleays thought that the mixed medium was for postworked or images that took more then 1 software from start to final image.

♠Ω Poser eZine Ω♠
♠Ω Poser Free Stuff Ω♠
♠Ω My Homepage Ω♠

www.3rddimensiongraphics.net

Unless you are in the business of selling software... why in hell do you care about educating people as to what can be done within a program alone? If I see a figure in a Terragen or Bryce render... do I care if that figure came from Poser? Nope. I care if it is a decently composed and lit image. "Is it art" is a different question from "did he make this with charcoal that he collected himself from candle soot". You might note that the only Poser image I have here doesn't have a signature (but does have a frame)... do I scream "no postwork!" even though it would have been MUCH faster to paint the fingers where I wanted them? Or paint the swirly web stuff in the background rather than scanning, cleaning, tiling, filtering and then slapping the texture on a one-sided square? I don't even bother not to mention it. Whether there is postwork or not is absolutely totally completely unimportant. I can certainly paint (have been a professional artist for decades), but I really don't care if anybody else does a pure render or not. That is THEIR business. My art is MY business. And I'm not interested in selling any software package, so offering up a pure example just for purity's sake is about as appealing as visiting the dentist. This whole issue is sheep and goats... and how to exclude others who might possibly contaminate your vision by being in the same room. :ptui: Carolly

Carolly, if you haven't bothered to take the time to read what is being actually discussed in this thread then please don't post your opinions. I knew it would be only a matter of time (see my very first post) before someone started ranting and raving about "My art is My Business".
NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT OK?????
In summary (just for you Carolly) I don't want to banish postwork, (I do it myself when the image calls for it). I just want an easy way of being able to distinguish between art that is postworked and art that isn't. IS that SO hard a concept to understand?
Sheesh!

Just a few points: It is not up to people posting images to act as advertisers for the software. It is not their duty to show people what can be achieved by one package alone. They paid for the software, they can do whatever they like with it. There is no such thing as cheating in 3d. You should use all the tools at your disposal, all the time. All that matters is the final image. There is an image in my Terragen gallery that I created with 4 applications. No-one over there cared about how it was created. I simply don't understand this purist mentality.

I have a suggestion....:( It may not be a very populour one, but here goes... If you are really really dead set on having a pure render gallery, and I assume from the sheer magnitude of posts here that some people are of the opinion it would be a good thing. Why not start your own up, web pages are very easy to make, not as exspensive to run as the average 3D program. Chances are only then would you truly get such a seperated gallery. After all as someone has already mentioned postworking, and the plug-ins used for it make up a large part of renderositys revenue. And I can tell you now this site will not be cheap to run. On a side note, I am glad now to some extent that the poser gallery was not seperated as suggested here, as I for one wouldn't have bought the program in the first place. I was lured into getting Poser after seeing rogue-elements, toxic-angels, and ravnhearts lush images. I'm not a big fan of pure poser works as they don't conform to my idea of fantsy art. This is getting just a little too heated in places, and really at the end of the day unless you are so motivated for a pure poser or software gallery that you'd make your own, I can't understand why it matters so much that any artwork be seperated.

I just read about 15 posts and jumped straight to the end. 95% of my stuff is pure render. I've always stated getting nothing but pure renders out and seeing what can be done. Even have pictures in my gallery specifically for that. So I support this idea, for what it's worth. Not that I really care anyways, I'm only here for the monthly submission and the occassional cool thing (April Fools!).

It would be great if there was a "No-Postwork" gallery. I'm fed up with all those lame, dull, expressionless images that are poorly lit and horribly executed. If a person has no imagination further than what can be done in the Poser renderer, then I think it would be great for their images to go into their own exclusive gallery. This way, I won't have to see these pictures ever again since I won't ever go into that gallery. Please, Please, Please bring this on!!!!! Also can we have a "NVIATWAS" gallery also.

stealth1701, Unfortunately, I HAVE read all the messages in this thread. and I've seen these arguments come and go and come and go repeatedly. Sheep and goats, and YOU want to distinguish them with red brands on their butts because you can't tell straight horns from curly horns without a label? Why? Why does it matter??? If you need the label, anybody can sell you anything. Why is there such a crying, screeching, high-pitched whining need to be exclusive (oh, wowie)... based upon whether or not one works with the rendered image to make it closer to the artist's own vision? Ansel Adams baked many of his prints in the microwave to bring out details... does THAT make him less of an artist? (ack! postwork!!) A cheater??? That is what you are implying... and why we are peeved at this argument continuing over and over and over. It doesn't matter if it is photographers are cheaters or Poser users are cheaters or postworkers are cheaters... you are still claiming by your constant clamor for PURITY that all else falls short and is less true, less ideal, less worthy. You can take your red cloth and wind it around your own horns. Some of us refuse to be driven into the desert so that you can be pure. Oh, and the idea mentioned above of starting your own gallery at your own site is a great one. That way you can police every entry for postwork abuse and seal the blessed ones with your own mark of purity. Carolly

I have long thought that organizing the galleries by programs used is a rather stupid way to set things up. At one time, it probably made sense, but it doesn't any more. However, getting changes at Renderosity is a long, painful, tedious process, and one which has little hope of success. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

There are more programs every year... as well as the stuff we hang onto. DeluxePaint anyone else? I was just reading about Modo tonight. Just a modeler for now, but with intentions to spread into rendering and animation. A complete makeover of the galleries here would be impossible unless they started with a clean slate and allowed everybody to re-upload all at once, no quota, and beware the server meltdown! Categorizing based upon the program last used, or the one in which it is rendered, is simple compared to choosing genre. Example: suppose I pun on Brownian Motion with a hyperactive little brownie... does he go under humor?, fairies?, fantasy? Koi appearing in the puddles of a sidewalk under high-heeled shoes... surreality? glamour? Or maybe I'll finish the undead mermaid picture... fantasy? horror? seascape? Suddenly, naming a program is easy! Yet, if I was a newcomer browsing these galleries for seascapes or cats or trains... would I want to have to search separately under each possible type of software? Of course, if all the cat images were together, we wouldn't have to look at dogs... and if the NVIATWAS were together, searching the rest of the galleries would be faster. ;) The advantage to this is that it would be non-judgemental... if you had an image of a cat, it wouldn't matter if you drew it, photographed it, or built-rigged-and-rendered it in Maya as long as a cat was in the image, and the purists would have to find something else to use as a measuring stick... like maybe how GOOD the iamge was. Carolly

Carolly
It is evident that you HAVEN'T read the thread properly. I have stated above that I use postwork myself when the deficiencies of the packages (and there are many) don't allow me to produce the image I want. So, I'm not the 'Purist' you keep branding me as.
Believe it or not I LIKE looking at good Postworked images BUT I also appreciate the technical challenges in getting a package to render the image exactly the way I want it.
I know there are darn good artists out there but I am (personally) more interested in seeing how far a package can be pushed to produce the same image as an artist since thats the area that facinates me. I am sure there are others that share this facination too and all I want is a quick way of finding images that show what is possible using CGI on its own.
Think of the two requests as separate - I want to look at pretty images regardlesss of HOW they were produced AND I want to look at images that show me whats possible using pure scene construction and lighting using the package alone.
I can only assume that the reason you are getting so anal about this is that you are technically challenged as far as using the packages go and want to prove your worth as an artist. Well heres some news for you - I DON'T CARE how you produce your images if they are good (no matter how they are produced) then I'll appreciate them.
Personally (because thats where my interest lies) if you managed to produce a photo-realistic scene by pushing those packages to the limit then it inspires me to learn more about my package - thats all!

Oh just in case you still haven't got it, let me re-iterate. I DON'T CARE how you produce your images and if they are good I'll appreciate them and I don't want to see postworked images banished from the gallery!!!

Oh one last thing before I put this to bed -
Have I EVER said that using Postwork makes one less of an artist as you state in your post above? NO! So, I'd appreciate it very much if you would stop putting words in my mouth. READ THE POST AND STOP TWISTING WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY!!!!

Message edited on: 04/01/2005 03:07

@ Reply #62: Well said. ^_^

Let's face it folks, the systems in place on this site are beginning to really show their age now. Everything from the TOS to the categorization to the actual system itself.

Renderosity needs an overhaul (especially the forum section!) and that's what needs to be worked on.
@ Reply #61: Wow, pulling out the old software with that DeluxePaint reference aren't ya? ^_^

Message edited on: 04/01/2005 08:54

but I am (personally) more interested in seeing how far a package can be pushed to produce the same image as an artist since thats the area that facinates me. I am sure there are others that share this facination too and all I want is a quick way of finding images that show what is possible using CGI on its own.

Then this is the problem, you are on the wrong site, this is an art/gallery site not a programers or poser specific site. Problem with this argument as it continues and gets more heated is that people assume that the largest number of people browsing here are artists, they aren't, and they certainly aren't poser/bryce/lightwave or whatever users. They are purley and simply art lovers, whose only interest lies in the finished image.
I have read and understood this thread, and it seems clear that your interst lies not in art itself and the images produces, rather than in the technical aspects and program skill used to achieve it.
Surely there is a programers based forum or gallery at Curious Labs, if there isn't thats where you should be concentrating your efforts. As this is an art site only a very small number would really be interested in pushing the program to it's limits. As shown on this thread, for Renderosity to open another gallery just for maybe a few 100 members wouldn't be cost effective especially as they create a vast amount of revenue from postworking aids. It would also mean sadly that less people would actually see these technical inspired images either as the average non artistic viewer would pass right by having no appreciation what so ever of such technical inspired images. I am well aware that there is a lot of talent going into being a pure render image, but this talent takes time and lets face it while you're learning the images tend to be dry and dull IMHO. If you are paying for bandwidth lets face it, would you sift through such galleries to find the diamonds if thats not your particular interest.
I see no reason to segregate art at all whatever form in an ART site, I know you have stated that you don't care how someone produces and image, and thats good. But segregating galleries into such specific catagories will eventually perpetuate in people disputing what is actually art and what isn't.Thats something we can't quantify, after all the biological digestion system is a wonderful thing, and I now know from watching the turner art prize that eating specific foods, letting biology take it's course and then regurgitating them on canvas makes striking colours and pictures. Would I calssify it as art, well thats another story .
Such segregation will eventually lead to purist rants, and people claiming they can quantify and classify art shudder.
Lets just all stop getting our panties in a bunch and calm down, lets get back to the main reason for being here art.
After all if you are more intrested in the technical side of it, there is a staggering array of much cheaper to run forums where you can discuss techniques till the cows come home.

Come on guys we are artists, lets make it about the art.

Message edited on: 04/01/2005 10:00

There is another big difference between postworked and not postworked images, but the difference is not easily defined by the use or not of postwork. Most images rendered with Poser 5, I haven't opinion on Poser 6 yet, and many poorly rendered in Poser 4 can fit in the same cathegory of postworked. Why?, which is the difference? Some postworked images, some rendered in Poser 5, are beautiful, are a piece of art, so what's the problem? They are NOT NATURAL, are only a great illustration! Of court all depend what are you doing, if you are doing cartoons, illustrations, comics, etc, of course that your goal is not natural scenes, so this post don't apply to you. Rendering hair is difficult, the rendered hair in most cases don't look natural, but if you postwork the hair you are going more away from natural scenes even can be nicer. Take a look at the Poser galleries and tell me how many images you find that look as it were taken by a photographic camera, there are very few. Bryce landscapes can be beautiful, but are not natural. Vue gives much better result. My gallery is an atempt for making natural scenes, in some pictures I achieved some result in others I am very far away.

Stupidity also evolves!

WARNING: Way too Long-winded Post
I remember reading the earlier thread about a no-postwork gallery, and dismissing it at the time as "purism". But IMHO stealth has made an a good case here. However, is it convincing?

"I knew it wouldn't take long before someone COMPLETELY mis-interpreted the thread!!!!"
"Why are so many of you having such difficulty with this concept?" oilscum
Some people may be reacting emotionally because they feel criticized or threatened, like someone is telling them that their postwork is evil, and they should not be doing it, and they should be stopped from doing it.

I know that Hauksdottir knows more than me about Poser and posts stuff always worth reading. I am a wolfe359 fan (has been on my list of fave artists for a long time). I am far closer to being an "expert" with Photoshop than with Poser. But I think some missed the point that the thread is not about whether postwork is good or evil, or whether or not it can or cannot enhance an image (no one has been arguing that it cannot).

"If some people feel strongly enough about 'no postwork' images, what's stopping them from simply putting that in their descriptions? Why would this take a separate gallery? I don't get it." linkdink

Yes, and people could put "Vue" and "Poser" and "Fractal" in their descriptions. So why do they need gallery categories at all?'' Maybe Elizabyte is right that these categories are antiquated, but that is a little OT, isn't it? Categories are here, should Non-Post have one or not is the question.

"Ansel Adams baked many of his prints in the microwave..." hauksdottir
Maybe we need a new category "Photography and Microwave".

DEFINITION of "NO Postwork":
"...need to accept that different people will draw the lines in slightly different places." eirian

"...like many others I can see it as being a headache to define what is or isn't post-work." johan99

"no postwork, period, not even sigs, nothing should be done after clicking the "render" button now you say you want a sig in your pic? 3d apps can EASILY (atleast for me and i suck ahah) have the sig there before clicking render" - anxcon

"Pray tell me what is the difference between "fixing the exposure" and altering the saturation? Changing the hue range? Upping the contrast? Correcting the gamma?"

Vague definitions are a conern in many endeavors (what' is 'mood' or even '3D', what's a fractal and what isn't?. But if you defing 'no-postwork' as 'render only' then a no post gallery has a very, very clear defintion. A no-postwork image is a render.

As anxcom said, if you want a signature, create a 3D object as your signature. I would not categorize a watermark as postwork but rather legal protection. A watermark should be invisible, so not a concern at all, just a red herring in the argument.

The only practical problem I see might be Rosity's restrictions on gallery image size. You can use PShop tricks (blurring tool, levels, etc) to cut down on the amount of info in an image to reduce the size of it to fit restrictions. Most Poser renders of quality are going to be awful fat.

"The reason it won't work is that there's no way we can be certain whether or not they postworked their image. Some of these artists are so good that you can't tell, one way or the other. Any enforcement measures you might put in place would only serve to alienate and cause bitter arguments and accusations." mateo_sancarlos
"$$$hire$$ computer forensic specialist to examine every upload to check for 'inconsistent bit map data indicative of post manipulation'???"
wolf359

Do they use forensic experts to determine if every image in the Fractal catetory was made using fractal software? Anyway, if it ever came to the point of having to prove it (say in a contest with real prizes) a test:

Save the pz3.
Copy it (and any unique geometries and textures) to a computer which (legally) has the required geometries and textures (V3, whatever).
Load the pz3.
Click 'Render'.
The image produced should be identical.

"I think what you guys want is a 'render only gallery'. This gallery could be for all softwares, and be only about rendering..." caravaggio
"Nonetheless, a VERY intriguing idea. If you can't get it accepted here, there are always other avenues." oilscum
"...perhaps an added 'genre' option..." eirian
"...here is a thread devoted to Poser and no postwork. there are other apps, you know....and there are issues about postwork for all of them. it's kind of rude to strictly limit this issue to poser." Poppi
"...Why not start your own up, web pages are very easy to make..." sinisterpink

A MODEST PROPOSAL
Maybe this concept deserves more than a gallery, or even just webpages (I have created lots of webpages from scratch HTML, but a gallery would be a little more complicated). Somebody should start a whole website "nopostwork.com". As has been noted in this thread, the concept is as good for Vue and Carrara as for Poser. (Just checked and he domain name "nopostwork.com" is available, as I write this.) If you build it, I will come.

but a gallery would be a little more complicated... not if you had php and mysql capabilities on what ever hosting service you chose. That means you could upload a database gallery similar to the one here, with comments enabled and whats more many of the programs like gallery and coppermine are free to use. As I say if you feel that strongly about something it's always better to do something about it. I'm all for action :) Pink

Qualien - Thanks for your post - it is far from being "long-winded" - a concise summary of the points raised by everyone I'd say. A great idea about nopostwork.com but I'm not sure I want to go to a completely new site. I like renderosity, I like the forums and the galleries and the freestuff that I can access from the same page of links. I just wish there was a way for postworked and non-postworked images to exist together and people could look at the types of images that interests them.
For me it is images that show off the artistry of the software developers who are pushing the boundaries of what software can do in modelling the real world, for others it is the look of the final image and for still others it is images with large boobs in them (postworked or not)!
If I have stepped on anyones toes during this thread due to misunderstanding then I apologize but I am really not trying to make out that one technique is superior to another - just different. And thank goodness there are differences or the gallery would just be full of boob images!
The ideal solution would be for artists to select what tools they used in prodcing their images when they upload and for a new search screen which will allow you to narrow the images down to the type of images that interest the individual. Putting no criteria into the search would display all the images as it is in the gallery now.
I was hoping that if enough people felt the same way then maybe Renderosity might consider it. However, I know this is unlikely to happen now since there seems to be so much opposition (albeit misplaced opposition by artists getting hot under the collar and assuming I was personally attacking their methods). Oh, well it was worth a try.
Thanks to everyone for participating...
Stealth

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: New Gallery PLEASE (and the postwork issue again)