Attached Link: http://www.e-frontier.com/article/articleview/2012/1/832?sbss=832

......in the video it SAYS (as it shows this picture)...

"Can generate Photorealistic images like these..."

...it also follows with this one...

This image is CLEARLY Post-Produced and filtered..

...The MAIN PITCH for the $99 Poser Figure Artist is to TOTALLY NEWBIES...in particular to FINE ARTISTS who actually do NOT like using computers... In the video it makes an excellent case for fine artists to use the program as a "virtual model" accessory (reason why 'Woody" is featured, maybe?)

...so WHY lead these newbies on into thinking that Poser Figure Artist apparently ALSO has a "MAKE ART" button...

This graphic also IMPLIES that Poser Figure Artist HAS a PAINTING FEATURE...but this image used CLEARLY was done using a Photoshop filter, NOT the Sketch Render feature...

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

...One of the VERY IMPORTANT developments over the years at RENDEROSITY was the need to make Products in the Store show what it REALLY IS and DOES... This is why you see statements like "Rendered in Poser 4- No Postwork", "Rendered in Poser 6- No Postwork", etc... This is TRUTH in Advertising, and prevents most people from being MIS-LEAD into believeing some does something...which it DOESN'T!...

Frequently Asked Advertising Questions:A Guide for Small Business

GENERAL ADVERTISING POLICIES

What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

• advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
• advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
• advertisements cannot be unfair.

Additional laws apply to ads for specialized products like consumer leases, credit, 900 telephone numbers, and products sold through mail order or telephone sales. And every state has consumer protection laws that govern ads running in that state.

What makes an advertisement deceptive?
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

• is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
• is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

What makes an advertisement unfair?
According to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC's Unfairness Policy Statement, an ad or business practice is unfair if:

• it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and
• it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.

How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?
A typical inquiry follows these steps:

• The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -ÿto determine what it conveys to consumers.
• The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims. An express claim is literally made in the ad. For example, "ABC Mouthwash prevents colds" is an express claim that the product will prevent colds. An implied claim is one made indirectly or by inference. "ABC Mouthwash kills the germs that cause colds" contains an implied claim that the product will prevent colds. Although the ad doesn't literally say that the product prevents colds, it would be reasonable for a consumer to conclude from the statement "kills the germs that cause colds" that the product will prevent colds. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.
• The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product. For example, if a company advertised a collection of books, the ad would be deceptive if it did not disclose that consumers actually would receive abridged versions of the books.
• The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. Examples of material claims are representations about a product's performance, features, safety, price, or effectiveness.
• The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs.

why not actually talk to EF instead of putting this everywhere else? they have a forum you know.

Yes! You too can be banned from their forums for questioning EF's policies concerning Truth In Advertisng. Watch out for low flying Canadians.

:b_rolleyes:

My Freebies

?

well, pictures like that take talent, and knowledge, no matter what the program. I've had Poser 4 for about 4 years, and I still can't do anything like that..;) Now that I have 5, I suck at a higher level..;)

Anyone who's bought a video game knows that what you see on the cover may not be what you'll see on the screen..I'm sure that it's possible to do pictures like that, but how likely it is, is another thing..;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Those pictures were produced in Poser, I've seen them before in the gallery here or one of the other sites dedicated to 3d art.

Windows 7 64Bit
Poser Pro 2010 SR1

Indeed, the image in question was produced in Poser - its V3 (my own custom morphs) and The Mansion, Great Room (available at Daz3d.com)
The image was a sort of promo for the Mansion's Great Room, a product I created with Darkworld way back in  2002.
The image is in the galleries at Renderosity. : www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php
 And yes, the image is heavily postworked in Photoshop and Painter, especially the clothing and hair, which are all post work. The basics - setting, furniture,figure, pose - are all created in Poser 4.
At the time Poser 5 came out, the company asked me for the use of some of my work - which was used in the Poser 5 manual. 
I signed a form which allowed them to use my work, however, I am none too thrilled about having done this noiw, especially considering my work is being used without attribution.
Note that I never was remunerated in any way for allowing them to use my artwork (unnatributed, too!). I never even got a copy of the software.
However, in all fairness, it isn't false to say the image was created with Poser. The "painterliness" was fully intentional on my part, and no amount of post-render can obviate the fact that real Poser products where used and Poser 4 was the program used to render them.
Moyra

My point is:

.........in the video it SAYS (as it shows this picture)...

"Can generate Photorealistic images like these..."

Since this program is AIMED AT Newbie Users- Particularly FINE ARTISTS who are NOT computer types (The video even starts off on the right foot showing a "Fine Artist" at work...but apparently DOESN'T LIKE using her computer for much MORE than a Virtual Posing system)
then WHY would it SAY:

"Can generate Photorealistic images like these..."???

The image is NOT Photorealistic at all- and was done in a DIFFERENT version of Poser and was Post-Worked in other software...

SURE- Sophisticated Poser users on THIS FORUM KNOW all this type of stuff- if you have hung around here for a while... but a NEWBIE ARTIST does NOT... They may very likely see the video and BELIEVE what it says (After all- it IS the "truth" isn't it?..Or why would they use a REAL ARTIST to "lead in" with a real art setup...???)

This is sort of like adding candy or sugar flavoring to cigarettes--so that kids will buy them...

This is why I posted the FTC info- so that you can see that there is REASONABLE QUESTION that the INTENDED AUDIENCE (Not experienced Poser users, Photoshop users, etc.) MAY VERY LIKELY view this video in a "different way" and BELIEVE IT...

I think this is very DIFFERENT from seeing well produced Poser 6 art in the galleries where people can usually SEE FOR THEMSELVES that "I used Poser 6, Art Materials, Dress by X, Photoshop Filter X and Y, etc..."  ...that's a very DIFFERENT setof information to go on to understand the complexity of arriving at a fine piece of DIGITAL fine art...

How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?
A typical inquiry follows these steps:

• The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers.
• The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims. An express claim is literally made in the ad. For example, "ABC Mouthwash prevents colds" is an express claim that the product will prevent colds. An implied claim is one made indirectly or by inference. "ABC Mouthwash kills the germs that cause colds" contains an implied claim that the product will prevent colds. Although the ad doesn't literally say that the product prevents colds, it would be reasonable for a consumer to conclude from the statement "kills the germs that cause colds" that the product will prevent colds. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.
• The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product. For example, if a company advertised a collection of books, the ad would be deceptive if it did not disclose that consumers actually would receive abridged versions of the books.
• The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. Examples of material claims are representations about a product's performance, features, safety, price, or effectiveness.

maybe somebody who actually owns "poser figure artist" can try to generate an image similar to those above, and let us see the result. is PFA the same thing as "poser artist"? I'm guessing the one with the lady in the dress, sitting in the chair, was retouched in photoshop. the second image is the sort of low-quality render I'd expect from a typical user who failed to read the manual and took too many shortcuts.

...yes, the images were extensively POST-WORKED in other software, and Poser Figure Artist was NOT USED to make these images. PFA does NOT contain a number of Poser 6 features- it's being marketed to NEWBIE Fine Artists...

...is this NOT Mis-Leading?...Since the PFA  video is directed at NEWBIE FINE ARTISTS who are NOT TECHIE Computer users?...You have to REMEMBER who this is DIRECTED AT...it's un-tech-sophisticated FINE ARTISTS...that's where they are PRIMARILY marketing this- Jerry's Art-o-Rama, etc... (That's what e-frontier SAYS...and why they use the "Woody" character)...

I have been involved in working with Fine Artists for over 20 years...and FRANKLY- they are like CHILDREN when it comes to using computers! They are
often SCREWED by Computer Stores to buy things they don't need or can never use properly... 
I can see this video being used as a SALE CLOSER to gullable Fine Artists who BELIEVE they getting in the software package that which is being BEING SHOWN on the Video!

Frankly I was even FOOLED in the beginning when I saw this presentation on e-frontier's website! I really DID THINK that they had ADDED all these "SHOWN FEATURES" into PFA! (...like Paint Filters, and INCLUDED Art Shaders by Olivier as part of the package...)

...I mean, COME ON, I STILL SEE a lot of people CONFUSED by Olivier's P6 Art Shaders- and HOW to use them- and these people have POSER 6! (Which has a Material Room...PFA DOESN'T)... None of this is "PUSH THE "MAKE ART" BUTTON" this video implies...

LOL, this is kind of like when you see a picture of a big juicy hamburger from a fast food chain, when in actuality the real burgers look nothing like the picture, but good for sales non the less.

My idea of rebooting is kicking somebody in the butt twice!

Elusion said clearly in her post that her picture was done in Poser 4. And Poser 4 IS Poser Artist, so I fail to see how the "different version" thing complies here. Posr 4 is simply remarketed as Poser Artist.

Whether or not it's false advertizing is another matter. IMO there's nothing photorealistic about either images, they're both made to look like paintings, and well made in that respect. But they're not photorealistic and were never intended to be either, I bet.

You CAN produce photorealistic renders with Poser 4 /Poser Artist. It helps if you have access to some postworking program, but it's possible anyway.

And who believes in everything they see in an ad? I always think that if something looks too good to be true, it usually is, too.

FREEBIES! | My Gallery | My Store | My FB | Tumblr |
You just can't put the words "Poserites" and "happy" in the same sentence - didn't you know that? LaurieA
  Using Poser since 2002. Currently at Version 11.1 - Win 10.

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

...so my SIMPLE THESIS IS:

...why doesn't e-frontier "JUST BE TRUTHFUL"? 

They use WOODY as the basic Marketing Concept...Great Idea...most FINE artists can relate to that, especially IF they have taken some fine art classes...

Then the Artist in the Video shows and talks about using PFA as a "Virtual Model" tool...GREAT! Sound great to me... and THEN "CUT", Play music and credits, END!

But e-frontier TACKS ON totally UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS...onto what is supposed to be intro-level, newbie software- for basically people who don't really like USING COMPUTERS (This is what the Artist in the video says!)... so WHY?

..I believe because it is a SALE CLOSER!...Especially great for use in computer stores- where artists can be lead-on to believe they are getting "ALL THIS and MORE" in Poser Figure Artist...

From the US Government Federal Trade Commission website- FOR THE CONSUMER

"advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive"

What makes an advertisement deceptive?

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

"is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. "

AND VERY IMPORTANT:

"The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers."

"...why doesn't e-frontier "JUST BE TRUTHFUL"?"

..does any advertiser ? Do car makers advertising the latest 4x4 show what really happens when you buy one. Do they show a women stuck in a traffic jam of other 4x4's delivering 1 kid each to school - nope they show empty mountain roads and macho action. 

Think about was Poser started as - a reference tool for traditional media artists. This app takes poser back to it's roots and theres nothing wrong in that. How many artists could actually produce stunning images without poser because they can't actually draw or paint. 

So why all the fuss - why not actually apllaud EF for bringing a new product out instead. Something that attracts new blood and artists to our hobby should be commended not critised. It's good for the poser community and good for vendors alike. 

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

Mrsparky-

Like your Cat... 

You have apprently MISSED what I have been saying and the points I am making... I have NOTHING against Poser Figure Artist!... What I am railing against is HOW
e-frontier is DECEPTIVELY marketing it... ...if you go up and read DOWN...I think you will see better what I'm talking about...

You will also find that the "everyone is DOING IT" argument does NOT FLY... There is a group called the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Trade Commission Act... you can see the link in the top of this thread--and READ what they are about.. People who are CAUGHT
pay FINES... BIG FINES...for using mis-leading and deceptive advertising!

You will SURELY FIND also that places like the U.K. and the European Union have enacted similiar laws and statutes to protect CONSUMERS against mis-leading and deceptive advertising!

How do you like my render? P4 and absolutly no post-work... *

that single-side plane sure is versatile.*

like what you did with the smile..;)

*"No I don't  want that hamburger (pointing to one on tray), I want that hamburger (pointing at picture on display )" - Falling Down (a movie)..

*Don't know what to tell you. It's possible to do postwork (there's something called the Gimp, which is a free competitor to Photoshop), and not have to pay (there's also a program called Dogwaffle...heck, there's a zillion Open Source programs out there that can do both..;).

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

**Momodot da Vinci**, you're the GREATEST! David P. Hoadley PS: How do you like my render?  P4, and absolutely no post-work...

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

And here's another one with slightly altered bump values and lighting.  The skin rexture is my own, using a freebie base that I downloaded from a user group.  The tattoo(s) I lifted from pictures of real live tattoos that I downloade from various body art and porn sites.  I have both a V2 and V3 version of the texture.  PM me and/or email me if you want a copy: dph@013.net.il David P. Hoadley PS: All rendering was done in P5, but with the P4 render engine.  I could try to do it in Pro Pack if somebody wants. PPS: Please forgive me if my post became Ot, a hijack, or a troll.  If such, then I'm sorry.

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

I understand your point that by postworking it doesn't actually show the "real" output of the software. But I wouldn't say it's misleading or deceptive. Yes it's like all advertisng - and yes everyone does it. It ain't gonna change.   

momodot - don't be naughty thats not a poser render - she has no sword :)

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

*Elusion said clearly in her post that her picture was done in Poser 4. And Poser 4 IS Poser Artist, so I fail to see how the "different version" thing complies here. Posr 4 is simply remarketed as Poser Artist.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

Before anybody gets any more confused, Pay attention: Veritas is not talking about Poser 4 AKA Poser Artist. He's talking about Poser Figure Artist.

From the FAQ:

Q: Is Poser Figure Artist the same as Poser Artist?
A: No. Poser Figure Artist was specifically created to enable figure artists to learn about and depict the human form in mixed media, such as oils and watercolors. Poser Figure Artist is a new application from the ground up, yet it is based on Poser 6 technology. As such, it incorporates advanced capabilities of Poser, such as the latest figures, rendering engines, etc which were not available in Poser Artist

Please pay attention to the claim "depict the human form in mixed media, such as oils and watercolors". I think this is the key difference, right? This is what Veritas wants to question. 

Again, Poser Figure Artist is a new program, not a relabel of an old Poser.

The front page claim is "Poser Figure Artist provides everything you need to replace your traditional models, gives you the tools to create amazing art finished in the style you choose"

Please pay attention to the phrase "everything you need" - that clearly implies you won't need to go find GIMP or Photoshop.

As I asked elsewhere, does this program have built-in style filters or not? If it does, Veritas can sit down. If it does not, Veritas can take a bow.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Another quote from the EF web pages

Sketch Art
The Sketch Renderer lets you finish images in many custom styles, including charcoal, etching, or pastel. Customize the characteristics of your render to imitate great masters like Monet, Pollock, Seurat and others

Veritas, clearly this is not Poser. Clearly this is an explicit capability that does not exist in Poser 4, 5, or 6. They are being really out-in-front about the "art" styling stuff. You really think this is a lie? I mean this isn't the least bit equivocal. "Customize the characteristics of your render to imitate great masters" is very explicit. Would they be that stupid to claim that and not have the feature in the program?

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

GDa M***Fuing computers make me so mad. I'm trying to download the free trial so I can settle this. I get the email from EF with the verification link. When I click the link, it says:

Access denied !

You are not allowed to access that resource! 

So I can't get the download. Who has the download? Can you just simply see if there is a way to save artistic renders instead of photoreal renders?

Veritas did you download it or not? I've asked you 3 times already.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

I never used the sketch renderer in Poser 6 before. I didn't even know it was there. This is pretty cool. If they've added more stuff to this for PFA, well how cool is that?

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

I'd say relax...I'm having trouble even getting the front page to load, so they may be having server-side problems.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

I have managed to download the demo and here are some very preliminary impressions:

• PFA might be a 'whole new program' but it is very closely related to Poser. In fact, if I have P6 running, I can't load PFA - trying to do so just brings up the P6 window. Also, when I first loaded it and switched from the document window to the render window, it displayed the last render I'd done with P6!!

• there's no material room. None that I can see anyway, and I have searched the reference manual for all instances of 'material'. This alone would appear to make it impossible to use shaders such as Olivier's Art Materials, for example, which means that at least one of the images in the demo reel would never be achievable, because I am sure that was done with Olivier's shaders. There are no materials supplied as we understand them, although there are of course some texture maps, so MAT files might well work as expected.

• given that, anyone buying or downloading P5 or P6 materials is going to be sorely disappointed.

• the readme is clearly lifted straight from the P6 readme. Nothing wrong with that, except that it refers to pages in the manual - the P6 manual, not the reference manual supplied with PFA!

• the sketch designer is completely identical to that in P6. I can't see that anything has been added.

TBH, I can't see any differences at all other than the fact that PFA is clearly a much reduced subset of P6. All in all, I think my initial look comes close to justifying Veritas' objections. As a pose modeller for conventional artists, it's fine. But I must emphasise, this is a very quick preliminary test, and others might want to take a look in case I'm in error.

Steve

Since this continues to be spread on every single forum it seems by Veritas, I have a question for him.

Simple one actually, if you are so concerned about this issue, have you contacted e frontier with your concerns? 

So far I've seen a lot of huffing and puffing and name calling, but nothing that says you actually have taken this concern to its source.

As a side note for all that seem confused, PFA has always from day one been said to be a cut down Poser 6.  They never claimed it was anything else.  They have also stated, that anyone using Poser 6/7 would probably never see a need for PFA.  PFA is aimed at a totally different audience.

 - Noel

My bad..;) so what's Poser Figure Artist? It seems like a redundant expression, but what do I know?

I like making pictures, and I'm not too particular about what or how many programs I use to get there..;) 

still, programs are programs, so caveat emptor.

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Oh my, could we please stop making stuff up that is clearly contradicted on the EF website.

*Spritual: PFA has always from day one been said to be a cut down Poser 6.  They never claimed it was anything else. 

Please stop saying that. Allowing for the phrase "cut down" to be translated as "limited", EF abolutely said the opposite, word for word.  Here is a cut-and-paste from the EF PFA FAQ:

Q: Is Poser Figure Artist a limited version Poser?
A: No. While it is based as Poser 6 technology, Poser Figure Artist offers very different capabilities to address artists interested in figure art.

Also from the FAQ, EF said this:

**I own Poser Artist, can I upgrade to Figure Artist?
**A: No. Since Poser Figure Artist is an entirely new application with different attributes, there’s no direct upgrade from either Poser or Poser Artist to Poser Figure Artist. 

Notice tha phrase I highlighted in RED? Please pay attention  - the words are not complicated or vague.

I'm not trying to be an ass about this. But if we're discussing marketing claims versus reality, I think it's important to actually reference the exact words and images used in the marketing materials.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Attached Link: http://www.e-frontier.com/article/articleview/2012/1/832?sbss=832

I'm not sure what all the hubbub is all about. From the front page of the Poser Figure Artist page..........

• "Poser Figure Artist can be used by traditional painters or sculptors who want easy access to realistic models, and by artists who are interested in creating art on their computer. Novices and experienced users alike can use Figure Artist to draw the human figure."

So.........basically, it's a higher tech version of what Poser was originally created for.  So fine artists could have a model right there, without having to hire a physical human model.
So..........you get the basic abilities, no Material room, no setup room, no cloth room.  You get figures, you get the ability to render them, light them.........which is why the full version is only $99 (if you already own Poser, it's $79).............

It's been said elsewhere.  This isn't exactly being marketed toward Poser users who utilize those extra rooms.  It is, for all intents and purposes, a stripped down version of Poser 6.  As a matter of fact, the comparison chart clearly states what is and isn't included.  So, while they may not have stripped poser 6 down in the sense of the word, they may have built Poser Figure Artist as Poser 6 without the bells and whistles.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Exactly Jen...
this app is not targeted at us poser 'power' users. it is targeted at those that just want a digtial manikin without the bells and whistles they don't need.

infact just what Poser was started as in the first place.

"Q: Is Poser Figure Artist a limited version Poser?
A: No. While it is based as Poser 6 technology, Poser Figure Artist offers very different capabilities to address artists interested in figure art.

Also from the FAQ, EF said this:

**I own Poser Artist, can I upgrade to Figure Artist?
**A: No. Since Poser Figure Artist is an entirely new application with different attributes, there’s no direct upgrade from either Poser or Poser Artist to Poser Figure Artist. 

Notice tha phrase I highlighted in RED? Please pay attention  - the words are not complicated or vague.

I'm not trying to be an ass about this. But if we're discussing marketing claims versus reality, I think it's important to actually reference the exact words and images used in the marketing materials."

If you don't want to be an ass, then stop yourself.

These quotes are from Laslo, the head of marketing for e frontier america.

"First a general answer: if you are a Poser user, I would not recommend switching to Figure Artist. Compared to Poser it is a very limited program.
In particular: yes, you can use multiple runtimes. Figure Artist reads pz3 files, but it does not save out either pz3 or pzz. The only file types you can export from PFA are image files. There's little morph support (magnets) and no support for dynamic hair or clothing.
In regard to performance, PFA is based on Poser 6 and has the same performance as P6.
I hope this helps...
Laslo
e-frontier"

• Sounds a lot like a version of Poser 6 without all the bells and whistles.

Wait, there is more:

"Correction: PFA does not export 3D files (like OBJ, DXF, etc), but it can save its own scenes (saved as PZ3). It can also open PZZ and PZ3 files."

• Can open and save PZ3 and PZZ files.

Lastly

"For example, Figure Artist is lacking many of the high-end Poser features such as animation, Face Room, Material Room, Cloth Room, Hair Room and much more."

All those above statements can be found here:

http://www.contentparadise.com/forums/contentparadise/index.php?showtopic=2344

PFA is based on Poser 6, without all the abilities.  It has some differences in the GUI to help the target audience.  To me, that is a cut down Poser 6.  You don't like my terms, that is fine with me.  But please don't try to say that I am unsure of what I am talking about.

 - Noel

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

...and these are EXACTLY the POINTS I'm trying to make!

...when you SAY THINGS like "imitate great masters like Monet, Pollock, Seurat " and SHOW heavily POSTWORKED art by people who CLEARLY are very experienced Poser users- it conveys a much more DECEPTIVE MESSAGE...to a NAIVE CONSUMER!

LIKE I HAVE BEEN SAYING ...and as has been SAID ABOVE... Poser Figure Artist is AIMED at an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AUDIENCE...so THIS is why a DIFFERENT STANDARD of marketing is very important! These are TOTAL NEWBIE, FIRST TIME buyers...How are they supposed to KNOW what IS and ISN'T Postworked????

That's why I bring the Federal Trade Commission into this:

GENERAL ADVERTISING POLICIES

What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

• advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;

How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?
A typical inquiry follows these steps:

• The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers.

NOTE THE PHRASE "Reasonable Consumer"..the "typical Person looking at the ad"

Fine Art NEWBIES who "don't like using their computers very much" (According to the e-frontier video).. are the INTENDED AUDIENCE... NOT Poser POWER USERS who know all about SHADERS, POST-WORKING, etc...

It's a very DIFFERENT IMPRESSION made on basically very NAIVE Software Users... to ME
it's like putting Candy Flavors into CIGARETTES... we ALL KNOW who this is AIMED AT!! ...
(The answer: KIDS)... or in the PFA Case... VERY NAIVE and NON-TECHNICAL Fine Artists...

Veritas, again, the product is NOT aimed at people wanting to create traditional 3D art.  It is aimed at people who either create fine art (pencils, inks, paints, chalks, etc.) or people who paint in programs like Photoshop, Painter, Gimp, etc.  It's stated clearly on the front page. 
So, no, they're not practicing deception in advertising.  The images are clearly postworked.  Poser Figure Artist is designed for painters, NOT 3D artists.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - *Elusion said clearly in her post that her picture was done in Poser 4. And Poser 4 IS Poser Artist, so I fail to see how the "different version" thing complies here. Posr 4 is simply remarketed as Poser Artist.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

I'm stopping right here then :m_grin:

I admit I wasn't aware that PFA was any different from Poser Artist. My Bad.

OTOH, the sketch designer IS the same from Poser 4 and up. At leas as far as I can tell, and I HAVE used it quite a bit.

FREEBIES! | My Gallery | My Store | My FB | Tumblr |
You just can't put the words "Poserites" and "happy" in the same sentence - didn't you know that? LaurieA
  Using Poser since 2002. Currently at Version 11.1 - Win 10.

No offence Vertias but you're clutching at straws here. 

Really whats wrong with EF wanting to punt out a simpler version of Poser to artists who work in other forms of media  ? It benefits everyone. Both electronic and traditional media artists. 

Anyone who's draws and paints with traditional media knows that you're not gonna turn out the next mona lisa from software alone. Even a total newbie knows that.  That requires a natural or learned talent and technical skills. 

When I paint a cut-off or leather jacket. theres a world of difference between a brush grabbing on cloth and taking your brush stroke away, to designing that on a wacom tablet with mutiple undo. 

PFA is a complimentary supporting tool for traditional media artists and the advertsing reflects that area. Nothing more. It's not unreasonable at all. 

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

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

...sorry Mr. Sparky, I have to REPEAT to you again...LISTEN: I am NOT against Poser Figure Artist...PLEASE GET THAT CLEAR, O.K.?  Selling it to whoever is just FINE with me!

But what you KEEP MISSING is what I have been repeatedly been saying- The MARKETING
VIDEO is DECEPTIVE when aimed at a Jerry's Art-o-Rama audience...LIKE I SAID...if e-frontier were to take their video and use the FIRST PART of the Artist talking about using PFA as a "Virtual Model" tool ...then that's JUST GROOVY with me...because it's a FAIR and ACCURATE way to present the concept of PFA to that type of audience... (which PRIMARILY is where PFA is directed at- and why they use WOODY as the "theme symbol" for the package)...ARE YOU WITH ME?

...Like WOODY would NOT be a likely THEME SYMBOL for Poser 7 because Poser 7 is directed at a MORE SOPHISTICATED Computer User who knows about (or will be FORCED to learn about) things like 3D Shaders, Dynamic Cloth, Morphs, etc...  and using the MORE SOPHISTICATED Post-Produced artwork WOULD BE the appropriate marketplace to show it...

...It may SEEM TRIVIAL and UNIMPORTANT to you how products are marketed- but there are CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS in the US, UK and European Union countries which govern how MASS-MARKET PRODUCTS are advertised (I know some people here "don't think so"- but they have VERY LITTLE IDEA of what ACTUALLY GETS REGULATED in Commercial Products).

...the BIGGER the company, the more likely the Federal Trade Commission (or some other government agency) will be CLOSELY LOOKING AT how Commercial Messages are convayed
and IF they are DECEPTIVE...

...I'm POSTING THIS AGAIN...You May NEVER have heard of the FTC before, but THEY EXIST!
and they FINE COMPANIES for advertising that CONFUSES, MIS-LEADS or appears DECEPTIVE!...

FTC GENERAL ADVERTISING POLICIES

What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

• advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;

How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?
A typical inquiry follows these steps:

• The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers.

NOTE THE PHRASE "Reasonable Consumer"..the "typical Person looking at the ad"

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/consumer.htm

Veritas, if you have a problem with their advertising practices, why don't you file a complaint?  Go to the attached link, click on "File a Complaint" at the top, and file a complaint.  However, their advertising of Poser Figure Artist is, IMHO, no different than Burger King's advertisement of their food....on the t.v. or in print ads, the burger is juicy and fresh-looking, the bun is nice and full, and the vegetables are crisp and fresh..............and the burger you get ends up looking.....well, like a burger from Burger King. 

There's a difference between advertising a tool, and advertising that upon purchase you will posess the know-how to use said tool.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

I'd like to see those FTC guidelines applied to a lot of other advertising with the same scruntiny and how well do you think they'd fare? Not very well I'd bet. Why isn't something done about those?

With all the name changes going on lately maybe it would be better to change to Caveat Emptor instead?

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Quote - I'd like to see those FTC guidelines applied to a lot of other advertising with the same scruntiny and how well do you think they'd fare? Not very well I'd bet. Why isn't something done about those?

With all the name changes going on lately maybe it would be better to change to Caveat Emptor instead?

This is sorely begging the point.  Just because 20 people get away with murder, doesn't mean that murder shouldn't be against the law.  Nor soes it mean that the 21st that's caught 'redhanded' shouldn't be prosecuted to the letter of the law.
The bandwagon approach, ie that everybody's doing it, doesn't make a certain practice any more right than it otherwise should be.  'Everybody' used to sacrifice their firstborn child to Molloch, but that didn't make child sacrifice any less abhorrent, even in those days.
David P. Hoadley

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

The point hasn't been proved either as far as I can tell know one seems to be able to tell if PFA can do what it claims. 

So why the big outcry on this particular point when they are so many other that should be put under that scrutiny? Those that have been proved not to live up to their advertising deserve to be fined by the FTC so why haven't they?

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

I suppose the question is can PFA produce an image like the one they are using to advertise it. If it ca't then surely its false advertising?
Plus - if the image was not produced in PFA and they are saying it was then again - surely that's false advertising?

Veritas, I do see your point but people around here will not listen or understand. They've been fed lies for years, they've become used to them and actually they've started to like them. It's a common practice around here to deceive customers, but none on cares anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you, but I'm not going to fight it anymore.... all I do is just throw every unwanted email I get from EF or DAZ away.

Poeple around here love hypes, they thrive on them, I don't think they can live without them. So companies like EF & DAZ rely on hypes to get customers buying their stuff. Hypes come and go around here...... at the end of the hype people finally start seeing they've been hyped once again, but don't seem to care, since they fall just as quickly for the next hype coming.

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

Quote - all I do is just throw every unwanted email I get from EF or DAZ away.

Poeple around here love hypes, they thrive on them, I don't think they can live without them. but don't seem to care, since they fall just as quickly for the next hype coming.

 

Don't most people around here do the same thing about deleting email? They seem to ignore hype and advertising rather than loving it or falling for it. There are several ads on each page here but when was the last time you paid any attention to them?

It's mostly become irrelevant what kind of advertising claims are made since no one ever believes them anyway. No one does care because they've heard it all so much that it has become static. The advertisers have cried wolf so much that people turn a deaf ear on them.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Veritas - I do understand that alleged depective advertising is your issue here and not the software itself.  You don't have to 'shout' either, it makes it harder to read things. 

In the UK something similar to the FTC is called the ASA.

However in this case it's just advertising thats all. Nothing else.  Isn't it the job of any advertiser to lie to you, to hype the product, to convince you to buy something? It's no different than burger ads.  
 
You have to develop "Ad Blindess" as Argon18 describes - which I admit can be damm hard particulary as we are targeted by advertisers from an early age. Nearly every kid knows who Tony the tiger is and what breakfast cereal he sells. 

If you feel that strongly get involved with someone like adbusters and fight against everyone instead of just EF ? 

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

Quote -   You don't have to 'shout' either, it makes it harder to read things. 

 

this has been pointed out to him repeatedly. he won't listen and will keep on doing it.

Yes they are misleading. I got a set or Lights that claim to create realistic lighting, and my characters look plain. I've gotten free lights that look so much better. what a waste of money

Though I wouldn't have much use for it, I think this would be a helpful tool for those folks it is aimed at.

 However, I am a bit concerned that if it integrates into Content Paradise there are going to be a lot of products there that rely on advanced features found in regular Poser and this could cause a great deal of confusion for the buyer.  I'm not even talking about strand-based hair or dynamic cloth - What about things that rely on or feature morph targets to be useable, or shader materials?

.

Veritas, et al, I'm getting up in years and maybe I'm just getting too cynical, but I've seen so much deceptive advertising over those years it makes my head spin.

Being donquixote, I would love to live in a society in which false and misleading claims are appropriately punished, but I honestly think that there is so much of it that the FTC must be too overwhelmed to deal with any but the most blatent and harmful violations ... 

As a matter of fact -- not to bash capitalism or "the system" or anything -- but the need to sell something just to eek out a living (or sometimes in the hope that one might actually get rich) makes inveterate, professional liars out of an awfully lot of what would probably otherwise be fairly honest people, from insurance agents, to software developers, to politicians, to advertisers ...

You name the profession. You will find plenty of liars.

I don't like it any better than you do, but things are the way they are ... at least until they are not. Fight the good fight, and good luck with it. But just keep in mind that there is a very good reason that the phrase 'caveat emptor' is from a long dead language and yet remains such a cliche.

Ya know......threads like this one just kind of result in some minor head-shaking on my part.  Frankly,  the near-panicked tone, the general state of high excitement, and the clanging din of virtual sirens and klaxons makes me want to grab a passerby and ask them: "Where's the fire?"

I don't see the need for quite this level of outrage here......about the most that such a matter is worth would be a casual shrug and a 'big deal'.

This is badly overblown.  Sorry, but I'm not going to join the mob.  Whether the target de jour be ef, DAZ, or Rendo........I'll take a pass, thank you.  I'm not going to waste my personal time in bitterly attacking the companies who make my very enjoyable hobby possible.  Even when they show us examples of what highly skilled artists have done with their software -- in an attempt to encourage us to buy said software.

I can't ride a bike like Lance Armstrong does, either.  But that doesn't cause me any heartburn whenever his skill (which I can never match) is used to advertise something.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

 

As the person who created and solely responsible for the video in question, I'd like to respond to some of the criticism in these pages regarding misleading advertising on this PFA video.

First of all, there was no intention whatsoever to misrepresent the capabilities of PFA. The capabilities of the program are spelled out in excess, including feature comparison charts between PFA and Poser on our WEB site. The video was done at such time where we had not yet finished building the application and had no artwork at hand that was created with PFA. Since PFA is based on Poser 6, including its rendering engine, we simply took Poser images and displayed it in the video with the intention of showing what type of art users would create using a similar application.

We did not explain in the video that there was post-processing with some of the art or provided credit of the participating artists (although, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, we did have signed releases from all the artwork). This was an (unintended) mistake.

E frontier is highly responsive to user input, especially if it is about truth in advertising. While I personally feel that some people in this thread are venting unjustified ill feelings toward EF or PFA, I do think that a clarification is in order.

As such, we will amend the video with an end-page that clarifies the issue regarding the software use in creating the featured images and also provides credit to the artists.

 

Sincerely,

Laslo Vespremi

Director of Strategic Marketing

E frontier.

Thank you for your kind and professional response.

You guys do a fantastic job.  And many of us are grateful for that.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I applaud Veritas for bringing attention to what amounts to misleading representation of what Figure Artist (on it's own can produce), and eFrontier  for remedying the situation.

Apathy by people, who fail to speak up against misuse, whether it be intentional or not, or who shrug it away as just another of the same-old,  make it possible for them to prolifirate and become common practice, and not just in the microcosm of the single issue in question.  Taking the 'principle to the nth degree " A people usually get the government they deserve." by failing to stand up against abuses and injustices, so people  get  the treatment they deserve whether by software manufacturers or any other providers of  anything at all.

As Laslo explains, it might not have been intentional misrepresentation, "... The capabilities of the program are spelled out in excess, including feature comparison charts between PFA and Poser on our WEB site." - but it indeed did display images which were NOT solely the product of Figure Artist as was claimed.

Veritas, ( does not that mean truth in Latin?) you have lived up to your nic and because of this little furor you will prevent many users misunderstanding what this useful program is capable of out of the box.

And I salute EF for recognizing  the point  and correcting it.   Isn't that what integrity is about?

Yes, yes......we should always be sure to congratulate self-righteous ranting.  To do otherwise would be apathetic.

I'd advise saving the outrage for subjects that are actually worth getting outraged over.  There isn't any virtue in outrage expressed over.......tiny topics.  Like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

You might even succeed in killing the fly.  But -- chances are -- you'll do a lot of ancillary damage in the process.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Quote - Yes, yes......we should always be sure to congratulate self-righteous ranting.  To do otherwise would be apathetic.

I'd advise saving the outrage for subjects that are actually worth getting outraged over.  There isn't any virtue in outrage expressed over.......tiny topics.  Like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

 

I'd agree with that it seemed to be a tempest in a teapcup to me and I asked Veritas what it was about this particular ad that was so outrageous compared to a lot of other ads. It might have been standing up for a small amount of truth but I'm betting there was a lot more to the story than just a fight for justice.

I think it depends on who is doing the advertising. laslov said he was the one and he works for E frontier so the company that made the product was making the claims, and it was easier to own up to it.

Most of the time the companies that make the product have different companies that solely do advertising make the videos and they put more effort into selling the advertising campaign than they do the product. They only care if the ad looks good, not what it says about the product.

So it's a good thing that laslov corrected the misunderstandings but I would think that the principle of Caveat Emptor would apply more to this situation.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Quote : "There isn't any virtue in outrage expressed over.......tiny topics."

Priciples are never 'tiny' in my books though you might condsider the issue itself  to  be.
   And even then, someone else who bought the software under a false impression might beg to differ with your opinion.

I certainly would not have been unhappy if I was not able to produce an image close to the one shown. Not from the skill of the producer but  the "look" of it.

I kind of thought the demo video prominently displayed at the top of the Poser Figure Artist Feature page gave you a pretty good impression of what the product is intended for, particularly the painter that talks at length about how she gets use out of PFA... I looked over the sales brag sheet too when shopping for Poser 6 itself and I didn't see anything too awe inspiring on the features list, it only mentions the Cartoon and Sketch render settings...

My Freebies

Quote - Apathy by people, who fail to speak up against misuse, whether it be intentional or not, or who shrug it away as just another of the same-old,  make it possible for them to prolifirate and become common practice, and not just in the microcosm of the single issue in question.  Taking the 'principle to the nth degree " A people usually get the government they deserve." by failing to stand up against abuses and injustices, so people  get  the treatment they deserve whether by software manufacturers or any other providers of  anything at all.

 

masha, when will you be running for SG of the UN? Just a thought. Might as well take that passion for principle and apply it somewhere where it's most needed and will make a real difference.

Quote - Priciples are never 'tiny' in my books though you might condsider the issue itself  to  be.

:rolleyes:

It is.

Quote - And even then, someone else who bought the software under a false impression might beg to differ with your opinion.

 

I wouldn't purchase a new stove with the expectation that I'd instantly start cooking just like Emeril, either.  But I wouldn't be surprised to see one of Emeril's dishes used in an advertisement for the stove model.

No more am I surprised to see ef putting their "best foot forward" in their advertising, either.

Anyone who purchased a 3D software package with the expectation of instantly turning out images like a pro with years of experience under their belts needs to make a serious re-evaluation of their expectations.......no more than they could start cooking like Emeril because they bought Emeril's stove.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Quote - We did not explain in the video that there was post-processing with some of the art or provided credit of the participating artists (although, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, we did have signed releases from all the artwork). This was an (unintended) mistake.

Hrrm... > Quote - "I signed a form which allowed them to use my work, however, I am none too thrilled about having done this noiw, especially considering my work is being used without attribution.

Note that I never was remunerated in any way for allowing them to use my artwork (unnatributed, too!). I never even got a copy of the software." - Elusion

So, Laslo Vespremi, Director of Strategic Marketing, was the unrenumeration, lack of attribution, and lack of crediting and compensation to the artist who's work you lisenced "unintended" also? There's nothing "unintended" in anything that goes into an ad design or marketing campaign. They're planned down to the tiniest detail to elicit and invoke a response and reaction from the viewer. Pull the other one. It's got bells on. I had hoped that e-F marked a change in the ownership of poser. Looks increasingly like I was wrong in giving the benefit of the doubt: only difference going from CuriousLabs to e-Frontiers was a change in names and companies, not in practices.

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

Quote - > Quote - Priciples are never 'tiny' in my books though you might condsider the issue itself  to  be.

:rolleyes:

It is.

Quote - And even then, someone else who bought the software under a false impression might beg to differ with your opinion.

 

I wouldn't purchase a new stove with the expectation that I'd instantly start cooking just like Emeril, either.  But I wouldn't be surprised to see one of Emeril's dishes used in an advertisement for the stove model.

No more am I surprised to see ef putting their "best foot forward" in their advertising, either.

Anyone who purchased a 3D software package with the expectation of instantly turning out images like a pro with years of experience under their belts needs to make a serious re-evaluation of their expectations.......no more than they could start cooking like Emeril because they bought Emeril's stove.

 

True, but you would expect to be able to do the same functions on that stove that Emeril did to produce his dish and not need anything else - unless it told you so. And actually if you carefully followed the recipe you might well expect to get quite close.
Nobody expects to be able to produce artwork as good as that shown at first - but they would expect to be able to  at some time in the future using the software they bought. That image was not produced with that software and was postworked. That surely makes it false advertising and as such I would have thought it was not acceptable.

Everyone and I mean everyone who posesses a stove, Emeril or not,  would have a universal understanding that the icing decoration displayed on the cake of his was added afterwards and did not emerge from the oven like that.  Why? Because they have all used a stove.

Can you say that of a specialised program like Poser?   If it claims to be able to produce renders such as the given examples out of the box, then it had better be able to do so, or the claim is inaccurate and misleading.

It's as black-and-white as that, and no I don't believe that there's room here for graduated  shades of grey.

Caveat Emptor, not like the sky is falling ^_^

My Freebies

Oh......it's possible that a newbie wouldn't understand how a cake looked coming out of the oven.  Not everyone has baked a cake in their lifetimes.  And I have seen cakes come out of the oven with some interesting designs, etc. already on the cake.  They weren't "postworked" in.  Familiarity with the basics of cooking or not: most of us just ain't in Emeril's league.

My contention isn't to say that no point exists here -- but I am saying that the central point of the thread is -- at best -- a very minor one: and not worthy of this kind of a forum party.

However: I'll be the first to admit that this type of forum celebration is very commonplace.  Hey -- peace & quiet is no fun.  It's too boring.  If a problem doesn't exist, then we'll all have to get together & make one.  Or else we can also have fun by greatly exaggerating the importance of a truly insignificant "issue".....like the matter at hand.

If something like this really bothered me (which it doesn't) -- then my approach would be to contact ef about it.  Blazing a trail of raging protest over such an incredibly small thing.....isn't my idea of a good use of one's time.

But to each their own.  Speaking for myself: I'd rather watch Emeril cooking shows on TV.  And I don't watch Emeril cooking shows on TV.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Quote - Caveat Emptor, not like the sky is falling ^_^

 

To listen to the weather report as it's rendered to us by some, you'd figure that the sky had already fallen.  The rest of us are just too dense to understand that we've already been crushed beneath its oppressive weight.

Because if we did understand this truth -- then we'd be just as unhappy as our miserable friends are.  And then we'd be among the "enlightened".

I'd rather take the long view......as in I won't be poisoned by the bitterness of others.  Much as they'd like to spoon-feed their personal unhappiness to the rest of us.

It's nasty-tasting stuff.  Castor oil tastes better.  And at least that way: you'll be getting rid of the problem.  Not imbibing more of it into your system.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Well since Laslo Vespremi cleared up the misunderstanding about why the ad was presented like that, there still is the question of why this particular ad was the subject of such intense scrutiny. 

It's not the only ad that EF has done lately, there have been a lot of complaints about the method of doling out the reasons one at a time in such a teasing manner but I haven't heard anything about them being misleading or claims they can't live up to with the product.

So why the ad for PFA specifically?

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Quote: "My contention isn't to say that no point exists here -- but I am saying that the central point of the thread is -- at best -- a very minor one: and not worthy of this kind of a forum party."

    Quote: "If something like this really bothered me (which it doesn't) -- then my approach would be to contact ef about it.  Blazing a trail of raging protest over such an incredibly small thing.....isn't my idea of a good use of one's time."

    Quote: " I'd rather take the long view......as in I won't be poisoned by the bitterness of others.  Much as they'd like to spoon-feed their personal unhappiness to the rest of us.
    It's nasty-tasting stuff.  Castor oil tastes better.  And at least that way: you'll be getting rid of the problem.  Not imbibing more of it into your system."

Do excuse my asking but why are you taking part in this "forum party"   and "imbibing" so heavily? Though your drink of choice might be different you're taking mighty swigs.

Aside from this  somewhat  bemused observation, I can't seem t find the original thread on the eF forum which first brought my attention to this. I must be looking in the wrong place.

As the problem seems now to be resolved, perhaps it would best be served by my ending on this note.

My own "imbibing" consists of pointing out that I am refusing to imbibe the drink that's being offered to us -- because of its unfortunate taste.

As for questioning why others choose to participate in a particular thread -- that's a common tactic in the forum game -- ask 'em what they are doing here (how DARE they express an opinion) -- it's a device that's often used.  It's an argument against the person, rather than against the issue.

Why am I in this thread?  Simple. Because certain on-going efforts to spread poisonous negativity all around need to be resisted.

And, yes -- the situation has been resolved.  Not that mere resolution is likely to end anything.  It's simply too much fun -- that is, until the participants get bored with it, and move on to the next playground fight.  C'est la vie.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Hi Argon,

 Quote:   "It's not the only ad that EF has done lately, there have been a lot of complaints about the method of doling out the reasons one at a time in such a teasing manner but I haven't heard anything about them being misleading or claims they can't live up to with the product.

    So why the ad for PFA specifically?"
   
Well P7 isn't on our boxes yet so how can we tell?

I've been here when P5 didn't deliver what it claimed (for some) -  or delivered it selectively ( Ie:  being dependant on  os', cpus, RAM etc. etc without these exceptions being cited ) - do not wish it on P7. 
eF are the new owners of Poser, and though you can't expect a completely glitch-free launch, there's no reason to anticipate a lack of remedies for same.

On the contrary, this very episode (minor as it is to some) proves that they are willing to look at and  rectify if necessary.  It bodes well.

As to their method of advertising - it's their privilege - and if the complainers are less vocal than the ones who relish just anticipating the treats to come - they will continue to use it for it's perceived effectiveness.

Me, I wasn't completely sold till reason #5 - so if they were willing to wait for my commitment till that stage well so was I.

Xenophonz.

Cheers  ;)

Quote - So, Laslo Vespremi, Director of Strategic Marketing, was the unrenumeration, lack of attribution, and lack of crediting and compensation to the artist who's work you lisenced "unintended" also?

ok.......I'll bite on this one, and may end up with a headache over Thanksgiving for it.
First of all, the artists were compensated when their work was licenced.  EF apologized for their screwup, and is going to put a disclaimer up. 
Second.......when was the last time you saw an ad or commercial list the artists involved with said ad or commercial?  I never have.  But, I may be wrong.  I do that sometimes.  You know.  Be wrong.  It's part of that "human" thing I can't shake.

Anyway, thanks, Laslo, for coming in and clarifying.  I'm sure it's very much appreciated.
Jeni

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - On the contrary, this very episode (minor as it is to some) proves that they are willing to look at and  rectify if necessary.  It bodes well.

 

On this -- we certainly agree.

And cheers to you.........

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Xenophonz - well said. 

Fair play to EF on this one. Even though there was nothing wrong in the 1st place. 
Way 2 many mole-mountain-builders want to make something out of nothing. 

Shame really EF have done a darn fine job saving Poser - it could've done died with P5. 
Then what would we have to complain about :)

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

Quote - Why am I in this thread?  Simple. Because certain on-going efforts to spread poisonous negativity all around need to be resisted.

 

You can lead the proverbial horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  Well, I mean you can, but that's animal abuse.

My Freebies

Awwww!  I wouldn't abuse anyone here for anything. 

Honest!

Chin chin.

Quote -
ok.......I'll bite on this one, and may end up with a headache over Thanksgiving for it.
First of all, the artists were compensated when their work was licenced.  EF apologized for their screwup, and is going to put a disclaimer up. 

 

Jeni - I was NOT compensated in any way whatsoever for my art when such was licensed by Curious Labs for inclusion in the Poser 5 manual.
I was not even offered a copy of the software.
I stated this fact in  my post regarding the image that sparked this controversy. 

Moyra

I apologize for the mistake, Moyra.

And I totally understand why you'd have a beef with EF for still using them in advertising....however, I still stand with the fact that, using their claims only, in their advertisements, that it takes lots and LOTS of postwork (or painting or whatever anyone wants to call it) to get results like yours, and that's completely obvious.  That's been my stand all along in this thread.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - > Quote - Why am I in this thread?  Simple. Because certain on-going efforts to spread poisonous negativity all around need to be resisted.

 

You can lead the proverbial horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  Well, I mean you can, but that's animal abuse.

 

Attempt to force a horse to drink, and the would-be forcer might either find themselves kicked in the head, or else trampled under a foot-and-a-half of water by an 800 pound animal with hard, sharp hooves.  It all depends upon the character of the horse.  Some horses are like that.

@Elusion --

I won't enter into the issue over compensation, as I don't have a dog in that fight -- and as I really have no way of knowing the particulars.

But I will say that I am in awe of your work.  Top stuff.  Beautiful.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Quote - ""I signed a form which allowed them to use my work, however, I am none too thrilled about having done this noiw, especially considering my work is being used without attribution.Note that I never was remunerated in any way for allowing them to use my artwork (unnatributed, too!). I never even got a copy of the software." - Elusion"

Quote - I was NOT compensated in any way whatsoever for my art when such was licensed by Curious Labs for inclusion in the Poser 5 manual.
I was not even offered a copy of the software.
I stated this fact in  my post regarding the image that sparked this controversy.Moyra

Perhaps you should have negotiated those options before you signed over usage of your work. If one gives away his/her work, one can hardly complain their wallet is bare when someone else makes a buck using said work. In other words--How is it e Frontier's fault for using what you gave them without compensating you when you gave them permission to use it without compensating you?

Quote - So, Laslo Vespremi, Director of Strategic Marketing, was the unrenumeration, lack of attribution, and lack of crediting and compensation to the artist who's work you lisenced "unintended" also?

So Ironbear, was the lack of foresight by Moyra to negotiate renumeration, attribution, credit and compensation the result of an evil plot by e Frontier, perhaps they paid Darth Weinberg to use a Sithlord mind trick to make her overlook them. "Pay no attention to compensation...compensation is not what you want."  :tt2:

It's all fun and games...
Until the flying monkeys attack!!! 

Quote - "ok.......I'll bite on this one, and may end up with a headache over Thanksgiving for it." - Morrigan

I'll have to throw you back: that hook was baited for bass, not minnows. > Quote - "First of all, the artists were compensated when their work was licenced. EF apologized for their screwup, and is going to put a disclaimer up." - MorriganShadow

I've actually spoken with a few of the artists involved. It is true that their work was lisenced for promotional use - by CuriousLabs, now defunct. As Moyra pointed out. This isn't a first, as even a cursory following of the history of the various poser companies shows. > Quote - "Anyway, thanks, Laslo, for coming in and clarifying. I'm sure it's very much appreciated.

Jeni"

If he'd clarified, I'm sure it would be. No makey. The history of both poserites and Renderosity staff for bending over backwards to excuse the business and ethical shenannigans of the companies producing their pet toy is at least as long as the history of those companies in committing those shenannigans. It's one of the great sources of amusement to be had in poserite watching. It is a pity that e-F seems to be following in the CuriousLabs model, rather than creating their own. splash. Catch and release completed. ;)

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

Per TAINTED hEART:

Quote - Perhaps you should have negotiated those options before you signed over usage of your work. If one gives away his/her work, one can hardly complain their wallet is bare when someone else makes a buck using said work. In other words--How is it e Frontier's fault for using what you gave them without compensating you when you gave them permission to use it without compensating you?

As far as I know, no one got "remunerated" per se, but some squeaky wheels got a copy of the software.
I was terribly busy, as usual, and didn't take the time to squeak, and then the company was sold, and apparently, my license for the pieces they borrowed for the manual was too. I never expected to see them used again.
As I said, it would have been polite and probably some form of good PR to give the contributing artists a copy of the program, but lack of politeness is not legally reprehensible.
And out of said politeness and in hopes it should gratify you, Tainted, absolutely. My bad, my stupid, my wotevah. I have been doing this for a living since 1992, and I should have known better.
There.
Meanwhile, its been a few  years versions of Poser ago. I learned from the experience.  I try and cleave to the sunnier side of participation, and collaborate for/with those who honor my contributions and hard work.
Moving right along,
Moyra

Quote - I've actually spoken with a few of the artists involved. It is true that their work was lisenced for promotional use - by CuriousLabs, now defunct. As Moyra pointed out.This isn't a first, as even a cursory following of the history of the various poser companies shows.

As is normal in business, when a company is purchased, the purchase can include most, if not all of the companys holdings, which also includes licenses, contracts, and agreements. Nothing evil, underhanded, or unethical about that.

Quote - The history of both poserites and Renderosity staff for bending over backwards to excuse the business and ethical shenannigans of the companies producing their pet toy is at least as long as the history of those companies in committing those shenannigans. It's one of the great sources of amusement to be had in poserite watching.

Using images to promote their products and not compensating or crediting the artists, when the artists agreed to allow their images to be used without compensation or credit is hardly a "shenannigan" nor is it unethical. Seems like you're barking up the wrong tree and maybe even tilting a few windmills.

Quote - As far as I know, no one got "remunerated" per se, but some squeaky wheels got a copy of the software. I was terribly busy, as usual, and didn't take the time to squeak, and then the company was sold, and apparently, my license for the pieces they borrowed for the manual was too.

As there was no agreement for you to receive a copy of the software, complaining about not receiving one is rather indecorous. Who e Frontier or Curious Labs or anyone else decides to give free software to for whatever reason is really no one's business and carping about it sounds a bit like sour grapes.

Quote - And out of said politeness and in hopes it should gratify you, Tainted, absolutely. My bad, my stupid, my wotevah. I have been doing this for a living since 1992, and I should have known better.
There.

No reason to be impolite to me for pointing out the fact that e Frontier used what you gave them to use within the limits of their agreement with you. I get no gratification from the fact the you didn't look out for yourself. You absolutely should have known better and I frankly don't understand how you can be gratified by making e Frontier appear to be accountable for your failure. Being angry with e Frontier and publicly disparaging them because you "gave away the store" is just plain bad form.

It's all fun and games...
Until the flying monkeys attack!!! 

Quote - The history of both poserites and Renderosity staff for bending over backwards to excuse the business and ethical shenannigans of the companies producing their pet toy is at least as long as the history of those companies in committing those shenannigans. It's one of the great sources of amusement to be had in poserite watching. It is a pity that e-F seems to be following in the CuriousLabs model, rather than creating their own. splash. Catch and release completed. ;)

Wow, IB.  I'd have thought you'd come up with a stronger argument than "well, Rendo staff have a tendency to do stupid things".  you know.  Because we're not supposed to be human.  I'm sure that the Great and Powerful Ironbear has never ever been wrong or had the need to apologize, or, at the very most, be courteous to professional individuals. 
I don't "bend over backwards" for anyone.  I stopped doing backbends in high school when I quit the cheerleading team.  I do, however, respect the creators of the programs that I use, and if they do something unethical, I typically side with customers, NOT the business side. 
I don't see a thing unethical with E-Frontier using Moyra's art in their advertisement.  Sure, Curious Labs may have pulled one over on her and got away with it by not compensating her for her work, but that's not E-Frontier's fault.  And, while I do respect Moyra and her work (I've said it before, had I not seen her website back in 2000 or 2001, I probably would never have even found Renderosity, let alone the programs that I use today), I don't feel that she's got an ethical argument, above "Man, that sucks!"  I mean, 5 years ago, I most likely would have made the exact same mistake (had I the skills she has, lol.  I have nowhere near the skill in my whole being that she's got in her pinky) and handed over my work, simply because I was flattered.  But, I also know that my onlyl argument would be "Gah, that sucks!!"

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Okay, I'm lost....

I got the burger like it is in the purdy picture :P with the fries and a soft drink...value meal (did I remember to say no cheese on that burger???)

But seriously, I think the first thing a person has to do before buying ANYTHING!! Is research everything a product can and can not do, then evaluate their own abilities.

For example, You might be able to create an image like the one in the orginal post, but if I were buying the program, I would have to assume I knew what on earth I was doing. (Do I insert tab B into slot C now?). As Pakled stated...I can now create a reasonable facsimile of a person.

I will admit, I know maybe about 20-30% of Poser 5's true ability, I cant wait to learn the video portion (I wanna see my burger MOVE)

It's the same when I bought Poser 5, I knew it could do lots of stuff, and saw the pictures of what it could do, but by no means did I expect to be able to do it right away. (It took me a month to create a 10 second video clip of fish swimming using Maya 5).

The point is I think people have to do research, and be honest with their own ability. I think we have to hold ourselves accountable for somethings every now and then.

(wondering if I'll get TOS'd for this rant, even though it's not a ranting rant)

Quote - or, at the very most, be courteous to professional individuals.

I'm always courteous to professional individuals.

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

"I'm always courteous to professional individuals". 

I try to be courteous to everyone. 

Truth be told, most of  us little guys behave better than the so called 'pros'. 
We don't treat people with the arogance and rudeness that some 'top dogs' exhibit. 

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