I'm looking at a remake of Roxie that Ambient Shade did, then I look at Anastasia, the remake of Alyson2 that Blackhearted did, then you look at V4, Dawn and V5-V6, and then I look at Roxie, and I've come to the conclusion that the Poser community seems to have a type of woman they prefer and "average" ain't it.

So do you prefer a more statuesque beauty or a more down to earth girl or guy to work with?

Note: We're talking without the ability to morph, which type of woman would you pprefer to render?

Pesonally, I'm sick of the all perfection with models. I find myself often reworking the existing ones I have. So my suggestion would be more down to earth, or more like real people.

********************************************

My store here at Renderosity.

Art By Mel

Are you planning on making a morph to sell? In that case I would say go for the beauty. I think most people want that.

It is fairly easy to unbeautify a pretty character if you have some morphs to do it with. 

Poser 11 Pro, Windows 10

Auxiliary Apps: Blender 2.79, Vue Complete 2016, Genetica 4 Pro, Gliftex 11 Pro, CorelDraw Suite X6, Comic Life 2, Project Dogwaffle Howler 8, Stitch Witch

Look at this. (Click to enlarge)

All default figures scaled to same shoulder height.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

Or this. (click to enlarge)

I do not remember exactly what figures any more, but Miki4 and Alyson are in there.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

 

I prefer average and as (photo)realistic as possible.

And you know Rox? My Roxie version.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

Another one of Roxie

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

And this is another one I posted some time ago. Roxie meets Blender, and ages FAST LOL. Ha-ha-ha-

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

Poser, Roxie and Blender. What a mix to work with.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

Those superimposed figures tell the whole story!  (Of course Posette, with her strange long thighs, would wreck the uniformity.)

Off-base thought:  There's something basically contradictory about the standard long willowy blonde.  Long lanky people tend to be found in hot dry places, because they have more surface per volume.  Short squared people tend to be found in cold places, because they have more volume per surface.

And what else is true about hot-dry-place people?  They sure ain't blondes!  You can't get darker or willowier than a Kenyan.

My python page
My ShareCG freebies

Never really seen much of Roxy.  I actually really like parts of her body.  But her face, armpits and feet ruin it for me.  

I am:  aka Velocity3d 

Oh JJ, but this are all FBM's, not Roxie as she comes out of the box by miles.

Default she looks like a teen age girl.
These where made to make her look in her end 30 begin 40.

Posted here to show her mophability.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

People "say" they want "average." They buy "beautiful."

People "say" they want "realistic" clothes. They buy slutwear.

It is easy to make pretty into ugly. (in fact, it's REALLY easy to make a figure "pretty ugly!")

It is very difficult to make ugly into pretty.

Anyone seen Antonia Polygon in a gallery render lately? I rest my case.

$.02

Thing is, most of Posers figures tend to be Average, while most DAZ figures tend to be statuesque. Now on one hand we, as users, tell Poser we want more everyday, average women, then we get into fights over why DAZ has prettier figures. But then look at Anastasia, reworked Alyson 2 to look more statuesque and her popularity goes up.

I'm just saying...

From my very first screengrab.

• V4 is there
• Genesis is there
• Dawn is there
• Alyson2 is there.

What do you see ?  ?  ?  ?  ?

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

In the second, (red) screengrab, the difference is more clear.

The only outspoken difference is the size of the head.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

Quote - Note: We're talking without the ability to morph, which type of woman would you pprefer to render?

BLB - Beauties with Large Breasts.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

DANGER ! FALLACY WARNING ! DANGER !

"Average" doesn't mean "ugly" and "statuesque" doesn't mean "pretty".

And (PHOTO)REALISTIC just means that a model was accuaretly sculpted after a real life person.

I can sculpt a breathtakingly pretty average woman in a highly unrealistic way, and an ugly as f*ck statuesque woman in a photorealistic way.

And any other combination.

So let us be precise with our terms.

 

I think most can agree that we want our Poser people to be pretty/handsome by default.

So there is no much arguing about the faces, even though a not too distinctive "prettyness" is more practical for morphing than just another Angelina Jolie clone.

Then the body: Slim and fit, of course.

Average or statuesque ?

Doesn't really matter using animateable joint centers, but I definitely prefer "average height" because it is easier to morph up or down from a "middle height" than to morph all the way down from an extreme tall build.

Realistic or stylized ?

No question, realistic. I mean "real" realistic, not the fake semi-realism everyone tries to sell as "realistic". (And yeah, DAZ is quite guilty of that.)

The CGI world finally jumps the uncanny valley big time. If you want to be taken serious, photorealism is the name of the game.

But remember, with good topology and good rigging, a Poser figure can be *anything* you want.

Joe,  I love love love your characters.  Every time you post screengrabs I'm like 'ooooh awesome'.

I worked with pjz99 on a character that was niche.  Lots of people said she'd be wanted.  Her texture is actually fantastic.  Pjz is a slave driver lmao and I put a LOT of time into that texture. It's still one of the best that he or I have.  But guess what, the character didn't sell for squat.  

I learned the hard way that what sells in this market is beautiful people and fairy people.  Period.  

I am:  aka Velocity3d 

OH and just to add, IMHO average is beautiful.  What I meant  by beautiful is 'magazine type, barbie proportions, etc.  Basically unattainable beauty.  And people say they want realism lmao....

I am:  aka Velocity3d 

Relatively attractive by default.

Body needs to look human, and represent the gender its supposed to be fairly well.

Needs to be well constructed without crazy weird joint issues, or asymmetrical mesh problems, and UV maps that actually exist for ALL body parts and that don't overlap, that can be textured relatively easily. 

Versatility. 

Versatility means LOTS of morphs.

The majority of vendors are not modelers, they're dial spinners. 

If you want a vendor to support a figure, give them enough morph dials to choke on. And then give them some more.

If you're expecting them to create their own morphs you're going to be waiting a long time. About as long as it takes for the V4, V5, V6, V7, V8 and probably the V9 markets to dry up.

 

~Shane

I know. I was cursed with optimism.

Quote - I know. I was cursed with optimism.

ROFLMAO

Hey. Do what YOU WANT TO DO. If people like it, fine. If not, YOU still have something YOU wanted!

I blame Da Vinci and his "Vitruvian man" for popularizing the Romain ideal of a figure that is eight heads tall. Maybe Marvel et al are responsible for popularizing the heroic ideal that is closer to nine heads tall. But one thing is certain: statuesque proportions have been idealized for a very long time.

As for realism (say, actual photos), if it's for public consumption and you have the misfortune of working with a real human, you'll pick one that conforms as closely to the ideal as possible and/or use Photoshop to "stretch" the limbs.

Why shouldn't Poser users continue with this time-honored tradition? It's not as though the other "arts" have a history of celebrating the ordinary by being consistently true to "average" life. :D

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

statuesque |ˌsta ch oōˈesk|
adjective
(esp. of a woman) attractively tall and dignified : her statuesque beauty.

I like roxie's proportions best for a teen character.  but I notice there is only one character set here in the MP for her.  In my first roxie experiment I made her head invisible in poser and tried to put V4 with an invisible body on her.  However everytime I clicked on the v4 the Roxie head reappeared and when I moved her the neck stretched.  Maybe a glitch?  I better try again.  the roxie had some body part scaling changes. maybe she doesn't do scaling?

Love esther

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month.  Oh, and it's free!

where's the ambient shade version of roxie?

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month.  Oh, and it's free!

so this is kind of what she'd look like with a V4 head transplant. I think her torso especially mid chest is too thick. Oh well.

 

the textures wouldn't be a problem as there is a converting utility available so roxie can take V4 textures.  but I think her shape isn't quite right for what I want.

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month.  Oh, and it's free!

The question comes down to what you are doing with your art?

Advertising? A book cover? Poster to sell a product? think advertising companies. The people they typically use are not ugly, homely, etc.

In the galleries here, illustrate a story then vareity is what works and you need homely plan janes to make it work. That said illustrate a story for the place you can't mention here with a 50 year old looking V4 is not the fantasty character that is going to draw in readers.

In my opinion each has it place depending on the project at hand and the target you are trying to reach.

 

 

Gary

"Those who lose themselves in a passion lose less than those who lose their passion"

Quote - where's the ambient shade version of roxie?

Check out the thread "Why Vicky is Smart", bottom of the second page.

Quote -
estherau: where's the ambient shade version of roxie?

 

She's in JoePublic's "Why Vicky is smart" thread, 2nd page close to the bottom: 

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2878970&page=2

It was mostly just an eperiment to see how close to an adult female I could make Roxie look with her current mesh. I'm still working on her. 

 

lol, how did i cross post with clark on that? 

 

~Shane

someone else mentioned it in one of the above discussions in this thread.

Thanks for the link.

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month.  Oh, and it's free!

here's a pic of the ambient shade one in case everyone else wants to see.

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month.  Oh, and it's free!

Anyways the rules is

Head
5 eyes wide
7 Eyes Tall

Body
8 heads tall.

etc etc & a lot of other measurements every one knows buy heart.

That DAZ Poser and most others follow 80% to 100% .
If you don't follow this rule.

Real people are 6 head tall but if you make a character 6 heads tall.
She'll look dumpy
or she'll look to young for 90% of DAZ Poser renders.
Dawn has a wide chin to make sure everyone knows she's of age.
Every one follows a certain wideness of hips & breast size also to say she's of age.

A normal male start buy following the 5x7x8 also .
If they want a super hero they might enlarge to 9 heads tall ,widen the shoulders.

It's all a ratio trick superman is 5x7x8 but in real life he would only stand 4 feet 8 inches tall.

There's a lot more tricks everyone uses also. 
Art's not real no matter how realistic. Your selling something there never see in real life.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Thanks Esther. I was going to post a more updated shot of her later on since she's had a bit more work done since the first but I didn't want to derail the thread.

 

RorrKon: Most people are 7-1/2 heads tall, not 6. My Roxie morph follows the 7.5 heads rule almost exactly. 8 heads is traditionally ideal, for super models and heroic types. 

 

~Shane

This kind of reminds me of the question people used to ask about Gilligans Island (an old American TV show). One of the common questions was "Would you prefer to be stranded on an island with Ginger (the stereotypical hollywood actress/model type) or with MaryAnn (the stereotypical atractive girl next door type)?". My thought was always well, actually, niether one, I'd prefer to get marooned with "GingerAnn". Taking the "best" attributes of both.

So my response would be a little of both the statuesque beauty or a more down to earth girl.

A quick look through the galleries here, at RDNA, or even at DA, will let you know what the majority of people really prefer. Except for those that are trying to achieve realism using an example of someone you would see on the street, a relative, a neighbor, etc., what could be considered even a semi-attractive model (male or female) is seldom used. This type of figure is great as an addition to a multi-figure scene, or as a character in a story, but seldom used as the focal point for a single figure glamore or hero shot type render.

If I want reality, I can look in the mirror, go to the store, etc. I use Poser, DS, Carrara, etc. to make images that come from my head, or some other source of inspiration (Frazzeta maybe), and the average everyday girl/guy typically doesn't fit that image. It's a realistic looking 3D image that is a break from reality I'm after - not reality.

__________________________________________________________

My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......

Looks good AmbientShade.

Been staring at CGI Characters for so long
& It's been to long since I've used real world models.

So lets see if I can remember how to do some math.

real world heads very but would be 9 eyes tall to 11 eyes tall ?

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

AmbientShade - your Roxy is looking very good!!

__________________________________________________________

My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......

---

QUOTE:
"Statuesque or Down to Earth?***"

It would depend what I wanted to render.  If I wanted to render a ballet dancer, statuesque (and I'd morph Roxie for that).  If I wanted to render a multi-figure scene, perhaps down to earth would do it just to make the contrast.

For a pin-up, I'd probably go for curvy and start with one of the fuller figures.

**
@Shane**
Nice work on your Roxie, but you do realise you've gone and made the only safe teen we've ever had in the Runtime, into a mature adult, don't you? :-P

I think one of the cool things about the default Roxie is that she's a teen, but one that clearly looks of age.  It's the first time I've seen that in the Runtime because they're usually either mature adults, or kids, with a massive age gap in-between.

I think Roxie fills that gap really well.

> Quote - People "say" they want "average." They buy "beautiful." > > People "say" they want "realistic" clothes. They buy slutwear. > > It is easy to make pretty into ugly. (in fact, it's REALLY easy to make a figure "pretty ugly!") > > It is very difficult to make ugly into pretty. > > Anyone seen Antonia Polygon in a gallery render lately? I rest my case. > > $.02

Oh, I don't know. Antonia can be made to look quite attractive (to me, at least). Here's one I posted over at RDNA. I guess I should start posting them over here as well. :)

And another...

And last one...

I used to use V4 pretty much exclusively. I still use her, but I've discovered models like Antonia and MyMichelle are very much capable of giving Vicki a run for her money with a little bit of patience. I've had a good time getting Antonia to come out her shell, so to speak. :)

@ booksbydavid - that's great work, particularly that first image - IMO everything in that image just works and looks right, and that's hard to achieve!

Always did like AntoniaWM, I much prefer the proportions to those of V4 - and of course Diogenes/Phantom3d did an excellent job with the rigging.

----------------------------------------

Not approved by Scarfolk Council. For more information please reread. Or visit my local shop.

Love the face on that second one, David.

She looks sort of semi-human, semi-alien (and I mean that in a good way), gives her character and makes her look different :-)

Thanks, guys. Just wanted to show that Antonia can hold her own with the big V.

Once you get used to her morphs, you can definitely get Antonia to be 'different'.

So, back to the orginal topic, I guess I prefer the Down to Earth look. V4 is great and she can do a lot, but figures like Antonia, MyMichelle and Roxie have their place as well. :)

HMm... maybe I should have named this thread "Ginger or MaryAnn"?

 

Hey David, I like that last one a lot. And the first one's not bad either.  As for the second though, I think Antonia might want to leave the Glamour shots to V4. Just my $.02.

I miss ODF .
Isn't Antonia a open source mesh ?
So you could Boolean a tail on Antonia and remodel her ears and sell a cat version ?

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - Oh, I don't know. Antonia can be made to look quite attractive (to me, at least). Here's one I posted over at RDNA. I guess I should start posting them over here as well. :)

Different strokes. Not my cup of tea. But glad you like them.

Thanks DustRider, appreciate it. :)

Quote - This kind of reminds me of the question people used to ask about Gilligans Island (an old American TV show). One of the common questions was "Would you prefer to be stranded on an island with Ginger (the stereotypical hollywood actress/model type) or with MaryAnn (the stereotypical atractive girl next door type)?". My thought was always well, actually, niether one, I'd prefer to get marooned with "GingerAnn". Taking the "best" attributes of both.

lol - neither for me. I think I'd drown them both within the first week. 

That show made zero sense anyway. Where'd they get all those damned clothes? It was a 3 hour tour for f*'s sake! but they had enough clothes to fill a GAP outlet.

And all the buildings and hand-crafted furniture they made out of straw and bamboo, yet none of them could figure out how to build a boat or repair the one they had? 

Pluse

 

Quote -

@Shane
Nice work on your Roxie, but you do realise you've gone and made the only safe teen we've ever had in the Runtime, into a mature adult, don't you? :-P

I think one of the cool things about the default Roxie is that she's a teen, but one that clearly looks of age.  It's the first time I've seen that in the Runtime because they're usually either mature adults, or kids, with a massive age gap in-between.

I think Roxie fills that gap really well.

Thanks. But, uhm, "safe" teen? hmm. 

Not trying to bash anyone, but default Roxie has the body of a 12 year old boy with a glandular problem (moobs). Even my neice - who is 19 - that was her first response. "Where are her curves? And what happened to that face!?"

But I guess different people are attracted to different things. Personally I like females to have nice curves and exotic features. My brother says I give all my females "black girl booties" so I'm trying to work on that. lol. I do like my darker skinned ladies tho, so maybe its a subconscious thing. 

 

~Shane

Well, the only image I ever posted of her was that Roxie Interview and I didn't feel weary of doing so even though she's nude.  To post such a young character with the other adult meshes would have required a morph.  She's the youngest looking mesh in the Runtime that isn't a child, like I say, I'd put her 18-22.

I don't see her figure as boyish, just down to earth, and her mesh is infinitely more realistic than Sydney, for example.  I think a lot of the models look as if they have breast implants whereas Roxie doesn't.

Now what do you see?

Those boobs could double for cannon balls, they just don't look as realistic as Roxie's to me.  That said, maybe I do have an odd preference for what I feel looks realistic, I even like the face on Roxie (very human looking) but it's obvious a few here don't think so (which I find very strange).

Regards curves, you might be surprised at how little difference there is between Roxie and Sydney if you were to backlight them and compare.

It depends on whay I'm creating. My realistic renders using poser figures are mostly illustrations for books. I want the figures to be realistic, yet also pretty. I must agree with Basicwiz..... it is easy to turn a good looking figure into an ugly one, yet turning an 'ugly' figure into a beatiful one is hard, even too hard.

So, I use the statuesque beauty and turn into what I need. The down to earth ones cannot achieve this.

But... yes there's always but. If you look at Vicky, Genesis and Dawn base, they're not statuesque beauties at all. They can be morphed into statuesque beauty, but there base are prerry down to earth figures. Now the what we would consider down to earth figures, like roxie and so on, are not down to earth at all, they're just ugly. Seriously, some of the poser figures look like they've escaped from some kind of horror institution, looking so creepy you almost get nightmares. I'm not saying that's only the case with non-DAZ figures, anyone using DAZ kids knows they're very creepy as well. It just shows it is very hard to make figures for Poser and before you know you've created something creepy or ugly while going for down to earth.

Male figures don't seem to have this problem so much, at least they didn't used to have it. Dork, Don & James are very down to earth figures that are very easy to use and they look normal, although again morphing them away from there base look is a challenge. Simon is a bit harder to work with, he has this kind of secret agent look which is hard to get away from. The girls though have more problems, while Judy & Jessi are good to use, they border ugliness if you're not careful.

The newer native poser figures after these, male of female are just plain ugly in my opinion and no mather how much you morph them, they never break loose from it. I never use them, I go back to the older ones or go use V4/M4. Same goes for Antonia, imo, she's just not all that good. I do find My Michelle nice looking, but she doesn't offer me anything I don't have with V4 already and again, she has limited use.

So, I stick to V4/M4, Don, James, Jessi and Judy and depends what I need. These figures I can turn into anything from ugly, down to earth and pretty. All the other figures are too let's say particulair, but most of them I do find ugly or way to super model like. Poser included models have become uglier with every release, while Genesis seems to become more and versatile. Someone needs to create a good poser model that is versatile, people keep on releasing models that are too limited.

So, it's not really a matter of being down to earth or statuesque beauty, it's more a matter of being to recognizable model and getting away from the base look is too hard, That counts for some of the super model like figures as well as the ugly ones.

I know many cry for an average looking figure, but let's face it, we've got more then enough of them around, yet no one wants to use them, except for a few die hards. We all want to use the pretty ones :)

@booksbydavid..... none of your images comes even close to V4 at all. While they may seem attractive to you and who can argue with something being attractive, that's pure taste, they still aren't pretty. That's the whole thing.... a pretty girl is pretty for about everyone one, but a pretty girl will not be attractive for everyone. That are 2 different things. When it comes to being statuesque beauty, your images aren't even close, niether are the girls pretty as lot's of V4 images are, imo.

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:***

"... none of your images comes even close to V4 at all. While they may seem attractive to you and who can argue with something being attractive, that's pure taste, they still aren't pretty."

Seriously, that second one is attractive to me as well, very much so.  Wouldn't say no to her, I love that look.  She reminds me of one of the girls in the Brazillian horror "Embodiment of Evil".

Just grabbed a frame from the Blu-ray to show you.  David's girl reminds me of one of the babes in the black gear (you'd have to watch it to understand why).

The babe on the slab (also hot), that's what I see as a Roxie-type figure ;-)

I don't know if I would call Roxie  boyish, but yeah teenish will work. If you've ever seen a online porn, her body isn't unlike many of the girls you see there. Many of the older women are basically just taller and most times bigger, well, more boobflesh.

 

Yeah, I watch porn. I'm a guy, get over it! Most of us do!

EClark, no, it's just you mate :biggrin:
(MetArt rocks, it's full of Roxies).

Schoolgirls of Poser

Quote - I don't know if I would call Roxie  boyish, but yeah teenish will work. If you've ever seen a online porn, her body isn't unlike many of the girls you see there. Many of the older women are basically just taller and most times bigger, well, more boobflesh.

Yeah, I watch porn. I'm a guy, get over it! Most of us do!

 

lol. 

Seriously tho, watching porn is one of the best ways to really learn about human anatomy, as most of the actors are physically fit and you see them in all the different poses and contortions that the human body is capable of. This was one of the pointers that I was given by college instructors in both human anatomy drawing classes and character modeling classes. A lot of the reference images I use come from the naughty side of google, and i have scads of it. 

A lot of colleges in the US and Canada (and I'm sure throughout Europe as well) are teaching various itterations of "porn as art" or "porn as literature" (LOL on that one) type classes today as well, I'm sure mostly just to break the taboos of it and piss off parents, but the taboos need to be broken anyway. It's a completely nonsensical issue really. The internet wouldn't be nearly as massive as it is today without porn. HD video cameras got their foothold because of the porn industry, some sources say they were actually developed BY the porn industry, and the vhs vs betamax war from back in the 1980s was decided by the porn industry. It's the #1 entertainment industry in the world, dwarfing music and holywood combined. Because no matter who you are, how old or where you're from, sex is a natural part of life. Without it we don't exist. 

So yeah. be proud of your porn watching, cause everyone does or has, and we all have a fetish, whether they'll admit it or not. Just don't make a mess ;)

 

~Shane

 

Quote -
lol. 

Seriously tho, watching porn is one of the best ways to really learn about human anatomy, as most of the actors are physically fit and you see them in all the different poses and contortions that the human body is capable of. 

Nice one. I shall have to use it some time; though, to be sure, straight girls usually don't have to rationalize their online "entertainment" habits for their partners. :D

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

porn ,LOL ,it's only good from a ant's point of view.

You can learn about Anthropometry ,Human Ratios ,Human Anatomy.
The 600 or so human muscles & 300 or so bones.
The Golden Main .

Get a real girl and study her ,live and in person.your learn a lot more.

I've drawed topology on my girlfriend from head to toe to see better topology bends.

 

 

 

 

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - Nice one. I shall have to use it some time; though, to be sure, straight girls usually don't have to rationalize their online "entertainment" habits for their partners. :D

lol no need to rationalize. Just think of the educational aspect as an added bonus. Plus who knows, you'd be surprised what it might do for your personal life. granted, that could go either way.

Eh, I'm single, so I don't have to worry about who I piss off. Course, I never worried about that even when I wasn't single. LOL. Deal with it or get out. That's my motto. 

 

~Shane

Quote - > Quote -

lol. 

Seriously tho, watching porn is one of the best ways to really learn about human anatomy, as most of the actors are physically fit and you see them in all the different poses and contortions that the human body is capable of. 

Nice one. I shall have to use it some time; though, to be sure, straight girls usually don't have to rationalize their online "entertainment" habits for their partners. :D

Unless you're a pk (preacher's kid) most girls don't have to rationalize it to their partners. Men just show their appreciation more. Can't hide it really, it sticks right out there.

BTW, speaking of reference photos... Does anybody know how to convert the prices on 3D.sk to American dollars? I don't even know what monetary unit that is they show.

It's in Euros. one month is about $35. I think it might be cheaper per month if you pay for a few months at a time. 

 

~Shane

google can convert euros to dollars

1 euro = dollar

It changes daily or hourly or something

I'd test drive a month to see if ya want to invest a lot of time.

 

AmbientShade with a motto like that ,there's no need to tell us ya single.
Men have all the ego ,women have ALL the power.
I know the truth hurts.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Is there a limit on how many downloads per month you get?

EClark1894 you have all these post and 20 diffrent things going on at one time.

What is your CGI plain and where are you getting to with CGI ?

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - Is there a limit on how many downloads per month you get?

http://www.3d.sk/site/subscribe

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - EClark1894 you have all these post and 20 diffrent things going on at one time.

What is your CGI plain and where are you getting to with CGI ?

I work security, so sometimes when I work overnights I just get to talk. When I'm at home I'm just learning. I'll try one thing one day, and something else the next. yeah, I might have two or three things going at one time, but a lot of times things are really slow on this forum.

http://www.3dscans.sk/photo_sets/search/query//thumb/small/standard/1/premium/1/category-573/3D%20Whole%20body%20scan/page/1

 

Here's what I was talking about the difference between Real Girls ratios & Art/CGI Girls ratios

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

http://www.3dscans.sk/photo_sets/search/premium/1/standard/1/thumb/small/orderBy/chronology/page/5

more pages

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

**@EClark** xe.com is also a highly respected currency conversion site, they even provide an API for other sites.

@Shane
You asked me what I meant by "safe teen" and pointed out that you don't want to bash anyone (but sort of bashed yourself by saying it).  I'm just curious why you haven't replied to the comparison I posted for you:

• So, do you still see a boy with a glandular problem?
• Or, do you see an adult with a boob-job stood next to her?

Regards the porn debate; have to say I wouldn't feel the need for porn if I had a partner, don't see the point in it.  Would feel disrespectful even, I'd be worried I'd loose her!  Shane's take on that is pretty much the same as shown in a lot of American programs and movies they show over here.  What's even more amazing is that it seems to be a popular one!

I have a very different opinion on that one, and I absolutely detest those sites that actively encourage cheating on your partner for a "quick shag with a local".  Granted, porn isn't exactly cheating with another partner, but you're still looking at another girl while you're getting what you get out of it.

oh, come on . Roxie Boyish? Childish? really???

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2441489&user_id=225791&np&np

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2445215&user_id=225791&np&np

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2447716&user_id=225791&np&np

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2477101&user_id=225791&np&np

Quote -
I have a very different opinion on that one, and I absolutely detest those sites that actively encourage cheating on your partner for a "quick shag with a local".  Granted, porn isn't exactly cheating with another partner, but you're still looking at another girl while you're getting what you get out of it.

Okay, getting a bit off topic, but I did want to make a quick reply to that last statement. One of the things that often confounds me is women's attitude towards men watching porn. Somehow, they seem to regard it as a form of cheating. Actually, they seem to regard ANYTIME a man does something sex-oriented that isn't centered on her as cheating. That even includes masturbation. But, take a look in the drawer of almost any woman who is over the age of 21 and most likely you will find some type of self stimulating toy. In others, a dildo, or vibrator, or a book of some kind (Fifty Shades of Grey).

Wow, Timberwolf, they look bloody nice and don't have the slightest hint of Victoria to them like the majority of renders out there do.

Go Roxie! :-)

" Actually, they seem to regard ANYTIME a man does something sex-oriented that isn't centered on her as cheating."

Of course.

Because it's competition.

Once a man discovers he can have a happy sex live without a certain orifice, he can't be blackmailed into obedience any longer.

;-)

**
@EClark**
True, but a toy isn't human.

If I caught a partner sleeping around she'd be out of the door even before she could put her knickers back on, and more than that, she would never set foot back in that door - ever.  If I caught her looking at pictures of naked guys while getting off to them, I'd be just as pissed off but would want to know what I'm doing wrong.  If I caught her with a toy, same thing, I'd want to know what I'm doing wrong, or perhaps more to the point - what I'm not doing.

Surely a sexual partner is in a position to tell you what she wants, so the only reason she'd need to use a toy would be if you either aren't or can't deliver what she wants.

Anyway, like you said, it's getting a bit off-topic - lol

Oh, hell, too late for that with me. I discovered that a long time ago. If it wasn't for the fact that I just REALLY love women, I'd probably be gay just so I wouldn't have to deal with them.

lol@JoePublic

"Wow, Timberwolf, they look bloody nice and don't have the slightest hint of Victoria to them like the majority of renders out there do."

I agree, these ARE very nice renders. I especially like the face in the second one !

But...(Sorry, but there is a BUT),

These morphs could have been just as easily (Actally more easily), been made with a mesh like Genesis. And they do nothing to solve Roxie's grave topology and rigging problems. And some details like her flattened toes are still messed up as you can see in the last pic.

So even if default Roxie had looked like that, after one look at her topology, my judgement would have been exactly the same: Not useable.

A figure's default "looks" are a great help to sell her.

But a good figure needs much more than just good "looks" to be useable and stand the test of time.

Remember the original "Millenium Woman" Vicky wasn't actually that pretty at all when compared to Posette.

These are some great morphs, really nice, but let us put the myth to rest that "Not being pretty enough" was the only reason any non-DAZ figure so far has been a total failure.

 

In case of doing Porn-pics with Poser , you have to have proper joint bendings on your figure or it will just look weird. So Poser porn is the ultimate challenge test for the  rigging of your figure.

@ Joe: Roxie is turning her back on you ;)

Haven't loaded-up Posette in years, but yup, I clearly remember her being the prettiest from way back :biggrin:

I remember a render I did of her, with her head back and arms out.  I liked it that much I even postworked it, I was really chuffed with it.  Then my mother walked in and said, Len, women don't look like that (I'd morphed the nipples a bit too much).

I was too embarrased to look her in the eye for days after that.

**
@Timberwolf**
Nice arse!

you all herd these saying before ?

put ya money where ya mouth is.
show me.
talks cheep.

untill I see a at least 10 minute long video.
showing me what either character can do ,well then ,there just another mesh.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - oh, come on . Roxie Boyish? Childish? really???

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2441489&user_id=225791&np&np

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2445215&user_id=225791&np&np

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2447716&user_id=225791&np&np

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2477101&user_id=225791&np&np

 

Definitely not boyish. Very nice work there.

Quote - > Quote -

I have a very different opinion on that one, and I absolutely detest those sites that actively encourage cheating on your partner for a "quick shag with a local".  Granted, porn isn't exactly cheating with another partner, but you're still looking at another girl while you're getting what you get out of it.

Okay, getting a bit off topic, but I did want to make a quick reply to that last statement. One of the things that often confounds me is women's attitude towards men watching porn. Somehow, they seem to regard it as a form of cheating. Actually, they seem to regard ANYTIME a man does something sex-oriented that isn't centered on her as cheating. That even includes masturbation. But, take a look in the drawer of almost any woman who is over the age of 21 and most likely you will find some type of self stimulating toy. In others, a dildo, or vibrator, or a book of some kind (Fifty Shades of Grey).

LOL. "Women's attitude"? That generalization doesn't even hold true in the small population of this forum. :D The person you're quoting -- who thinks it's bad to watch porn if you're in a relationship -- is a dude, no? Me, I'm a girl, and I have no issue with my partner watching porn. And anyone -- man or woman -- who thinks his or her partner shouldn't masturbate needs a strong cup of mental wake up.

These researchers intended to compare the sexual habits of men who watched porn to those who didn't. But they failed because they couldn't find any who didn't:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/18/research-suggests-all-men-watch-pornography_n_930349.html

Anyway, to steer the subject somewhat back on topic: how do your partners feel about you spending considerable amounts of time staring at, judging (sometimes very, very harshly), fixing, and morphing 3D nude models? In some forums, I've seen people (men and women, customers and business owners) compare it to porn (unless the figure doesn't have nipples or genitals, that is). I find that ridiculous. What I do find interesting is just how perfect many us expect our digital dolls to be.

In this very thread, some of the images posted were dismissed because the girl depicted wasn't the right sort of sexually attractive to some viewers.

Does a figure have to be "doable" to be usable?

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

---

QUOTE:***
*"The person you're quoting -- who thinks it's bad to watch porn if you're in a relationship -- is a dude, no? Me, I'm a girl, and I have no issue with my partner watching porn. And anyone -- man or woman -- who thinks his or her partner shouldn't masturbate needs a strong cup of mental wake up."

WTF, yes I'm a dude, but no, I never said a partner shouldn't masturbate, lol, you make me sound like some old prude!

I didn't say a partner shouldn't watch porn, either, come to think of it.  It was just a casual post.  I wouldn't be happy if a partner was watching porn to satisfy something I should be satisfying, what man would?  On the other hand, I'd have no problem watching porn with her as a turn-on, none whatsoever.

And what EClark said about women and their toys:

Say I had a long distance driving job, something like that, hell, I'd probably buy her a toy myself, just for fun!

• Well this is it, gotta go babe.
  - Not again!
• Yeah, but I'll be thinking about you and only you.
  - What's this?
• It's a present, something to keep you happy while I'm gone.
  - Awwww, babe!
• Woah, not yet, you're not allowed to open it until midnight.
  - Why, is it like a Gremlin or somethin'?
• You never know, just remember, not until midnight!

Midnight arrives:

- OMFG, it's a 10-inch lady-pleaser!
- You even bought Duracel for a longer pleasure time - you're so thoughtful babe!

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Now admit it, if you had a guy like that you'd want to hang on to him, right? :woot:

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

---

QUOTE:***
***"In this very thread, some of the images posted were dismissed because the girl depicted wasn't the right sort of sexually attractive to some viewers.****Does a figure have to be "doable" to be usable?"

*Back on topic:

My opinion is she wouldn't need to be doable to be usable, but I reckon she'd have to be seen as doable for better sales (but that's just a guess).  I certainly wouldn't waste my time producing a dog, not intentionally, anyway.

The porn references are REALLY derailing an otherwise worthwhile thread. Can we get back on topic, please?

I agree, it got very derailed.

I'm just glad I got my reply in to moriador in time. I absolutely had to clarify what I meant in reply to EClark's porn statement because I doubt there's many more open-minded than I am, no sir :-D

They don't call Wiz "The Threadkiller" for nothing!

lol, yeah, it's gone really quiet now :-P

Quote - They don't call Wiz "The Threadkiller" for nothing!

Only 14 days and you won't have wiz to kick around anymore.

What were we talking about?

Saw the sticky just last night.
Hope you enjoy your retirement, wiz :-)

**
@David**
Your guess is as good as mine :-D

Quote - Anyway, to steer the subject somewhat back on topic: how do your partners feel about you spending considerable amounts of time staring at, judging (sometimes very, very harshly), fixing, and morphing 3D nude models? In some forums, I've seen people (men and women, customers and business owners) compare it to porn (unless the figure doesn't have nipples or genitals, that is). I find that ridiculous. What I do find interesting is just how perfect many us expect our digital dolls to be.

In this very thread, some of the images posted were dismissed because the girl depicted wasn't the right sort of sexually attractive to some viewers.

Does a figure have to be "doable" to be usable?

 

No, it doesn't need to be doable to be usable, but considering what the majority of add-on content for female Poser figures consists of, it does need sex appeal to garner enough support and pull it from the clutches of niche. Maybe she just looks too young. Pumeco has already said he sees her as a "safe teen", which translates to "Barely Legal" and Timberwolf's renders - as nice as they may be - just furthers that image. 

With her clothes on she does look like a young teen - 15 to 16 at most. Could also be why I think she has a boy's body in her default pose, as many teens - male and female - are virtually indistinguishable in body shape. I'm 39. I don't see girls that age as attractive, I see them as children. Anything below about 25 is a child to me. I know myself that it doesn't take a lot to make her more feminine and adult looking, but you don't get that impression until you actually start working with her for a bit and building your own morphs, cause none of the morphs she comes with really do much. 

Presentation has a whole lot to do with appeal as well. Why are figures still loading in their default T-Pose? It takes 5 minutes to pose a figure in a natural, more human relaxed state to load in from the library. Leave the T-pose for the OBJ and the walk designer - that hardly anyone uses anyway. 

 

~Shane

Well, I find them attractive at 15 or 16, just not sexually. Girls from 18 to 25 come across as a little vapid to me, although I will admit they're on the outer fringes of my sexual radar. Kind of a shame when you start thinking of a 25 year old as a kid.

Shane, you asked me a question.

You asked me what I meant by "safe teen" even though I'd already explained it in the same post where I made the statement.  Then you ignored the reply and comparison I posted for you.  Now you're putting words into my mouth.

To clear this up once and for all:

Your take on a safe teen is the polar opposite to mine.  Safe is the operative word in my statement.  By "safe" I mean someone who is clearly of age - and that's the exact opposite to barely legal.

I personally don't see Roxie as "barely legal" as you put it.  The difference with barely legal is that it's come to mean a girl that is legal, but usually doesn't look so.  That's the opposite to how I see Roxie.  I see Roxie as a teen you could safely use without being labeled a perv - hence why I referred to her as a "safe teen".

I was surprised that you'd chosen to morph Roxie into a mature adult, that's all.  There are endless amounts of those in the Runtime.  Like I said, Roxie is the only safe teen we've ever had in the Runtime (as standard I mean) - and that's a good thing.  Not everyone is a fan of women with massive breasts and epic buttocks.  I personally think massive breasts look ridiculous, and that women who have boob jobs simply cannot see the beauty that men see - otherwise they wouldn't destroy their body like that.

Look at the girl attached to this post, an extreme example of a Roxie.

They don't come any more flat-chested than that, she's still gorgeous, still beautiful, still statuesque.  Most importantly in this context, she's clearly of age.  I'm not sure how she'd take to being labelled a child, but I'd probably make sure my hands were covering my balls before I said it :-D

Like you said in a previous message, it's all about preferences, and yours is for black-girl booty :-P

Mine has changed over the years.  I'm roughly the same age as you, but up until the last maybe five, six years or so, I always had a preference for the statuesque, usually brunettes.  Now though, I'm attracted to curvy looking women as well, and often to blondes and redheads.  I still like statuesque every bit as much as I always have done, but I have a lot wider pallette of preference now, than I did then.

Like it or not, the web is full of 18-19 year-old Roxies with thieir clothes off, in fact "teen" is the most popular genre in the industry.  I think it's good that we finally have a mesh in the Runtime that meets that genre when you consider how many of the renders out there, are of nudes.

Ahhh, I hate to disagree with you Pumeco, but she(?) does not clearly look of age.  Heck, I'm only taking your word for it that it's a girl.

And we've had Laura 3 who was defintely a teen... or preteen.

I hate to say it, but Shane has a point about Roxie. When you mature her a bit with curvesher mesh does look like a young boy aside the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ah

She's definitely a young woman, and she's definitely of age.
She's an extreme example, as I pointed out.

.<

BTW, as you're sculpting a Roxie too, are you aware that one of the biggest give-aways regards a persons age is the size of their head in relation to their body?

Babies have a huge head in comparison to their body.  A child or pre-teen still has a notably large head but not as obvious as that of a baby.  On a late-teen (Roxie) the head is still larger in comparison than an adult would be, but not as abvious as a child. 

Once you become a mature adult, those changes pretty much come to a halt.

Well, as I don't have Z brush, I haven't really done any scuplting on Roxie. I just went in and pushed some verts around. I like the improvements I've made. They're not too much different from Shane's, I guess except I blew up her breasts a bit more.

Good luck with the morph, I'm watching as always.

Take note of what I said about head size, though.  It's a vital thing to learn if you have something in your head and want to turn it into a morph and to have her the age you wanted.  The fact that Shane still saw Timberwolf's renders in the same light, is a perfect example of how powerful the knowledge is.

He saw the Timberwolf renders, and how extremely shapely they were compared to a standard Roxie, yet he still managed to pick-up on the fact that it's the same age figure as the standard Roxie.  With knowledge of how head-size to body ratios work, it's dead easy to age Roxie and the girl in the photo.

There's plenty of good books about this stuff, and videos on YouTube etc.

I wasn't ignoring your question, I didn't realize you'd asked one. 

Safe teen and barely legal are the same to me. The images Timberwolf posted very much have that barely legal look to them. They're nice renders tho.  

On the other side, I know that there are many girls who have very mature bodies at 18-19, not every one of them look like they still have growing to do. 

The photo of the girl you posted looks like a young boy. Appologies if that observation upsets you, that's just what I see. If I took the time I could pull up at least a few photos of young guys who look very similar. Androgynous might be a more acceptable description. Bishonen, I think is what it's called in Japanese art and culture.

 

~Shane

Quote -
Good luck with the morph, I'm watching as always.

Take note of what I said about head size, though.  It's a vital thing to learn if you have something in your head and want to turn it into a morph and to have her the age you wanted.  The fact that Shane still saw Timberwolf's renders in the same light, is a perfect example of how powerful the knowledge is.

Nice to know you're looking at it. Thought I might be wasting my time posting  about it since no one left any comments.

I think both yourself and EClark are taking things too literally though, my examples are just that, they're examples, not preferences.

If you want an idea of preferences, I happen to think one of the nicest morphs I've ever seen on here (body wise) is the one hameleon uses to promote his products, the one with the wide hips and an incredible backside:

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

Regards the girl in the photo, she's not a typical teen, in fact, I believe she's 23.  But I couldn't help feeling that EClark (and you to an extent) subconsciously use breast size as an age indicator, and his response to the girl was a perfect example of it.  Fact is, if you put your hand to the monitor and cover her body, she's clearly a young adult when you're left with the head and shoulders.

Anyway, no prob's Shane, just wanted to make it clear what I was getting at.  That it's important to have a mesh that can pull that off quite easily.  I still reckon Roxie is the best base mesh for that because the proportions/head are correct for an 18-19 year-old, a few years over that even.

@EClark
Ok sir, your wish is my command, prepare yourself!

Maybe too muched used to DAZ Amazones. ;) That is the Roxie I use in my renders. Compared to stock Roxie the legs are shortened here. So as you see my Roxie is 8 head lenght tall, which is "normal" for an average adult.

BTW , I don't think Roxie is perfect either, she is just better than her reputation.

That's a nice morph, Timberwolf, very nice :-)

Quote - Maybe too muched used to DAZ Amazones. ;) That is the Roxie I use in my renders. Compared to stock Roxie the legs are shortened here. So as you see my Roxie is 8 head lenght tall, which is "normal" for an average adult.

BTW , I don't think Roxie is perfect either, she is just better than her reputation.

7.5 heads is more realistic for the average adult. 8 heads is idealistic. Head width and shape also plays a role in age, as Pumeco I think was saying. A rounder face is generally more youthful.  

Yes, I agree she is better than her reputation once you start working with her. I've been building some body scaling controls to see what that does to help with more variety.

 

~Shane

@pumeco

I'd reply in detail to your comments to me, but that would apparently be "derailing the thread" and we can't have that! :D :D :D

I didn't mean to imply you were a prude -- but I can see how you got that impression from what I wrote. My bad. Sorry about that. Your further comments make it clear that you are  quite perfectly open-minded. :)

Anyway...

I find the gender/age perceptions different users have of an out of the box figure interesting, and they probably do have considerable influence on how people choose to use such a figure. So worth a discussion -- and still on topic. :)

Apparently androgyny is quite hot in the fashion world (not only in Japan).  I guess if you can pull it off successfully, you can potentially double your contracts. But I don't think it's as much a thing in North America, outside of the bizarre and unlikely world of high fashion.

What makes a figure look male or female? (Or older/younger?) I'm not sure it's as easy or clear cut as we might think.

In the real world, I am regularly mistaken for a guy. But when I tell this to people who know me, they find it hard to believe because I have a very non-masculine face.

It seems we use a few basic cues when making a snap judgment. Aside from clothing, hair is likely the strongest cue. (I was never called 'sir' when I had long hair). Assuming your clothing doesn't make it obvious, by the time someone is assessing you for evidence of breasts or a package, they're probably already feeling deeply uncomfortable for staring at you too long. Apparently, most of us prefer to be able to categorize people immediately.

In the Poser world of T-posed out of the box figures, of course, you don't have all those confounding variables, like hair and makeup and clothing and body language. And you can look at the nude figure for as long as you like.

But I still think that because of our social experiences, we're accustomed to making very fast judgments based on much more limited visual data. In our mental algorithm, we quickly lump obvious breasts and curvy hips into the female category, for example. But it takes just a tiny bit more mental processing when we're looking at a flatter chest and slimmer hips.

Maybe that's what gives Roxie a boyish appearance? She doesn't look like a boy at all. But at the same time, it's not as immediately obvious as it would be if she were a buxom, mature woman. Still, we might be struck forever after by our first impression: boyish, young, teen maybe...

In the Poser world, perhaps first impressions are just as important as they are in real life?

 

 

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

As for the difference between a teen (safe or otherwise) and an adult female, I think any woman who has tried on clothes meant for teens can attest: regardless of body fat, adult females have wider hips.

It may be a tiny difference -- an inch or two on the pelvis -- but the effect on body proportions may be unconsciously noticeable.

Interestingly enough, pelvic widening happens to both sexes throughout our entire lives. I think, though, that it's more apparent in females.

http://www.med.unc.edu/www/newsarchive/2011/may/unc-study-pelvic-widening-continues-throughout-a-person2019s-lifetime

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

Quote - As for the difference between a teen (safe or otherwise) and an adult female, I think any woman who has tried on clothes meant for teens can attest: regardless of body fat, adult females have wider hips.

It may be a tiny difference -- an inch or two on the pelvis -- but the effect on body proportions may be unconsciously noticeable.

Interestingly enough, pelvic widening happens to both sexes throughout our entire lives. I think, though, that it's more apparent in females.

http://www.med.unc.edu/www/newsarchive/2011/may/unc-study-pelvic-widening-continues-throughout-a-person2019s-lifetime

If that's true, that may also account for people geting shorter as they grow older.

**
@moriador**
Haha, well I'm glad to hear I'm no prude ;-)

Regards your post, I think guessing the age of people is something that could be gotten down to a fine art if a person put the time in.  Trouble is, even the head ratio thing won't help once the main bulk of development stops.  Once it gets to that point you have to look at other details in order to guess an age, and that means facial features.  After that, when people get even older you have to start looking at posture for clues, the way they stand and walk etc.  The older a person gets, the harder it gets.

Intersting stuff though, and the first part, the head ratio is something that can be learnt in minutes.  Only the other week I learnt that your eyes never change size thoughout your entire life.  That's why a child looks like it has large eyes, and why they seem to get smaller as we become an adult.  It's just that the eyes stay the same size as our heads grow larger, it gives that impression - weird.

Regards hips and the widening; that's something that desperately needs to be pointed out to teenage girls and young women.  They have obsessions with thigh gaps, but they don't seem to realise that only a mature woman can have a proper thigh gap.  They starve themselves because having narrow hips means that in order to get a thigh gap, they have to thin-out their thighs.  They end up looking like stick insects, not babes.

A mature woman with wide hips doesn't need to starve herself, she can have thighs and a thigh gap as well (as EClark is about to find out whe he starts pushing those polys) :-)

Regards the androgyny, I think one of the easiest tricks for getting that look is to remove your eyebrows completely.  Those two girls in the black gear from the "Embodiment of Evil" Blu-ray capture I posted, they have no eyebrows at all and there are parts of the movie where they look very androgynous because of it.  It's a powerful trick that works because both of those girls are actually very feminine, they have the wide hips (check out the girl on the right).

And yes, I think first impressions of a Poser figure works just the same on our minds as first impressions of a real figure.  It's very true, first impressions count!

I have not looked at Roxie mesh, but I offer an alternate perspective on what may be the situation.

It is much easier to morph body shapes larger than smaller.

Vic and Dawn start with B/C cup breats and the torso and limbs are shapely.

As raw material for a morph base, I would prefer an A size breast amd baseline limbs and torso.  There should be sufficient verts to support much larger shapes.  The polys should follow and outline the muscle, tendon, ligament, and bone so that they only need inflation and not major lateral moves to get the correct shapes when morphed larger.

  It may be that Roxie was developed with some of these concepts in mind.

Given the nature of the community, such a figure should initially present with a FBM of a more standard body shape so that the community does not reject it.  The base mesh would be morph stock rather than a particularly desirable presentation shape.

The figure would need to have a full raft of body shapes and morphs to begin with, rather than a "here is your base mesh, have at it" approach.

Posture has a whole lot to do with it as well. 

It's important to get a figure's posture and proportions right and try to keep them as balanced as possible so that the the modeling process is less of a chore and less prone for making mistakes. Different features can be difficult to model accurately if the center of balance is too far off from what a real human would have in the same pose. 

It also creates problems in rigging, since the rig is being built based on the angles and twists of the geometry in its default shape. If you have to twist the thigh  15 or 30 degrees from its default position just to get it to align properly with the rest of the body the way a real human's thigh would align if s/he were standing in the same pose, then how well is the figure going to bend that knee or hip? And how off is the torso going to look in proportion, since thighs and knees and various other bits are used constantly to guage where the placement and proportions of other parts of the anatomy are going to be or should be. 

I understand the bit about the T-pose being required in order for walk designer to work, but the rest of the posture shouldn't be affected by that. And if it is then walk designer needs to be redesigned so that the limits it places on figure modeling and rigging aren't keeping the figure from looking like an actual human. 

Bad posture can throw off proportions and details through the whole figure, and it doesn't take a whole lot of change to make everything else a challenge and look just a bit or a lot strange. 

 

~Shane

Poser community since the first Victoria is dyadic
Victoria came as an alternative to Posette she is now
the mainstream poser figure and all the other figures try to be alternatives
There is a main concept in all Victoria versions, neutral and morphable
If poser could keep this concept on their basic figures and evolve them, using new poser features that come with every version,
without extreme distances from average, than yes average user could use them.
Ok there are people out there like Jessy, Don or even Simon
but this is not a neutral base to transform to everything, ugly or beautiful.
Antonia was a very interesting example of how community could join and produce a very powerful and supported figure
BUT she lost it not being neutral enough
IMHO every poser figure can be transformed in something desirable and it is a great joy when this happens
but potential don't make a successful figure. It should look great from the beginning
It should be love at first sight :)

My FreeStuff

Nothing really to say here.

I mean, I could say a lot about proportions, body types, human growth, genetic variety, etc, but why bother as long as most users prefer their women having the limb-to-torso ratio of a 12-year-old, the head-to-body-ratio of a fashion magazine sketch, the boob size of a porn actor and the face of a child beauty pageant winner. (In short, looking like your prototypical Marvel-comic heroine)

;-)

Just showing off a little instead.

:-P

BTW, if you just want to have a pattern for pretty, here you go:

And here the classic Loomis woman:

Nice set of comparisons, Joe!

It demostrates something, why we like what we like and why we generally don't prefer normal.  Out of all those figures I don't see one especially idealistic.  The girl in the top-left looks good on the bottom half, but too narrow on the shoulders.  The girl on the bottom looks more equally proportioned but she lacks the curves of the girl in the top left.

I think the girl in the first drawing is a true babe, I like her.

However, the girl in second drawing (the propotions scale girl) is waaaaaaaaay off being an ideal.  Her hips are way too narrow, she has vitually no curve, her breasts aren't anywhere near full enough, and her buttocks from the back view look more like mine that that of a female.  The girl in the first drawing is way hotter than the one in the ideal proportions.

Well, I don't like "Idealistic."

I find it boring and phoney. It might work in advertising (Also mostly boring and phoney) or fashion magazine covers (The epitome of phoney), but I don't want that rubbish in Poser.

Or, to be precise, I don't want people selling "idealistic" as "realistic" because they know that most people can't really tell the difference. (And yeah, DAZ is very guilty of that.)

 

Of course I like beauty, but only if it is actually possible in reality.

Make up ? Of course !

Symmetrical face features ? No problem. Some people have won the genetic lottery.

Triple stacked implants to create basketball sized boobs ? No problem also, as some women actually do that in real life.

 

But everything that goes beyond humanly possible needs to be reserved for cartoons.

I don't want any "Hmm, she looks great but wouldn't she look even better with their legs just a tad longer and her waist a just a tad smaller ?" nonsense.

(And yeah, I know leg bones can be chirurgically broken to create longer legs and ribs can be removed to create smaller waists. But, seriously ?)

A realistic Poser figure needs to be an exact replica of an actual human being, not the "fantasy woman" of the person who built her.

You can do that with add-on morphs if you like, but the default needs to be realistic.

Not semi-realistic, not fantasy-realistic, not photoshopped realistic.

I want "scanned from an actual human" realistic.

Photometrics are cheap now.

Use them.

 

Or simply call what you want a "toon" and not a "realistic human".

I have no problem people using toons for their renders.

Just be honest.

And not phoney.

 :-)

Whoah, Mona, that's an epic pair you have there!
I'm starting to see the attraction now :woot:

BTW, Joe, I meant to say the girl in the first drawing isn't phoney :-)

I have lots of real women like that in my ... ummm ... reference image folders, such women do exist, there's plenty of them.  It's just that over the last few decades the photographers have shifted away from such women, and now it seems focused mainly on teens.

My favourite type of women are the ones they used to photograph in the sixties and especially the seventies, I have heaps of that stuff, there's some truly incredible babes among it.

Quote - I mean, I could say a lot about proportions, body types, human growth, genetic variety, etc, but why bother as long as most users prefer their women having the limb-to-torso ratio of a 12-year-old, the head-to-body-ratio of a fashion magazine sketch, the boob size of a porn actor and the face of a child beauty pageant winner.

LOLOL. Okay. This is true. And a sad commentary on the cultural pervasiveness of current celebrity/fashion ideals.

But what other type of woman would make a worthy match with a man with the brains of an astrophysicist, the financial advantages of a Wall Street banker, the uncanny ability to read women's minds, an erection that functions with perfect reliability, and the willingness to listen for hours on end with enthusiastic interest to the minute details of his partner's shopping/decorating/personal hygiene routines?

People have widely varying tastes, and I don't think there is any one ideal that everyone will agree with. It looks instead, though, as though mass marketing efforts have resulted in a kind of Frankensteinian conglomeration of traits that, put together, would be monstrous... if we weren't so accustomed to them.

Toons. Indeed. The first time I saw a realistic skin texture on The Girl, I found it deeply disturbing. I guess I'm used to it now.

I wonder how people who aren't into CGI respond to that kind of combination? Do they shudder the way I did years ago? Or has the "tooning" of our fashion models and advertizing inured us all to this kind of bizarre caricaturing?

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

Games ,Movies ,TV ,CGI , Alcohol etc etc is a fantasy world to escape reality.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - Nothing really to say here.

I mean, I could say a lot about proportions, body types, human growth, genetic variety, etc, but why bother as long as most users prefer their women having the limb-to-torso ratio of a 12-year-old, the head-to-body-ratio of a fashion magazine sketch, the boob size of a porn actor and the face of a child beauty pageant winner.

Hey, I'm not attracted to the faces of child beauty pageant  winners. That's just sick! Okay, maybe Brooke Shields when she was 14, but I'm only a few years older than she is so, I was pretty much a child myself back then.

Speaking of "Statuesque", here's what I'd consider a prime example of an elegant human statue.

Quote -
Speaking of "Statuesque", here's what I'd consider a prime example of an elegant human statue.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

She looks like she'd snap like a twig. Those thighs are disturbing. She doesn't have enough muscle anywhere for her emaciated look to be due to an athletic activity. (She's no long distance runner, for example.) She looks more like an advertisement for an eating disorder clinic.

But, you know, everyone's tastes are different. I was always told that it was women who were the driving force behind out culture's equating extreme thinness with sexiness, that men didn't really find that kind of thing attractive at all. I never bought that argument before. But I see that it's apparent that enough people of both sexes find it appealing for it to become the dominant ideal.

This image of Kim Kardashian is in an article entitled "Celebrities who have lost their sex appeal." I guess a few pregnancy pounds and she's just a dog now.

http://rollingout.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Kim-Kardashian-7.jpg

I mean, ICK! Can you imagine touching that!? :D

Given the cultural expectations, frankly I wonder how single women manage to have sex at all... :D :D :D

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

Quote -
Speaking of "Statuesque", here's what I'd consider a prime example of an elegant human statue.

oh,hell!!! Can anybody feed her, please?

Are you both serious? :lol:

The girl is nigh on perfection in the sense of "Statuesque" (and remember she was posted as a demonstration of statuesque).   Hell, her hips are almost twice the width of her abdomen, I'd say thats a figure and a half by any standards!  By the time she's the same age as Kim and she's filled out a bit more, her figure will be even better than it is now.

Kim looks hot, definitely, that's the sort of figure I think of when I think "babe".  Women like that are the reason I pointed out to Joe that plenty of those women exist.  Kim in this photo is pretty much the same as the first drawing Joe posted above, same thing, a babe, not a stick insect (but the girl in my pic is not a stick insect either, she's just lean).

QUOTE:
"I mean, ICK! Can you imagine touching that!? :D"

Oh yes, I can, hell yeah :woot:

---

QUOTE:***
"Given the cultural expectations, frankly I wonder how single women manage to have sex at all... :D :D :D"

Well put it this way, if you know of any Kim Kardashians that are having trouble in that department, please do send them my way (you won't find any).  The press talk absolute bollocks, cause believe me, there isn't a man on earth is going to look at that picture of Kim and think she's a dog.

I mean, I realise it's each to his own when it comes to these things, but surely there are limits.  If a publication gave you the impression that men in general would see her like that, you need to start reading a more reliable and honest publication ;-)

She looks amazing.

Oh my god! Someone give that first girl a sandwich! STAT!

 

Kim could stand to skip a few meals, but culturally speaking (my culture, not yours), she ain't that bad.

She looks very unhealthy to me too (the picture of the overly skinny girl). She may just have a very high metabolism, but more likely she isn't eating properly. She has absolutely no muscle definition either. She might "fill out" by the time she is the same age as Kim, if she lives that long.

To me, "Statuesque" brings more of a vision like this defeinition:

"like or suggesting a statue, as in massive or majestic dignity, grace, or beauty"

The posted photo tends to make me think of the terms "frail" and "brittle". I guess this is an excellent example of the great variation in what is considered beautiful from one person to the next.

__________________________________________________________

My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......

The term that comes to my mind for the skinny girl is "anorexic."

OOOOOGLY.

Out of curiosity, and this is a very genuine want to really know why:

What is it about the lean girl that causes you all to see her as being anorexic or having an eating disorder?  I honestly can't see any indicators of that on her body, not anywhere.  If she was undereating or anorexic you'd see her rib cage.  There's not a rib in sight, even her hip bones have flesh around the crest, they aren't popping out of her body like they would on an anorexic girl.  Her face looks perfectly normal as well, not withdrawn.

She just looks naturally lean but shapely to me, a girl who is lucky enough to have a good metabolism and have a nice pair of hips as well.

When moriador posted I sort of giggled and thought to myself, well, that could be the classic thing you see among almost all women, perhaps secretly she's envious of her figure.  But a lot of the comments here are from men so that puts a totally different angle on it.  Granted, she's not the babe-type figure that kim is, she's just "statuesque". 

If you had to be perfectly serious and analytical about it, what is it about her that stands out the most to you when you first gance at her; what's the main feature that makes everyone see her like that?

If it's just the overall impression of her, don't forget she's on tip-toe, a classic trick to make the legs look longer.  Women generally have hips with a notable dip around the waist, she definitely has that as well, by the bucket-load.  Her breasts are big enough that the sides protrude her ribcage even.

She's a stunning example of the female form in my book, and very statueque.  Hell, if she was a 3D mesh and the whole scene was rendered in white with AO, she'd look like the perfect statue!

Honestly, I think it might have something to do with culture. I can't say where everyone else who commented is, but I live in North Carolina here in the states.  I know everyone keeps saying how fat America is getting, so yeah, maybe we see a girl that thin and we think she's starving to death.

It's why I didn't really say anything when you asked for a thigh gap, but most girls don't have one.

Attached Link: http://shine.yahoo.com/fashion/old-navy-thigh-gap-jeans-controversy-180859473.html

Just as an addendum to my last post, I found this while reading my morning Yahoo news:

To be honest, I only mentioned the thigh gap for selfish reasons, I love women with wide hips and a thigh gap.

She has to have wide hips, though, or it doesn't look right.  Women with narrow hips should forget about thigh gaps because they have to destroy their thighs to get one.  Only a mature woman with wide hips can have the ultimate thigh gap.

The only guy on here who's pulled it off successfully is Hameleon.  When he poses his figure, the ass and hips look fantastic no matter how he poses her.  It's one of only two figures on here I'd pay money for.  Trouble is I think she's strictly for demoing his stuff (and can't say I blame him).

But yup, I wanted you to make Roxie have that versatility, like Hameleon has done on his demo babe.  An ass that looks right no matter how she's posed, with the added benefit of wide hips and a thigh gap.

Free or paid, I think she'd be popular :-)

Regards your observation, you probably nailed it right there.  In England we never stop hearing that "Americans are too fat", we get a lot of that.  I think it's a bit hypocritical of them to make comments like that though, because we have our fair share of overweight people here in England as well.

Believe me, America has no more a problem there than we do, not in my opinion, anyway.

Quote -If you had to be perfectly serious and analytical about it, what is it about her that stands out the most to you when you first gance at her; what's the main feature that makes everyone see her like that?

If her thighs were thicker, she would look a lot healthier. 

Ultra skinny doesn't look good on men or women. She may not be starving, but you can see her ribs up in her chest. Mostly its her thighs that give her that "too weak to stand" look. 

I think Kim there ate all the girl's lunch. 

~Shane

Quote - If her thighs were thicker, she would look a lot healthier. 

Ultra skinny doesn't look good on men or women. She may not be starving, but you can see her ribs up in her chest. Mostly its her thighs that give her that "too weak to stand" look. 

I think Kim there ate all the girl's lunch. 

~Shane

To be fair though, you can always airbrush Kim to be thinner. You can't really airbrush the other girl to be bigger. Well, not convincingly any way.

The first is ugly as she is too thin.
The second is ugly as she is too thick.

The Blender node comes to mind.

Blend or shake, both pictures posted and you could get 2 nice looking women.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

Quote - > Quote -If you had to be perfectly serious and analytical about it, what is it about her that stands out the most to you when you first gance at her; what's the main feature that makes everyone see her like that?

If her thighs were thicker, she would look a lot healthier. 

Ultra skinny doesn't look good on men or women. She may not be starving, but you can see her ribs up in her chest. Mostly its her thighs that give her that "too weak to stand" look. 

I think Kim there ate all the girl's lunch. 

~Shane

Look at Ornella Muti Movies from the 70s. That the bodyshape I prefer.

The Poser morph brush has push and pull and now transcends body zones. I am sure JoePublic or Cage could figure out how to get the skinny girl and Kim in and out of Poser....problem solved! :rolleyes:

Edited to add and you could sell the moprhs you created in the market place for other girls to use also! :laugh:

Gary

"Those who lose themselves in a passion lose less than those who lose their passion"

Ah well, ok then, fair enough :lol:

So Kim stole her lunch, EClark believes a quick airbrush might do thie trick, and vilters has Frankenstein fantasies about blending women together in Blender.

So basically, what you're all saying is you want this (see attached).

Forget it, such creatures are girls of fantasy.  They're the exclusive domain of men who possess either handsome good looks, a handsome-sized wallet, or both.  I can just hear the commentator now:

Ok babe, hand in the air, lets take a good look at you - there's a good girl - oh hell yeah!

- Ok, I have 5.000 dollars.
- 10.000.
- 50.000.
- Old guy at the back there, 60.000.
- I have 60.000 dollars.
- Did I tell you she does nude yoga and contortion?
- 100.000 dollars to pumeco over there!
- Any advance on 100.000.
- Yo Shane, check out the booty!
- 150.000 dollars.
- 160.000 dollars.
- 200.000 dollars.
- Sorry vilters, no monthly installments on this one.
- I might as well give her away at these prices, come on guys!
- Wiz, a pretty little retirement gift to yourself, huh?
- 220.000.
- 250.000.
- Any advance on 250.000, imagine the possibilities, guys, come on!
- 500.000 dollars, oh my, they love you babe, they love you!
- Any advance on 500.000 dollars?

Going once ... going twice ... SOLD ... to EClark over there for the bargain price of 500.000 dollars!
*Well done man, that'll be 500.000 dollars in advance - and no funny business this time.

Any questions before I strip her and stick her in the trunk?*
Yeah, does she cook and wash dishes?

BTW... EClark... the answer to your original post is: "fantasy girl."

Everything else posted before or after this post is simply white noise. It's like clothing in the store. Everyone SAYS they want streetwear. The masses BUY slutwear. You're not going to get a meaningful answer to this one.

ROFLMAO

Quote -
Out of curiosity, and this is a very genuine want to really know why:

What is it about the lean girl that causes you all to see her as being anorexic or having an eating disorder?  I honestly can't see any indicators of that on her body, not anywhere.  If she was undereating or anorexic you'd see her rib cage.  There's not a rib in sight, even her hip bones have flesh around the crest, they aren't popping out of her body like they would on an anorexic girl.  Her face looks perfectly normal as well, not withdrawn.

She just looks naturally lean but shapely to me, a girl who is lucky enough to have a good metabolism and have a nice pair of hips as well.

When moriador posted I sort of giggled and thought to myself, well, that could be the classic thing you see among almost all women, perhaps secretly she's envious of her figure.  But a lot of the comments here are from men so that puts a totally different angle on it.  Granted, she's not the babe-type figure that kim is, she's just "statuesque".  If you had to be perfectly serious and analytical about it, what is it about her that stands out the most to you when you first gance at her; what's the main feature that makes everyone see her like that?

If it's just the overall impression of her, don't forget she's on tip-toe, a classic trick to make the legs look longer.  Women generally have hips with a notable dip around the waist, she definitely has that as well, by the bucket-load.  Her breasts are big enough that the sides protrude her ribcage even.

She's a stunning example of the female form in my book, and very statueque.  Hell, if she was a 3D mesh and the whole scene was rendered in white with AO, she'd look like the perfect statue!

IMHO she is simply abnormally thin. The first thing that made me go eeeuuwwww was her arms, they look way too thin and shapeless - like bones with flesh on top but virtually no muscle underneath. Look at the size of her shoulders, elbows, and hands compared to her arms. The proportions indicate a lack of muscle. True, for some people they can be perfectly healthy with long, "stingy" muscles (i.e. world class marathon runners), but you can typically clearly see muscle definition. That's not the case here.

Her legs are a bit better, but the muscles covering her bones are still quite scant. Her knees and ankles are almost as wide as the widest part of her calf. Her thighs are only slightly larger than her knees. Sorry, but I don't statuesque when I look at her picture, I see someone who looks very frail.

__________________________________________________________

My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......

Thanks for the depth, DustRider :-)

I do see what the rest of you see, but like EClark said, I think it's a cultural thing.  For the most part I think European models often do come across as more 'delicate' than the models that come from America.  Not always, but I do think there's a notable difference there in general.

Compare the true American girls of Playboy to the true European girls on Met-Art, for example.  Comparing the statue girl to the girl on auction, I see a different type of figure, but I don't see any illness in it, or even frailty.  I do get how some might see her as frail, of course I do, but all I see is a female who's built like a female, and for me, women aren't meant to be hefty anyway.

Delicate and feminine suits a female.

There are women out there with muscles, hard-bodies, that sort of thing.  All of them are attractive in the right context I think, but the statue girl looks more every-day feminine than women with those sorts of bodies.

It would be interesting to see examples of what others see as "Statuesque", because personally, I would have been perfectly happy to create a figure like that, for vending, if I had set out to do a girl that is supposed to be statuesque.  To me she's a perfect example of that body type and I really can't picture what other people must see when they think of a statuesque woman, if she's not it.

Their vision must be very different from mine.

Another look through my Statuesque folder revealed this girl:

She's a bit more filled-out than the previous girl, but to me she doesn't look quite as statuesque because of it.  I'd say she's probably the next most stauesque girl in the folder, so is this closer to what you see as being statuesque?

If not, I think it must be just a European thing :blink:

Well if I half to chose I want a variety and , ah ,I chose them all.

 

Rock version

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Amazing.

Up to now I was convinced that Vicky 6's proportions were completely made up and "impossible".

I still think her shoulder width is unrealistically narrow, but all the other proportions are a perfect match. Heck, even V6's boobs are actually lower (= more natural looking) than those of that model.

Knees, belly button, hip bones, all in the right place. Would be a matter of minutes to slim the hip and legs down to create a 100% match in shape, too.

That model must be quite tall in real life, given the head to body ratio. If I had seen her on a fashion magazine cover, I'd sworn she was photoshopped, but these porn/erotic spreads are usally not.

Well, looks like Vicky 6 not only has very realistic body details, even her overall body proportions can now be called "realistic". Though definitely not "average".

But definitely "possible" for a fashion model.

(Still don't like her narrow shoulders)

Some quick morphbrush work.

** @RorrKonn** Not bad, and have you seen this one?

I hope you like European Techno, but if not, I guarantee the visuals will ease the pain :woot:
**Click Here To See THE Hottest Music-Video EVER Made
**

I hope vilters watches it, Roxie could sure use some of those Military hotpants!**
**

**@Joe
**You can say that again, wow, freaky how close they were even before the morph, it's true she's not exactly a regular figure either.  I'm not sure if she was altered in any way, but I very much doubt it.  The girls on the European sites tend to be raw and unedited I think.

Have to agree with you on her being tall as well.  Again, can't say for sure but here's another image of her in more of a pose.  If the height of her hips compared to the table is anything to go by, yes indeed, I'd say she's quite a tall girl.

I'd post a few more of her but she has her legs spread in them so I'll give that a miss on here :-D

pumeco : You take your pick of the Russian girls & I'll just half to suffer with the rest ;)

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Too late mate, I already hired each and every one of 'em to beat me up as well :biggrin:
I don't see why Dith should have all the fun just because he's a DJ.

I take it no one found the girl auction amusing then?
I don't know about vending meshes, I think I'd better start vending humour pills :lol:

You're a boring lot today.
It was so bloody awesome I even got myself excited by it!

Quote - I'd post a few more of her but she has her legs spread in them so I'll give that a miss on here :-D

The internet is your friend.

She has an interesting tennis serve.... Grip gets a little slippery thou....

She must be confusing tennis with golf. There is no hole in one, in tennis....

lol....

---

Some things are easy to explain, other things are not........ <- Store ->   <-Freebies->

** @David** If I'd known you were going to hunt her down on the internet, I'd have sent them to you mate :biggrin:

Haven't seen a set where she's doing tennis though, no, the only other two pics I have of her are where she's reclining on that black table you see in the photo, and another where she's sitting on a chair backwards, with her back towards the camera.

Tell you what I did come across today, though, the attached girl looks very much like Roxie (in the face I mean).  The face shape, ears, eyes, very close to how Roxie looks by default I reckon.

If Roxie was a flesh and blood girl, she'd probably have the same looks - or close enough.

Do not post those pictures...

FEED the poor girls.
LOL.

Roxie' BMI is way higher then that poor thing.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

No way is she skinny, no way, she has pleny of meat on those thighs (and arms come to think of it).

Dear Gawd...

Where is the 31st so I can quit looking at this stuff!!!!!!!!!

My kingdom for access to the "Ignore" button!

Dear Gawd, press it then, just joining in, bloody hell. This one fat enough for ya?

BTW, my "Ignore" button works perfectly fine only I'm not that bitchy, I'm a guy.

Moderator's don't have the "ignore" button.

And sorry you couldn't tell... I was kidding you.

:)

Yeah, well I bet my application to be the new moderator has been dismissed now!

Ha- Ha- Ha- ha- , bad luck for you pumeco. . 

I am the "new" toreador, and anything starting with anything else then "R" will be banned by definition. LOL -LOL- LOL-, Toxie- Roxie said so!

Just ordered a 15 kg sledgehammer from Amazon.

And an extra LARGE, Super-Sized, Turbo-charged, and Intercooled "DEL" button.

Wizzy-wiz, you will be missed man.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

Quote - **
@David**
If I'd known you were going to hunt her down on the internet, I'd have sent them to you mate :biggrin:

Haven't seen a set where she's doing tennis though, no, the only other two pics I have of her are where she's reclining on that black table you see in the photo, and another where she's sitting on a chair backwards, with her back towards the camera.

Tell you what I did come across today, though, the attached girl looks very much like Roxie (in the face I mean).  The face shape, ears, eyes, very close to how Roxie looks by default I reckon.

If Roxie was a flesh and blood girl, she'd probably have the same looks - or close enough.

You have any more photos of this girl ?
Different sessions might tell more.
From this one photo I would say she's had plastic surgery done.
on her eyes ,nose ,lips,& probably a ear tuck .
A vagina clip ,A breast job & what is up with those nipples ?

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

The last two aren't as overly skinny as the first, but the first thought that come to my mind is still too skinny, not stauesque. IMHO they could all do with a membership to a gym (a much better way to maintain weight than not eating properly), a personal trainer, and a chef/nutritionist. Of course the same thoughts often run through my mind when I see images of most of the top fashion models today - so my tastes may be a bit out of the norm.

I would say it's crystal clear now what body type you prefer 

If you plan on making commercial characters, a quick look through the galleries and the markeplace here might be a good idea. There are a few characters with ultra slim bodies, but the majority definitely have a bit more meat on their bones. Of course who knows, maybe a lot of people prefer the same body type as you do, and making a character like your first lady might be very popular. 

__________________________________________________________

My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......

**

@vilters**
If I were in charge there would be chaos, that is all.

@RorrKonn
That's the only picture I have of her, and even if it weren't I wouldn't post it here now.  No sir, I've posted three European beauties so far, all of which apparently have an eating disorder, and bloody hell, the last one even has plastic surgery!

What?!?!?!

About time someone else chipped-in and posted some natural women from their side of the pond.  Ones that have never been near that overpriced junk known as Photoshop.  Oh, and no burger fanatics, either, she was strictly for Wiz's pleasure!

Yes, I'm trying to piss you all off, so prove me wrong.  If the example I posted of statuesque is off, well ok then, post a "statuesque" woman that is more statuesque than the girl I posted, lets see her, and don't even think about posting a fatty with an Elvis-style burger fetish - I said statuesque - not walrus!

Statuesque is delicate, elegant and shapely - go for it!

I'm off to bed now, and in the morning, if I see a picture of a more statuesque woman than the one I posted on the other page, I'll forgive you all.  I'm not saying it's impossible but I think you'll have a hard time finding one.

If nobody can find one, I'll just have to assume you were all talking nonsense :biggrin:

**
@DustRider**
But those women of that body type are not a specific preference as I've pointed out before.  The statuesque woman was posted as an example of statuesque because that's what the thread is about.  The second one was posted as a second example for the same reason.  The third was posted for the face, nothing to do with the rest of her.

I actually have a very wide pallette when it comes to preference.  I like anything from the girls I've posted, right up to the babe-type such as Kim and the Auction Girl on the other page.  There tends to be just one thing that's common among my preference, and that's the wide hips (but I still like women that don't have that feature).

That said, I don't like wide hips with narrow shoulders, or narrow hips with wide shoulders - she has to be balanced right.  What Joe pointed out about V6 is a perfect example of wide hips with narrow shoulders, it looks terrible.  Anyway, thanks for the tip regards the vending, I already do that.  This thread is just as good for getting a feel for what people want, and yes indeed, statue girl would have gone down well despite what has been said here.

The reason I know this is the amount of views that certain body types get in image galleries on the web.  There's no better indication of what men want than the amount of views accessed from a thumbnail gallery, because they can already see what they want to click on before they click it.

It's effectively free marketing research done for the vendor.  You click on a specific babe out of a list of images, then that's what you like.

Well I found basicwiz replacement !!! Think she'll keep us in line ?

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

[Girls Girls Girls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1R4AGTFycM)

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Pumeco : I never got involved with this or that look.
I try to avoid politics,religion or anything that involves personal opinions.
Cause it's a endless argument.
You all can like any style you all want.
I was not putting the girl down with the plastic surgery.
I guess I was just felling sorry for her. I'm sure she was fine looking before it all.
I will rag on that plastic surgeon that done a bad job on her nipples thou.

Well hell let me brake my own rule and tell ya some of my personal opinions.
but I woun't respond to any comments to it.
plastic surgeons that helped the solders that keeped getting shoot in the face
cause they had to poke there head out of the trenches.WW1 WW2 it's how plastic surgery got started.
or help kids borned with clip palate or help people that really need it .
those plastic surgeons have honor ,dignity ,compassion.

But the plastic surgeons that feeds on the to young cause some magazine
who could careless about humanity.
told them they alt to look like a super model.
There nothing but a peace of shit parasites.
I would have no objection to throwing them in to a trench.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

@pumeco: Well your girls have apealing  waist/hip/chest proportions, but I realy think they are still to skinny. Besides their small bodysize it just doesn't look healthy to me , when every rib bone of the girls rib-cage is visable.

Even more : people look like 10kgs more on video or photo. So in real life those models you've posted will look even more skinny.

**
@RorrKonn**
Same here, I have no interest in politics and cannot stand politicians.  No one and no entity should be able to dictate what a country full of human beings can and can't do, simple as that.  We're all earth beings and this is our planet, it belongs to us, not to a select few power-mad individuals who made it "to the top" through corruption and lying to the citizens of the planet.  I was in two minds of using "Earth" as the location on my profile, because that's where I really live, Earth.

I'm a citizen of Earth and shouldn't need a bloody passport or anyones permission to explore it.

Plastic surgeons?  It's not the surgeons I dislike, it's the media that brain-wash women into thinking they need them in the first place that are the problem.  But all of this stuff is irrelevant to what was posted, you still failed to show a more statuesque woman than the one I showed.

Statue Girl therefore takes first prize for "statuesque" by default.

Regards the art, bloody awesome, I'd vote for her as mod.  And that babe on the bike isn't a million miles away from the girls in my folders (especially the Retro/Vintage one).  I'd happily post images of the sort of women I think are goddesses, but they're nude and look suggestive and I'm not sure I'm allowed to post them.  You'll notice the women I've posted so far are either clothed or are in a reference-style, non sexual pose.  The babes in my Retro folder look a lot more seductive than the girls in those images - don't think I'd be allowed to post them - they might be seen as porn.

@Timberwolf
Bear in mind that she has her arms over her head, that's why you see her ribs.  She looks perfectly healthy to me, perfectly normal.

Seriously :-)

Oh No we can not post porn.we can not post porn links.Just no porn anything.

Biz's girl on the bike is my personal idea of a dream girl.

she's probably not ya statuesque play boy style everyones dream girl.

but she's my dream girl ;)

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

BTW, who's the artist, their full name I mean?

I have a couple of books on Erotic Comics and Artists through the ages, they're like an illustrated chronology right up to modern day stuff but I'm not sure I've even seen this artist before.

Looks nice and gritty, nice stye and colouring!

Some links to statuesque women.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5515/11059679673_1d7a5eb309_o.png

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.28050.1372367802!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/kate-upton.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5486/12178361396_40d7766414_o.png

 

Just did a quick google search.

Actual statues don't count, lol, and the other girl (nice as she is) totally is not statuesque!

I just looked through my other drive and found another girl who is statuesque, she has a rounder figure than the original Statue Girl I posted but I'd rate her just as highly on the statuesque scale.  So where is she?

Well, I've decided to make you all sweat for a bit first, especially Wiz.

So what sort of girl could pumeco possibly be hiding on his drive this time?
Shall she be goddess or shall she be dog?

We shall see later, that is all.

Quote - Some links to statuesque women.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5515/11059679673_1d7a5eb309_o.png

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.28050.1372367802!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/kate-upton.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5486/12178361396_40d7766414_o.png

 

Just did a quick google search.

That's what I was going to suggest - ask the great interwebs oracle - google. Just do a google search for "statuesque images", and you will get a lot of examples of what people think is statuesque.

IMHO statuesque is more than a body type. There also has to be a certain elegance to the image/subject. In addition to the elegance, there is also an air of confidence and beauty that trancends the physical traits. Proper body language is a huge part of statuesque. If you do the google search an image of Katherine Hepburn will be in the first 50-100 images. It's more of a portrait, but to me she is very statuesque in the photo, because in that photo she conveys everything I see as being statuesque - timeless beauty.

The closest thing I have in my gallery to stauesque would be the image in the link below. It's really more Frazetta-esque, but it does have some of the elements that invoke the idea of statuesque in my mind.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2511337

__________________________________________________________

My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......

Actually, Statues do count, since that is where the term derived from. Tall and curvy.

** @DustRider** Nice girl but she's more like women in my "Amazons" folders, more of a warrior girl :-)

@Ghostofmacbeth
But the real statues aren't of statuesque women, they're sort of sem-voloptuous, and the real babe, she's looks more the typical babe-type figure!

@All
Here you go, you cannot possibly say that this statuesque beauty is too skinny, or can you?  Then again, I think I'd better hold my breath on that one 'cause you never can tell with you Americans, you're a strange lot!

Either way, imagine giving her a full-body massage, bloody hell :woot:

Can't judge all Americans buy a few.

We never where or wanted to be what they considered Artist.
So No ,you won't find us in there art history books.

Well if you didn't know this ,ya about to find out that I'm older then dirt.
Before there where PC's we had DC & Marvel comics but they where censured.
in latter years they made some PG stuff.

but we had Heavy Metal Magazine comics when from time to time it got published.
Ya just never new when or if there would be a next Heavy Metal.
In the back of Heavy Metal you could buy hard to find comics n books.
Some comic stores had not porn but uncensored stuff ,spencer's in the mall had posters.
In latter years some Artist like Boris ,Royo had calendars and there where covers of the fantasy novels.Rock album covers.
Some had Art books in Art Stores.
But cool not porn but uncensored Art was hard to come buy.

Heavy Metal Magazine .

Simon Bisley .

Oscar Chichoni .

Olivia De Berardinis .

Juan Gimenez .

Boris Vallejo .

Luis Royo .

To name a few.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

in 1988 the rock band poison released open up and say ahh
they censored the album cover.

open up and say ahh

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

I'm not judging Americans, I was just being witty.  I blame the media for trying to brainwash us all into believing that America is fat and doesn't realise it.  It's nonsense of course, in fact American women in general are extremely hot as far as I'm concerned.

You do eat a lot of burgers, though, cos I've seen the burger bars on every corner in the movies :biggrin:

Anyway, you should never have posted those links.  You've distracted me now.  I absolutely LOVE that stuff, and now that you pointed out Bisley, I have seen his work, I've seen lots of it.  I'm just a noob but I love it to bits.  That Heavy Metal Magazine as well, I could look at that stuff without ever getting bored, awesome!

The only time I get to see it is online on various websites.  I'm not even sure they sell that publication in the bookstores here.  I'll have to look in WHSmiths next time I'm in there, but I reckon I'd need a specialist shop for that stuff.

I started getting into that art not too long ago out of frustration with 3D.  I just got sooooooooo fed-up with not being able to do what I want with it, even though I'd spent so many years messing around with it and so much money on it over the years.  Nothing has changed and nothing ever will.

I still have nothing to show for getting into 3D or CG so I said to myself, screw it, I never used to waste so much time achieving nothing when pencils, paint, ink and paper ruled.  You don't have to worry about the price of keeping up to date if you do things traditionally, and real art is actually worth something whereas prints of renders from a computer, are not.  I mean you don't have to worry about whether your pencil is 64-Bit compatible, either, none of that crap.

Imagination - materials - done!

I used to love drawing, I really miss it.  And the thing is, I think those images you pointed out are waaaaaaaaay better than a photograph at achieving a visual anyway.  They're a feast for the eyes and although I like real images, I don't get the same sort of a satisfaction out of a photo as I do drawn images, it's just not the same.  You know what I mean because you said yourself, the biker girl is your ideal girl ;-)

There are a billion photos of babes out there, yet you chose a drawing to represent her

In answer to the original question - I always use "statuesque" rather than "down to earth". My renders are dance, fantasy and sci-fi and especially for dance renders the body shape I want to use is very much like the "statuesque" pics Pumeco has been posting. Those are gorgeous! I think maybe it is a European thing. Tall, slender blondes are very popular here. (In the same way I like the shape of M3 much better than M4.)

Here for me are some beautiful examples of the perfect female body and what I'm usually trying to achieve in renders:

The Ballerina Project

(Don't think there's any nudity so far as I remember!)

I can't speak for all Americans, but when I think of a statuesque woman this image comes to mind. Wonder Woman is what i would consider a statuesque beauty.

Ever watched the credits on the games ? 
there as long as the movie credits.
Takes a lot of people to make games.

Even a Poser render
Vicky ,hair ,cloths ,poses ,props  & renderer. that's 6 people to make one render.

For fast CGI Stills just a single one frame render with no animation.
1.DAZ Poser / but you restricted to available characters ,hair ,cloths ,poses ,props etc etc.
2.Photoshop with at least a Wacom Intuos Pro Medium or better / but you half to have the skills to paint.

3. zBrush with at least a Wacom Intuos Pro Medium or better / but you half to have the skills to sculpt & paint.

The Artist I listed made there mark long before PC's.
The old ways just can't compete with Photoshop & zBrush.
For a lot of different reasons CGI is just more proficient then the old ways.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

@toastie
I shake you by the hand, sir, I'm glad someone agrees with me.  That ballerina website is superb, lots of graceful girls on there, 58 pages of them in fact.

Well, 57 pages actually because page 33 doesn't work for me.

Bookmarked.  Awesome site to use as reference, shame the images are so small though, I want epic sized images!  Can't imagine why they post them so small on a Tumblr site, it's not as if they have to worry about bandwidth.

@EClark
Wonder Woman is cool but she's like the DustRider babe, she's more an Amazon/Warrior-Girl, not statuesque.  It makes clear to me why people see the girls I post as skinny though, it's obvious now that Americans have a very different idea of what statuesque is to what I do.

As toastie pointed out, think more "ballerina" and perhaps graceful and you're in the right ballpark for statuesque.

@RorrKonn
Agreed, doing stuff on a computer has way more sophistication.  What it lacks though, is the "hands-on" ergonomics of holding a real pencil or brush and putting it to real paper.  I bet even the best Wacom tablet on earth wouldn't give that (although I hear they're very impressive, and I wouldn't say no to one).  There's also the end product to consider as well.  Make your art in the computer and the art is wothless from a collectible point of view because the original doesn't exist.

A real, physically produced work of art is a different story though.

I think there's only one 3D app out there that is truly fully "artistic" and that is ZBrush.  I think any person who masters both the 2.5D Pixol technology and the 3D technology in ZBrush has a very good chance at producing awesomness.

It's the bloody interface that holds me back 99% of the time, and those tiny sliders drive me nuts!!!

Don't forget that, when looking at many of these pictures, the tricks start long before Photoshop.  Standing in tip toe can give the appearence on longer legs but so also can a very low camera angle.  The pictures a few pages back show this very well, the one with the very thin girl is from a very low angle where as a lot of others are from a much higher camera angle.  OK the thin girl will still be thin but the proportions of her legs are silghtly skewed.

 

 

I use Poser 13 on Windows 11 - For Scene set up I use a Geekcom A5 -  Ryzen 9 5900HX, with 64 gig ram and 3 TB  storage, mini PC with final rendering done on normal sized desktop using an AMD Ryzen Threadipper 1950X CPU, Corsair Hydro H100i CPU cooler, 3XS EVGA GTX 1080i SC with 11g Ram, 4 X 16gig Corsair DDR4 Ram and a Corsair RM 100 PSU .   The desktop is in a remote location with rendering done via Queue Manager which gives me a clearer desktop and quieter computer room.

True, the girls are clever at teasing and the photograpers are clever at exaggerating!

The internet done for Art what the Radio done for music.
& the internet made it a lot easier for Artist & Musicians to share there stuff with the masses.

Before the internet some one had to agree to publish your Art.
Sixx:A.M. - Lies of the Beautiful People .
Good luck with that & if they did you only got very little money for it.
Sixx: A.M. - This Is Gonna Hurt .
Art galleries where political horrors.

What good would it do to make a song record it and then lock it in a safe ?
since camera & the internet we all get to see Davinci ,Vango ,Picoso etc etc
Might even be able to buy a poster or two.

With CGI ,No there's no original but I could have a print made & hand sign that one print.
Coast atleast $300 to make a oil painting with lead poisoning and all.
Air brush at least $500 ya where a gas mask and still spit paint for days.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Yeah I know all that, and like I said, I love CG art, I'm just frustrated with it because no matter what I try, I hit a brick wall with it.  I never used to have such issues with a pencil and paper, and I never will have those issues with it.  The cost of pencils and paper are non existent compared to the price of software, and the end product is likely to be worth a lot more.

YouTube is full of people teaching drawing and traditional art, it hasn't gone away and it never will.

With CG it always feels like an inifinte loop of:

>>>loop

*- Wrong program - Right program but essential feature missing - Essential features all there but program crashes - Program doesn't crash but has bugs - Program is as solid as a rock but the interface is incomprehensible - Program almost reaches what you want and you have to start again because it suddenly becomes incompatible with something else you need -

loop>>>

The whole thing's a farce, always has been.  It's been like that ever since I got into CG with Bryce2, it was like that even before then and still is to this day.  Nothing has or ever will change in that respect.

Natural media painting programs exist so that you can "mimic" a real pencil on paper, that's how superior CG art is - not.  Nothing is or ever will be better than the real thing.  A 3D print will never be as good as a real sculpture, and the result of a real media painting program will never be as authentic as real pencil on real paper.

:biggrin:

It's the same with synths, they're falling over themselves to mimic the sound of real analogue synthesizers using digital.  They'll never actually do it no matter how good they get at it.  The big brands are starting to realise it and are slowly bringing in real analogue gear again.  Real art is the equivelant or real analogue, and nothing in the digital domain will ever be as good as the real thing, no matter how good it gets.

Here's an example of what I mean:

Check out the photo attached to this post and make a list of how many software packages you'd need to pull it off and make it look as real as that photo does if you were to use 3D software.

You'd need something good at modelling, something good at hair, something good at particles so that you could do the water using fluid dynamics.  You'd also need some kick-ass talent to go along with the amount of money you just spent on software.

Now compare that cost to a sheet of paper, an eraser, and some pencils.

I've never seen a CG figure look as real as the women in that photo, but hang on a minute, that photo isn't even a photo, it's actually a drawing (no kidding).

CLICK HERE TO UNDERSTAND WHY REAL ART WILL NEVER BE BEATEN

So now you understand that whenever I come across yet another problem with software, I get more and more drawn to throwing it out of the window completely.  The only interest I have in CG now is for vending, I personally gave-up hope of using it for anything "artistic" long ago.

Your problem Pumeco is that blaming the medium for what it lacks instead of tailor your talent to use the medium. For instance, same picture you show of the girl in the shower. What if you sculpted her in stone taking a shower. How do you show the water in stone? Would you not call it real art? Or would curse the sculpting companies that made the tools to sculpt with. OR would find some other way to show the water, like actually using water or a  crystaline type of rock?

I think of Poser and CG art as a lot like Green Lantern's ring.  It's only real weakness is the color yellow.  But the only real limitation is your imagination.

It also depends on why you are using the software and if your 'art' has a purpose.  I have always had a fairly good imagination but lack any skills with pencil and paper.  OK maybe I could get better with some training and a lot of time but if I want to get my imagination into the real world I am not going to better Poser with my set of pencils.  Much better for me to spend the time trying to build the character and textures I need than trying to draw. 

I have had photography as a hobby for over thirty years and I enjoy it but without a vast budget I am not going to be able to photograph the Sci-Fi images I have in my mind.  I am also not looking for Photo Realistic in Poser but more a 'believable' image.  No one will look at any of my Poser renders and think 'that may be a photograph, but I hope some might look and think 'someone or a place like that could exist'.   Mind you with most my characters at a relative 5' 1" with a thin but athletic body no one is going to think statuesque, but then that is not my aim.  There are plenty of renders out there to meet that need.

 

 

I use Poser 13 on Windows 11 - For Scene set up I use a Geekcom A5 -  Ryzen 9 5900HX, with 64 gig ram and 3 TB  storage, mini PC with final rendering done on normal sized desktop using an AMD Ryzen Threadipper 1950X CPU, Corsair Hydro H100i CPU cooler, 3XS EVGA GTX 1080i SC with 11g Ram, 4 X 16gig Corsair DDR4 Ram and a Corsair RM 100 PSU .   The desktop is in a remote location with rendering done via Queue Manager which gives me a clearer desktop and quieter computer room.

Exactly. I didn't start using Poser thinking I could create photorealistic images. Yes, I'd like to see how close I could come to doing it, but that's more of a challege than a goal. I originally wanted to use Poser to tell a story. I've done that once and started a second one. I got sidetracked though because of learning how to use the software to create more content.

I like the fact that there are so many legacy figures in Poser. They help me populate out the 3d world that my characters live in, and that't's not a world full of supermodels and hunks, but real people... and supermodels and hunks.

I think you've both got the wrong end of the stick.

I'm not knocking CG and I'm not knocking Poser; I like CG and I like Poser and I'll never stop playing around with this stuff.  The point I was making is from an artistic point of view.  Why would I be better off paying out a constant stream of cash for various software packages that fail me every time I do it?

Why would I choose that route to produce "art" if I could do the same with just pencil and paper and have a real physical piece of art to show for it?

My art doesn't have purpose because I don't have any art.  The reason I don't have any art is because CG attracted me away from real media a long time ago.  One thing I do know is that if CG didn't exist, I would still be drawing and I'd be a heck of a lot better now than I was then.

It's just as easy to visit YouTube and learn how to draw anatomy as it is to visit YouTube and learn how to sculpt it in ZBrush.  It's just as easy to cheat by tracing an outline as it is to load-up a figure and trace over that.  It's cheaper to use real media than to keep up with software.  It's better to have a physical piece of art (no matter how bad) after you've put your heart into producing it.

It's better to be in total control of what you're creating.

Nothing but your own skill will ever come between you and a piece of paper.  In the world or real physical art, software, bugs, crashes, and incompatibility simply don't exist.  The image I posted was to demonstrate that you don't need sculpting, painting, dynamics, or even a computer or camera to produce a photo.

I was not suggesting that you shouldn't use those things.

My point was that all you need is a pencil, paper, eraser and practice.  CG doesn't get you out of the talent requirement, it merely changes how it's done.  CG will always have reliability issues, but real media never will.  That "photo" was created without any computer at all, nevermind the rest of the 3D tech that would be required to produce something as convincing as that.

Anyway, this has gone way off-topic again (my fault), sorry about that.

It takes exceptional talent and years of training to create a truly photorealistic artwork in traditional media.

With CGI and the right tools, it only takes a few minutes. and no artistic talent at all.

 

Of course you can't use a low-end hobbyist tool like Poser as a benchmark for what CGI is currently capeable of.

As for tangible artwork:

You can easily create limited edition 2D or 3D prints of your work if you need something your customers can hang on a wall or put on a shelf.

 

http://ir-ltd.net/

http://www.twinkind.com/en/landing

 

BTW, with the right tools (=figures) and the right technique, you can even squeeze some realism out of Poser.

The difference is that I could send this scene to anyone owning Poser, and he/she would be able to replicate my result with the push of a button. No talent required at all.

That's not possible in traditional media.

But that sort of tangible work isn't worth anything in the physical world, and only goes to prove my point further.  115 DSLR's and a whole lot of talent (which that guy has), still doesn't get you an original, it gets you a scanned copy, it's not art, it's technology.

Prints have no real value because they're just prints, even limited edition print is still a print even though you can demand a little more for it.  If you produce something in real media you have the best of both worlds because you can scan and sell prints, limited editions and whatever else, just as the CG artists do.

What the CG artists cannot do, though, is make much higher amounts of money off' the original work.  No one (including the artist) will ever posses the original because it never existed other than in data form.

There will be no tangible difference - ever.

CLICK FOR DROOL TIME

Such work has substance and real monetary value, a scan has neither.

Sorry, but as a "work of art" I find that quite unimpressive.

I see talent and technique, but no difference between that and a CGI render or one of the millions of erotic/pornographic spreads floating around the internet.

Unlike the original hyperrealism of the 60's which transgressed boundaries between traditional art and photography, what is the artistic point of yet another "sexy" female in a world swamped with such imagery ?

I mean, who still pays for "artistic nudes" these days ?

Only those too prudish to admit they like porn, I guess. Lol.

I don't mind looking at naked people, not at all.

But to be "art", there has to be something else that catches my interrest. A certain style or technique that CGI can't easily replicate.

The  simple "realistic nude" is pretty much dead now. Too many of them out there, too easy to do.You can't tell where "art" begins and where "porn" ends these days.

CGI killed the realists, I guess.

;-)

 

 

BTW, I don't consider 99% of CGI to be art.

Neither 99% of photography.

I'm a virtual scale modeller, trying to build a virtual world I can play with.

As a boy I built houses from Lego blocks, had Matchbox cars and built Airfix kits.

Now I build everything from polygons and instead of decals and enamel paint I use texture maps and shader nodes.

It had nothing to do with "art" back then, it has nothing to do with "art" now.

Problem is, most people feel better if they can call themselves "artists" so they dismiss the value craft has.

The nice thing about CGI is that you can acually share your craft.

I can use someone else's craft to add it to my own, like I could buy the craft that was condensed in an Airfix kit to achieve things I couldn't have done of my own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ pumeco

I use Poser form Poser1. (Yeah, I am an old timer, put the accent on old)

Many-many moons ago, I wanted to "change, craft, adapt", call it whatever you want, Poser figures.

Lacking the tools at that time, some 10-15 years ago, I accidently found a little free proggie called Anim8or => www.anim8or.com

It was so basic, that I was moving each and every vertex, one, by one, into a new position in 3D often breaking groups, vertex orders, uv-mapping, name it, I broke it. I broke all what could be broken in a Poser figure during years and years learning the stuff.
Even then, it was fun and frustrating at the same time.

But ? ? I althrough I became known as Tony, the Lo Poly Guy, I did what I did. And became an expert in Lo Polygon figures.

Over all those years, I bought 3, yes one, a second one, and a third item.

All where so badly done, that all ended under the Delete button and I swore to myself. => Sooner or later. . . . . . .

Then came Hexagon, and I started working in Hexagon.

And now I have been using Blender for some months, and still learning, growing, and honing my skills.
When I see something? I think in polygons.

Take the last example : "Roxie the Forestwalker", that is now available in freestuff, was made in 2 days "quality spare" time.

What is my point here?

Every end user wants something different out of his/her 3D experience. Be is in DS or Poser, with figure X or figure Y.

Do you have a goal? => Do it. => Make it. => Build it.

it is not the tool. It is not the figure. It is not the 3D application. => it is in the mind and the fingertips.

Some use Zbrush, some stick with Wings or Hexagon, some go to Milo, Silo, or Blender.

Whatever. => Do it.

To a chicken I would say: STOP rattling, start laying eggs.

@ Eclark 1894

You asked the question. So this answer is for you.

Build what YOU like to build.
The first and only person that has to be satisfied and proud of the product is the person you see in the mirror in the morning.

After all,
If you build something that is NOT completely to your lking? It will never be good, and where do you go with your personal satisfaction?
You can not deliver 100% quality if you are not building what YOU want to build.

@ Myself as an example

I asked what clothing pleople wanted for Roxie. => What did I choose?

Option one would have been the pomeco undies. => Too easy as Poser provides a Roxie dev suit.
Every end user can cut that up in about 5 minutes in any available free 3D app, throw it throught the fitting room, and put a procedural shader on it.
All is over in 10 - 15 minutes max. => that is no chalenge.

Option 2 would have been one of the old style dresses, and I might just do one next someday.

Option 3 was the bathing suit with leggings. => Again, Poser Roxie comes with a dev suit. => No chalenge.

Then comes a guy with a request and comment; "No that would be asking too much for a free stuff item".
=> DING-DONG.
=> Roxie Forestwalker was in free stuff within 2 days of quality spare free time. And I had fun doing this chalenge.

 

Hobby 3D has to be fun. Has to be about personal satisfaction.

It is of NO, and I repeat, of NO importance AT ALL what others think.

3D is about what the guy in the mirror thinks. You and only YOU. (and is is extra nice to get a compliment)

Some like paintings.
Some like oil on canvas.
Some like pensil on paper.
Some like clay sculpts, others are into bronz, or copper works.

ART, is . . . . . personal.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

saw this & thought of you all.

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=214013

Guess those other girls just don't look that skinny now ,huh ?
Think she'd accuse the other "skinny" girls of being fat ,:rolleyes:

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote -
But that sort of tangible work isn't worth anything in the physical world, and only goes to prove my point further.  115 DSLR's and a whole lot of talent (which that guy has), still doesn't get you an original, it gets you a scanned copy, it's not art, it's technology.

Prints have no real value because they're just prints, even limited edition print is still a print even though you can demand a little more for it.  If you produce something in real media you have the best of both worlds because you can scan and sell prints, limited editions and whatever else, just as the CG artists do.

What the CG artists cannot do, though, is make much higher amounts of money off' the original work.  No one (including the artist) will ever posses the original because it never existed other than in data form.

There will be no tangible difference - ever.

Quote -  

So are we looking at the 'value' just based on monetary terms.  It is a genuine question as I am interested in your viewpoint.  I do understand that a physical painting or drawing will have a value dependant on talent and demand, although even here I cannot fathom vast amounts placed on piles of bricks and unmade beds, but, in general, I accept what you are saying.

For me the monetary value has does not really enter the equation, if it did I would not spend the vast amounts I do at Rendo every month.  The value comes from the pleasure I get from turning some on my thoughts into something others can see.  It might be my vision of a scene from a book I have read or an illustration of a book I hope to write.

The area of the value of data as opposed to a physical mediem is difficult.  Photographs taken with a DSLR, mainly digital these days, can earn a fair amount in a stock library even though they can be printed and copied at will. The actual value being determined by the subject matter and the demand, much like a painting in fact. 

Our viewpoints clearly differ but, like I said I am interested in what you have to say. I have no intention to sell anything and I doubt any of my renders would be worth anything anyway.  To me CG is one of the ways to enjoy my retirement.

 

 

 

I use Poser 13 on Windows 11 - For Scene set up I use a Geekcom A5 -  Ryzen 9 5900HX, with 64 gig ram and 3 TB  storage, mini PC with final rendering done on normal sized desktop using an AMD Ryzen Threadipper 1950X CPU, Corsair Hydro H100i CPU cooler, 3XS EVGA GTX 1080i SC with 11g Ram, 4 X 16gig Corsair DDR4 Ram and a Corsair RM 100 PSU .   The desktop is in a remote location with rendering done via Queue Manager which gives me a clearer desktop and quieter computer room.

Six days and counting...

...and never again must I endure the pungent smell of "dead horse" wafting through the air.

@vilters
Well yeah, what you said makes sense, and that's what I intend to do.  I see CG as a way to hopefully earn a little if I get good at vending.  That's all I see it as though.  Like I said, the only program that has the features to pull off what I'd want for creating actual "art" is ZBrush - but the interface drives me nuts!

I'll always put the effort into learning ZBrush because despite this, it has all the features I need, well, everything apart from a dedicated cloth modeling system I mean.  But even then, I'm hopefull Pixoligic will come up with something as kick-ass genius for doing cloth as they have for topology, painting, and pretty much everything else really.

For creating actual art there are only two options for me: ZBrush or real media.  The infortunate thing is I can't even dreram of working on art right now, I have to earn something before I can relax and do stuff like that.

@RorrKonn
Those ultra-skinny girls do have some benefits though, they make incredibly good reference material for bone placement and learning anatomy.  For example, if I'd sculpted a rounded figure and wanted to give her some bone structure, refering to a pic of a living skeleton is the way to do it.  It teaches you how much to make a bone visible under the skin depending on the BMI of the figure you modeled.  For example, an avarage woman would still have hip bones showing, but probably not ribs.

BTW, just saw you getting your self-portrait done, very cool, I think he ruined it towards the end though :biggrin:
CLICK TO WATCH THE RORRKONN SELF-PORTRAIT SESSION

@hornet3D
I'm flattered you want my opinion but I'm no expert so I don't really know what to say to that one.  I just feel like I've personally come to the point where I have to seperate art and business whether I like it or not.

I'm very passionate about CG, and even though I'm a big believer in doing things traditionally, I would still choose CG if only it were good enough to let me get hands on with it.  Unfortunately though, it isn't, all it does is hold me back because I've not produced a single gallery image since I started out with it all those years ago.

That's sort of my own proof to myself that it's not doing me any favours.

I tend to tinker around with 3D rather than produce anything artistic with it, but hopefully there's some good will come of tinkering around, I think I'd make a good vendor but even that remains to be seen.  I'll probably produce something, then discover no one wants it and I'd drop the whole thing and move on - who knows.

But that's the only monetary value I see in CG (for me personally).  The only other way I could earn money from CG is to master ZBrush and produce "art" with it, but like I said, I'm not in the financial position to do stuff like that, I wish I was.  I think I have a good idea of what sort of art imagery would sell, but producing it is another matter.

@Wiz
You say that, but I think you'd miss it all if it weren't here :biggrin:

** @Joe** Sorry man, somehow I missed your post out.

I don't agree with you on that one.  That pencil work was very fine indeed, truly outstanding the way he got that skin texture on the face, back and shoulders etc, wish I could do that.

Funny enough that's one of the things that fascinates me about pencil and charcoal; the fact that no matter what surface finish you want to achievce it can be done if you have the skill to do it.

It wouldn't matter to that guy whether he needed SSS, frosted class, or plastic, he simply draws it using the techniques he has to achieve the look of those finishes.  Think about that, imagine the power you posses when you can pick up a pencil and effectively render whatever you want, without limit, and no lack of technology will stand in your way!

Amazing, and here's another mind-blower:
MAJOR TALENT AT WORK

I don't know what he's saying, but it probably goes something like ...
*'I have total control over my pencil, and therefore, my art'.

Regards whether something that has been copied is art, well, that question is true of CG or traditional art.  My take on it is this, if I had the skill with a pencil that these guys have, I'd be able to create absolutely anything in my imagination and it would look as real (or unreal) as I wanted.

Technology can't limit you, only your own skill and imagination.

Even if they smash or thrash a RorrKonn self portrait. I always appreciate the effort.

masking goes well with air brush .or just holding a thick mask a certain distance from the paper.

U Might like Mudbox UI .

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - With CGI and the right tools, it only takes a few minutes. and no artistic talent at all.

This is only true if you're using pre-built content.

Quote -My art doesn't have purpose because I don't have any art.  The reason I don't have any art is because CG attracted me away from real media a long time ago.  One thing I do know is that if CG didn't exist, I would still be drawing and I'd be a heck of a lot better now than I was then.

When I went to school for cg, my drawing skills actually improved many times over. Part of school was a requirement to keep a sketchbook. One assignment was to fill an entire book in a 2-month period. That's 200 pages. And little doodles on half of them didn't count. had to be complete pages. 

There are many CG artists that can't draw very well traditionally but will blow your mind with what they can do in digital format. Just like there are amazing traditional artists that would have no clue how to operate any of the software a CG artist uses. 

And art supplies can get just as expensive as software, the cost is just more spread out over time. One of the reasons I don't draw as much as I would like to is always running out of supplies. I also love working in clay, but at $16 a pound it gets expensive quick. 

~Shane

**
@RorrKonn**
Haha, yeah, Grim Reapers look cool no matter what!
BTW, why did you mention MudBox, does it have cloth modeling?

@Shane
OMG, you're a moderator!

You're one of them now, the moderator clan.  And Wiz needn't think I hadn't seen this coming, either.  I knew I wouldn't get the job, I just knew it.  I think it was posting that fat woman what did it!

Congrats mate, I'll have to suck-up a bit now so that I can get stickies and stuff if I vend something :biggrin:

"This is only true if you're using pre-built content."

Yeah, but that's the whole point of Poser, isn't it ?

Being able to borrow someone else's talent to create something you wouldn't be able to do otherwise ?

 

 

**
@RorrKonn**
Doesn't matter regards MudBox, just saw the price, I'm not paying out $795 for a software package.

Cloths app ,never used it so can't say .
http://marvelousdesigner.com/community/gallery/view.aspx?messageseq=1859 .
Hey ALL !!! What other cloths app's like marvelous designer are there ?

---

zBrush & Mudbox both are to put 
Vector Maps on SubD meshes.
Normal maps on game meshes.
on ya retopologize mesh.
That's is what they are for .
If your using zBrush & Mudbox for anything else your just playing.
You can make $800+ from one mesh.

---

Pumeco I might have a clue why you have not gotten any where with your CGI.
What CGI App's do you have ?

The bar bone minium to get any where with CGI you need.
C4D Prime,zBrush ,wacom intuos pro medium ,photoshop.
$2000.00.
So if you don't at least have this ,no your not getting any where.

A decent Studio would have Max, + Plugs ,Mudbox ,wacom cintiq ,photoshop + Plugs.
$20,000.00.

You can replace any main app with any other.C4D with Max with Maya etc etc .
or better yet just get them all.

---

AmbientShade is a Forum Moderator. That's a RIOT.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum :tt2::woot::lol::unsure::tt2::woot::lol::sneaky:
Bang your Head
God save the Queen.
I'd let them argue for a 1000 pages till there blue in the face and the apocalypse is the past.
No I never applied for the job.

OK AmbientShade ya first priority as a new moderator is a SPELL CHECKER !!!

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - AmbientShade is a Forum Moderator. That's a RIOT.The lunatics have taken over the asylum :tt2::woot::lol::unsure::tt2::woot::lol::sneaky:
Bang your Head
God save the Queen.
I'd let them argue for a 1000 pages till there blue in the face and the apocalypse is the past.
No I never applied for the job.

OK AmbientShade ya first priority as a new moderator is a SPELL CHECKER !!!

I'd have paid DAMN GOOD MONEY to see the faces of the usual suspects when they got this news.

I feel good leaving, now!

Quote -@Shane
OMG, you're a moderator!

crap, how'd that happen?!?!

Quote -OK AmbientShade ya first priority as a new moderator is a SPELL CHECKER !!!

lol, your posts alone would keep me busy all day. ;)

 

~Shane

@RorrKonn
I only wish I knew of an alternative to Marvelous Designer.  I think the price is outrageous, but even so, I started putting cash away for it because cloth is the only thing my setup lacks and Marvelous Designer is pretty damn awesome.   But then, when I got pretty close to buying it I found out (just in time) that even that licence would not allow me to use it commercially.

Screw that, they can hang on to it, and I'm not dumb enough to buy into monthly Adobe-style subscriptions for a licence I'll never own.

The cloth in Poser is way too slow, the cloth in DAZ won't let you use your own geometry (despite early indication that it would), and Marvelous Designer are pretty much taking the piss with the pricing because they have no competition.  I'd like to see it sell for those prices when a competitor enters the market - lol

I have a nice set of tools, the only thing missing is cloth unless I want to spend a long time doing it the hard way.  I mentioned only a few weeks back that I hope Pixologic will add some sort of kick-ass cloth tool to ZBrush.  If you look at some of those mesh insert tools that drag objects across a surface, it's not hard to imagine a cloth tool that lets you drag sheet-like cloth over the top of your objects.

All they'd need is parameters for suction so that it would 'cling' , gravity so that it would drape, and the usual parameters you have for cloth so that when you drag the sheet over your object in real time, it will stretch, bend and sag depending on the parameters you set.

That's what I'm hoping for, but whether they'll do so is another thing.  If anyone can do something like that, it's Pixologic.

@Shane
Haha, I don't know, but I hope the forum doesn't have an initiation process in mind for you :woot:

I don't really have a problem with Marvelous Designer except for the price  and the fact that I don't quite understand how their license works. But it's an excellent program for making clothing easily.

That said, and were I skillful enough,  I could probably build similar clothes by hand in Blender. There is one thing I'd like to know though. How versatile is MD? Suppose I wanted to build a pirate costume for Rex? or a Victorian gown for V4? Could MD do the job?

Shane is a moderator? We're all doomed! Doomed, I tell you! Dooommed!

**
@EClark**
Yeah, you can do whatever you like in Marvelous Designer as far as clothes go.  You can even create a soft sofa if you wanted, a pillow, a duvet, curtains, whatever.  You can even trap air under a jacket and blow it out if you wanted, it's neat stuff.

I'd have it myself by now if it wasn't for the pricing.  I'd want to use it for commercial purposes, but to get the advanced edition with a commercial licence costs serious money.  I'd rather do it the hard way than pay that, no matter how good it is.

I think it's way over-priced for what is essentially just a cloth simulator.  They have a demo if you're curious, but I advise you to read the differences between the licences very carefully if you plan to use it commercially.

It's awesome, but be careful ;-)

Yeah. You can do pretty much anything in MD. Provided you can work out how to do it! I'm seriously stumped by some things because I have the sewing abililty of a grapefruit and have no idea how real clothes are put together, so creating patterns is a total headache and usually involves a lot of shouting for me. There's a pirate outfit for sale in the MD store so that one is definitely doable for someone with clothes-making skills.

I have MD2 though on the old licence system, I didn't bother even looking at MD3.

Hey Toastie, you know where to send that licence if you get fed up of it :biggrin:

When I say I don't know how their license works what I mean is the annual thing. Do they make you pay annually to use MD or once you buy it, you can use that version of MD forever?Fo0r some reason that's just not clear to me.

**
@EClark**
You can only use it forever if you buy the "perpetual" licence, but that licence comes in different categories and it's extremely expensive for the one that will allow you to use it commercially.

Basically, they've adopted the greed-machine system Adobe use, but you don't have to use that option.  You can pay mothly or you can buy a permanent (perpetual) licence so basically it's like this:

• Different versions of the software to choose
• Different licences to choose
• Different payment options to choose

To buy a permanent licence that would last forever and allow you to use it commercially is the expensive up-front option (no doubt to force people onto the Adobe-style subscription greed-machine they've implemented), and if you do that, you're no wiser than all those Adobe users out there who are paying a constant fee for a licence they will never own.  For software like Photoshop there are much cheaper pay-once alternatives out there and people should support those instead, but for software like Marvelous Designer, there is no alternative yet.

It's expensive for the only licence they have that's actually worth having.

MD licensing comes with two distinctions - Personal and Enterprise. Personal is for a named individual, Enterprise is for a legal entity. Check the License Agreement, section 3 Uses & Restrictions - para 1 applies to Personal Licenses and clearly states that a licensee can sell their original work made with MD.

Then you can decide if you want to buy a license for the Basic or Advanced versions, and then whether you want that on a monthly, annual or permanent basis.

I see nothing to stop anyone a buying license for the basic version for a month, making an original dynamic item for Poser, and selling it. "Licensee may sell or distribute its original works and their derivatives in any file formats and Licensor acknowledges that it has no right, title, or interest in and to any such original works and their derivatives."

Seems pretty flexible to me.

MD is a very good but specialised tool, and as such has it's own limitations.

But then, IMO limitations are good ;)

----------------------------------------

Not approved by Scarfolk Council. For more information please reread. Or visit my local shop.

**
@caisson**
Did you see this part?*

*"There is no difference between Personal(Advanced) and Enterprise License other than it is for personal use or use in companies. Like other software, we frequently check the use of Personal License in companies, which will be in breach of the License Agreement. If you are a freelancer, you are eligable for the use of Personal License, however if you are to continue the use of Marvelous Designer in Enterprise conditions, you will have to purchase an Enterprise License"

*Sounds like they check up on you, make sure you're not using it commercially, that's what put me off buying it.  When I spend that much cash I expect to do what I want with it.

Like I said, I saw that just in time to save a very expensive licencing mistake!

Yup, I saw that. Do you work for a company then?

If you want to use it for yourself, and make stuff you can sell, you can do that with a Personal License. Read the terms - http://www.marvelousdesigner.com/footer/license.aspx

----------------------------------------

Not approved by Scarfolk Council. For more information please reread. Or visit my local shop.

Actually, that puts me off as well. I don't like the idea of paying monthly or annually for using software. It's not just for MD. I wouldn't pay to use Poser that way or my browser either.

I don't work for anyone or any company, but the point is, if you had visions of buying the Personal Advanced licence and then using it to generate an income selling the clothes you made with it, they'd probably see you as a company using it to create and sell clothes - and that means an Enterprise licence.

The software requires internet and "calls home", no doubt they can cut your licence just like that (but I'm not saying they would).  All the same, I don't think I'd want to find myself in a situation where my tool is suddenly taken from me unless I buy an Enterprise licence.

Such a licence agreement technically shouldn't even be legal.  They're selling you a licence based on terms which effectively, they have the freedom to decide at will even after you've agreed to the licence.  They get to decide whether what you're using it for is good enough for them to allow you to stick with a Personal licence or not, after you've agreed to and purchased the licence.

Very cool program, but for me personally, they can stick both the licence agreement and the prices where the sun doesn't shine.  I'd rather wait it out for ZBrush to get a cloth tool, which hopefully, it will.

Quote - Actually, that puts me off as well. I don't like the idea of paying monthly or annually for using software. It's not just for MD. I wouldn't pay to use Poser that way or my browser either.

 

I am of the same view but unfortunately this is the way some companies are going.  Not an issue with MD though as I could not get it to run on my machine and tech support was neither technical or supportive so a ruled out MD at any cost.

 

 

I use Poser 13 on Windows 11 - For Scene set up I use a Geekcom A5 -  Ryzen 9 5900HX, with 64 gig ram and 3 TB  storage, mini PC with final rendering done on normal sized desktop using an AMD Ryzen Threadipper 1950X CPU, Corsair Hydro H100i CPU cooler, 3XS EVGA GTX 1080i SC with 11g Ram, 4 X 16gig Corsair DDR4 Ram and a Corsair RM 100 PSU .   The desktop is in a remote location with rendering done via Queue Manager which gives me a clearer desktop and quieter computer room.

I don't get it.

Buy it permanently.

Or annually.

Or monthly.

It's your choice.

If you are using it yourself, get the Personal License and sell what you make. If you work for a company, get them to buy the Enterprise License.

What's complicated about it?

It's got to be the most flexible way to buy into an app I've seen. I mean, anyone could buy a month's license for $40 - about £25 in proper money ;) - make some dynamic cloth item for Poser and then sell it. Even if you don't keep up the license to keep using MD, you'd still hold the rights to whatever original stuff you've used MD to make.

----------------------------------------

Not approved by Scarfolk Council. For more information please reread. Or visit my local shop.

Yeah, I agree it's flexible.  But can a person realistically master it and create sellable products in that time?

By the time you've learnt it properly and created something, I'm guessing it would have cost at least £100 in proper money.  Your 100 Sterling gets you exactly no licence once you stop paying for it - poof - all gone!

Even then, you'd have to sell a fair few garments before you made that 100 quid back mate :biggrin:

ah , Adobe PhotoShop does not have any competition.
You can lease Adobe Photoshop for one month.

I actually want Max, Maya, Mudbox to have a leases option.
Last I looked it was just Autodesk CADs for lease.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Adobe has plenty of competition, I use it myself.

I wouldn't worry about seeing other packages jump on the leasing bandwagon.  You'll get your wish, It'll spread like the plague and it's equally as deadly.  I won't be joining in the stupidity, I'll simply stick to open source if/when any of the programs I use move over to it.

I will not rent software.

Adobe's products are easy to replace.  Take "HitFilm Ultimate" for example, way better than Adobe's After Effects and at a fraction of the price (you only pay once as well).

CLICK HERE TO SAY BYE BYE TO ENDLESS ADOBE SUBSCRIPTION COSTS

All part of the service :biggrin:

Can we drop the software debates and get this back on topic please?

 

Thanks

 

~Shane

Well, I can't speak for the others but I hate Adobe and the bloated, over-priced crap they produce.
Believe me, nothing would please me more than to not talk about it.

No worries.

No.matter, what characters I used (my own only Masha for v4)

I just use some voluptous and a4 morphs. Also, better way to get perfectly looking bottom shape, it's simple. Just try to set xscale for hip = 105-108. :-)

But this parameter need to be unhided. Cr2 editor will help.

Quote -
To be honest, I only mentioned the thigh gap for selfish reasons, I love women with wide hips and a thigh gap.

She has to have wide hips, though, or it doesn't look right.  Women with narrow hips should forget about thigh gaps because they have to destroy their thighs to get one.  Only a mature woman with wide hips can have the ultimate thigh gap.

The only guy on here who's pulled it off successfully is Hameleon.  When he poses his figure, the ass and hips look fantastic no matter how he poses her.  It's one of only two figures on here I'd pay money for.  Trouble is I think she's strictly for demoing his stuff (and can't say I blame him).

But yup, I wanted you to make Roxie have that versatility, like Hameleon has done on his demo babe.  An ass that looks right no matter how she's posed, with the added benefit of wide hips and a thigh gap.

Free or paid, I think she'd be popular :-)

Regards your observation, you probably nailed it right there.  In England we never stop hearing that "Americans are too fat", we get a lot of that.  I think it's a bit hypocritical of them to make comments like that though, because we have our fair share of overweight people here in England as well.

Believe me, America has no more a problem there than we do, not in my opinion, anyway.

Also, I think that by using Poser 7 morphing tool you can create a beautiful shapes for any body parts.

Hey, thanks for posting that, Hameleon!

Ah, so that explains a lot, the official DAZ morphs are really nice.  I have both the official DAZ morph sets for V4 (Morphs+++ and the Muscle Morphs), but I don't have Aiko morphs, never bothered with Aiko.

I'll have to try what you did (without the Aiko bit), you made I nice job of it, great ass and hips :-P

Cheers mate!