My recently posted gallery image "Smoking kills" seems to cause some very emotional statements from both smokers and non-smokers. I really seem to have stepped on a landmine here... As I didn't intend to cause any trouble to the good spirit of this wonderful community, I apologize for my comment line in the description. Next time that a picture of mine may be of controversial content, I will stick to the technical details. I didn't mean to insult anyone, it's just my humble opinion that caused me to make this picture. I won't start arguing with scientific facts here, it's just an artistic (I hope so) expression of mine. Thanks to the smokers for rating my image solely on the artistic point of view.

duesentrieb, I bet there is a 'line' between Europeans and Americans on this to some degree. I have found that most Europeans who visit my Swiss friends are smokers and look askance at our (American) views on smoking. Smile-next time I'd look for some title that is a little more subtle but says the same thing. My "Not in our back yard" was every bit as 'moralistic' or 'chiding' as yours, but I didn't get snide remarks from those who think environmentalists go too far. Then again, maybe 'everyone' is for the environment in one way or another (depends on how much it hits your pocket book or 'rights' I guess) and smoking is a 'rights' issue from many people's viewpoint from the 'getgo' (and scientific facts just don't seem to be important in the baggage on this emotional issue). From the artistic standpoint, very well done pic. I tend to agree with your decision. Just stick to the technical details--we won't get in trouble that way G. Diane B

As a European (just barely) I have to say Diane is right. There is a wide difference in the way we look at smoking as opposed to Americans. Everyone knows it's bad for them, the taxes are oppressive, and everyone is going to quit "tomorrow" but it's not such a big issue over here. Sure, you can't smoke in cinemas or on public transport, but there's not the (oh, how can I describe this without being too offensive) "panic-reaction" (grin) amongst non-smokers when a smoker lights a cigarette. Your image is likely to provoke more of a reaction amongst Americans than it is Europeans. But, either way, it's a very well done picture. Paul

Diane, I agree with you. Maybe I should have named the image "The pleasures of smoking" ;-) BTW: I'm from Germany, and we don't have such strict laws against smoking as in the USA. Class action suits against tobacco companies are not possible here the way it was done in the States. There surely are a lot of national differences concerning this topic.

Paul, you've hit it on the head-'panic-reaction' G. I'm an ex-smoker for many, MANY years and really do hate smoke now, but I do try and be empathetic to other smokers. However, one of the things I hate about our American attitudes is that we fully (and WELL) support tobacco growers (I live in NC where it is a MAJOR economic issue) and castigate smokers. Many years ago I lived in a county where the major agricultural product was tobacco. Some of the farmers started to make plans to change back then. However, since we give 'allotments' to farmers (which can be bought and sold) and they make money with gov't backups or 'incentives' on those, many farmers have never considered other plans. continued below

part 2 Its now enough time that all those who were 'forewarned' could have switched to something else, but there is now yet another generation of farmers (and 'big agriculture') that is dependent on those gov't incentives/backups (for those who don't know--if the price for the tobacco isn't enough, the gov't buys that tobacco at the higher price that is already set and stores the tobacco--thus guaranteeing farmers their 'price' and giving them no incentive to switch to a different agricultural product). We can't talk out of both sides of our mouth on this G. If we don't want it, then we should pressure our gov't to stop these economic incentives to farmers and help them move on (in this part of the country they could make a fortune on 'turf' farms LOL). I have to say too, that I used to raise sheep and got 'wool incentives' for 'guarantees', but that's been done away with. Farmers can adjust. I sure didn't mean to give an economics lecture here, but Europeans are probably not aware of how our system works in total. We have the surgeon general issuing warnings, class action suits in court and paying farmers to grow the stuff. What a crazy thing, right?!?! LOL. I guess this is REAL OT, isn't it?!? Sorry--as to the image--art IS controversial in many cases (look at Legume's--gee, he hasn't posted anything that stirred anything up for quite awhile). Diane B

I think you're confusing this forum with another Poser Forum...;) You needn't apologize for posting something that might provoke debate and discussion.

Personally I am very anti-smoking. Smokers can claim personal freedom all they want but that stuff does bother and irritate the people around them. There are many people with allergies to the stuff. There's also the issue of second hand smoke. One of the perks of being a Californian is I don't have to tolerate these junkies in public. I had to go on business to Nevada a few years back and it was physically painful for me to sit in a restaurant. I can say the same thing about perfumes. But since that is not a general public health issue and merely an irritant to me and others with allergies to it I'm not about to demand it be banned in public. But don't expect me to be polite to people who force it's presence on me.

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

Well when I posted this URL to the image's pic it wiped out my comments about the image... So I'll say that I like the way the image came out. The lighting in particular.

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

Nice post Picnic-the schizophrenia about smoking irritates me too! It makes no sense. We ban things that MAY have borderline tox problems (the sweetener cyclamate for example-which had far fewer problems than saccharine-which is legal!). Then we subsidize tobacco growers-put MTB in our gasoline-and when its found to be hazardous and insidious we leave it in anyway cause oil companies are making a profit on it and used some crack brained, poorly researched "environmental" reason for putting it in the gas-and then raising the price to pay for it! So we pay EXTRA for gasoline with a poisonous additive that pollutes our water as well as air-and was suppposed to reduce pollution-which it did NOT. Go figure.. BTW I find bars in California which allow smoking and ignore the laws.... Eric Walters

I took a look at the image, very inventive. I think most smokers know how deadly it is when they wake up every morning. Hacking is a great way to get your heart started before coffee ;-) I don't smoke and every one of my friends that do are very happy for me; most of them wish they had never started. My family is a different story, many of them didn't quit until their heath began to fail. Art should stir conversation IMO. Good work. -Jeff H.

heyas; well, i liked your pic, and i wanna know... how you made the skull in the smoke fx!!! :)

I doubt you'll ever persuade anyone who smokes to quit, but if you do or don't, God bless you for trying! I smoked for 45 years, watched friends die from it, and didn't quit until I got emphasema from it. I asked for what I got (don't we all?), so no comments are neccessary. Keep up your efforts, maybe it will help someone...

I never knew that a single picture could start such a discussion... obviously it wasn't boring, eh? ;-) Bloodsong: I rendered the head of the Poser skeleton, then adjusted graduation in Photoshop to get rid of the 3d look. After that, I applied a wave filter to make it look more blurred. I created a new blank image, applied the "clouds" filter and defined it as a pattern. Then, with a pressure sensitive tablet, I applied the smoke to the skull using the pattern stamp tool. A little blurring here and there, a bit of darkening the upper left part of the skull, and finally making the smoke layer a bit transparent.

One can choose to smoke if they wish, but ignorance is not bliss. If one has any doubts as to the healthiness of smoking, just look at a picture of a smoker's lung. It's charred black and shrivled like a prune. Now compare that with a non-smoker's lung who breath's a little bit of smog and you'll see the difference. There is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that smoking is bad for you. It's up to you to decide if you care or not. p.s. duesentrieb, screw the contraversy. Always say what's on your mind. You may take a few insults, but at least you get respect.