I don't get it... why SM's Poser gallery highlights water/fire effects?



  • @karina said in I don't get it... why SM's Poser gallery highlights water/fire effects?:

    I call that a scam.

    I've been using Poser for 22 years now. I was an "insider" for 8 of them. I did SOME work for the Poser 6 manual, but it wasn't until Poser 8 that I worked totally on the manuals. From Poser 1 to Poser 7 I was "just like you." LOL

    I don't see it as a scam, to be honest. Going way back, I started just with Poser from version 1, but then I wanted to learn how to create things myself once Poser 4 started to flourish. It grew from there. I got a lot of inspiration from other Poser users, and sometimes, yes, they used other software to get the results they did. It's all part of creating art, IMO.

    These images you are discussing are gallery images that were submitted by other users. I don't see it as any different than the galleries you see at Renderosity, or HiveWire, or DAZ. I don't see them as promos, but I can certainly understand how some people might think of them that way because they are on the SM site.

    Just my personal opinion. Not meant to be one of an "insider." It's not my intention to start an argument. 8-(


  • Poser Ambassadors

    3D aritsts rarely ever use just one program. Even professional zbrush artists often use an external renderer like keyshot or arnold. Or they composite in photoshop and adjust layers and levels. Animated films also have a lot of postwork done to them. So how reasonable is it to expect a Poser render not to require any postwork at all? If you're making renders for promotional work to sell a model then I can understand not wanting to see postworked images, but when you're looking at a gallery of artwork demonstrating potential uses of the software I think that's a different set of criteria.



  • @AmbientShade said in I don't get it... why SM's Poser gallery highlights water/fire effects?:

    when you're looking at a gallery of artwork demonstrating potential uses of the software I think that's a different set of criteria.

    Yes that's what I've been trying to say. But you said it better. 8-)



  • Maybe it's because I've seen so many digital images, but I find it quite easy to note when something was part of a render and when something has been painted in later. Still, that won't be true in all cases, and some will spot it less clearly than others.

    Some disclosure always works well. Just add a small blurb below the images where the artists note which 3D resources or additional programs they used. Give some credit to the tools, and talk a bit about the process. The people interested in the SM gallery are just a few clicks away from purchasing the program. They'll be the kind of viewer interested in how the image came together. Some groups on sites like Deviantart actually mandate a full crediting of images in this way - and it seems to work well enough.



  • @adosity

    Yeah I agree that some input would be cool, but the SM site doesn't seem to be set up that way. Rendo's gallery has a whole bunch of things in place to do that when you submit a gallery image. Credits, comments, automatically adding gallery images to product pages if you select the related products in their store, etc. Nice setup.

    But this whole topic is a bit of a hornet's nest ... because if we kept renders to things that were ONLY done in Poser, you'd have to only use content furnished with Poser (no DAZ or other third party figures, clothing, materials, etc etc). And we all know that there is a HUGE wealth of content created for use in Poser, and that content was all created in other software. 8-)

    So again, in my humble opinion, there aren't ANY images that were 100% "made in Poser". We've got lots of marketplaces and free content and other addons to prove it. ;-)


  • Poser Ambassadors

    Here's the way I see it - if I take a photo on my Canon DSLR with a Sigma lens, then process the RAW file in Lightroom, is it a Canon image? Or a Sigma image? Or maybe Lightroom?

    I say it's MY image. I think SM's wording on the gallery pages is good - they clearly & correctly throw the emphasis onto individual creativity.

    What I would consider before posting to a branded gallery though would be - how important was that brand in helping me create the image?

    PS. Right now, I can't think of anything with creative value where the raw output from a capture device (camera, render engine etc) is used without processing. IMO unprocessed renders only have value as technical demonstrations & I sometimes think a screen capture would do just as well ;)


  • Poser Ambassadors

    Here's my render for the Poser Purists.
    0_1511917092701_purists.jpg

    I would have included something from the library but all that stuff was made in another app, so it wasn't allowed. Yes, even the floor plane...



  • @AmbientShade Wait, wait!!! Did Poser make that computer you ran it on or the operating system? Scam! I call Scam! :)



  • Here's the way I see it - if I take a photo on my Canon DSLR with a Sigma lens, then process the RAW file in Lightroom, is it a Canon image? Or a Sigma image? Or maybe Lightroom?

    Well, if you take an image from a camera, then you heavily manipulate it with software ABC making it have a look that a camera cannot do by itself, then you cannot truthfully say "Made with camera XYZ". It was made with camera XYZ & Software ABC.

    Of course you can say "Made with camera XYZ and other tools" and put that in camera XYZ sales brochure... but that's somewhat disingenuous, as you're not giving credit to ABC when it was an integral part of the process, and a customer purchasing camera XYZ expecting to have that effect, he will not.

    It's a different thing when you take a picture with your lights and you use a common software to do a rather simple operation, like crop your figure or get rid of something in the image. There are dozens of lights to use and dozens of simple editing softwares, and because they are common I don't see a need to give them any credit.

    And that comes to the core of my beef with adding water/fire/smoke effects as integral parts of a render in Poser. There's no established process that supports common tools that easily add water/fire/smoke. There's zero support by Poser for any software doing that externally. So I don't think that's fair that SM takes credit for Poser for images with integral water/fire/smoke effects. If SM wants to take credit for their product for water/fire/smoke, then create an add-on to import these simulations from Blender or whatever. But with zero expenditure of time and cost by SM for water/fire/smoke, I think that these images are a tribute to the artist's time and cost, not to Poser.

    It's a very different thing than just importing an OBJ prop or figure. There are dozens of OBJ editors around, and Poser does support nicely OBJ import and export. So SM can fairly claim that to Poser without really much need of saying "Uh, that box was edited in Wings3D", as they have spent the money and time to include that in Poser, and included it very well.



  • But this whole topic is a bit of a hornet's nest ... because if we kept renders to things that were ONLY done in Poser, you'd have to only use content furnished with Poser (no DAZ or other third party figures, clothing, materials, etc etc). And we all know that there is a HUGE wealth of content created for use in Poser, and that content was all created in other software. 8-)

    That's a good point, and one might argue that a Poser gallery should contain only what comes with the product.

    But I don't go to that level of purity. Someone takes 10 hours building a mesh in Blender, then 10 hours more building a texture in Corel Painter, imports the whole thing into Poser, and takes 5 minutes to render in Poser. I see as perfectly fine to call that as a "Poser-made image", as all these imports are fully integrated and very well supported by Poser and rendering is also a very friendly and efficient process. SM paid the money to make the process easy and painless, so they can claim that to the product they sell.

    But SM has made ZERO efforts to make water/fire/smoke anything easy in Poser. There are is no support, no pipeline, no import, no add-on, no tutorials, no scripts, no instructions to do it, no nothing. There's only a lot of pain to do that. Customer's pain, not SM's pain. And then SM puts in the first page of the product gallery several renders with water/fire/smoke as a credit to their product... well...


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @fbs7 https://www.daz3d.com/vb-supershaders-for-poser11-superfly-bundle?cjref=1&utm_source=cj&utm_medium=affiliate

    There's a few liquid shaders in that set, including milk, beer, coffee and - wait for it - water. All for Superfly. They even have the splashiness effect.

    And if you take the time to look up some of seachnasaigh's posts from back when P11 first came out you'll see he did several renders of fire. Here's one: http://www.sharecg.com/v/84443/gallery/11/Poser/Superfly-fiery-ghost-for-HiveWire-horse?interstitial_displayed=Yes

    Don't even get started on what bagginsbill can do in the mat room.



  • Here you go, just for giggles, made only from stuff that comes with PoserPro11. Straight jpg export.

    Long day.

    0_1511947330845_long_day.jpg


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @fbs7 For examples of what Poser can do, I think the discriminator should be that the image is rendered in Poser, not that the meshes are modeled in Poser. I'd even allow for significant postwork, if the extent of postwork is disclosed.
    For a gallery, I'd be much more liberal.

    Some water effects:

    Eldar house waterfall and stream (P9 Firefly), Stargate puddle (Superfly)

    Lothlorien waterfall (Superfly)

    This is circa P7!:
    TinkerBell's school for fish
    Concentrate on the clear water in the foreground stone pool - soft ripples, rocking the lilypads, etc.

    @rokket 's Demonic Bounty Hunter, using BB's animated procedural flames:
    0_1511960874154_Ghostrider P9.jpg

    Not fire, but rather a hologram effect: Pauline as Cortana
    0_1511961322488_Pauline as Cortana - Superfly 900p.jpg

    Fire, and lava: Pauline as a fire sprite
    0_1511961612686_Pauline fire sprite.jpg



  • I'm not that good, but if a person really knew what they were doing with the morph brush, they might be able to get a nice looking water or fire effect in Poser.



  • @eclark1849 said in I don't get it... why SM's Poser gallery highlights water/fire effects?:

    I'm not that good, but if a person really knew what they were doing with the morph brush, they might be able to get a nice looking water or fire effect in Poser.

    That sounds a lot 1980s. Meanwhile...



  • and



  • @fbs7 Not really sure what your point is. Maya and Blender are modeling programs. Poser is not.



  • @eclark1849 said in I don't get it... why SM's Poser gallery highlights water/fire effects?:

    @fbs7 Not really sure what your point is. Maya and Blender are modeling programs. Poser is not.

    Precisely. My point is that Poser has zero support for water/fire/smoke, so it fishy to have these effects in 30% of the top galleries that a customer sees.

    I'm not saying it's impossible to have something that looks like water/fire/smoke, I'm saying it's not fair to make a marketing promo in the product web site with such emphasis on water/fire/smoke.

    If these images were in Renderosity it would be one thing, but in the product sales web site it's different.

    Having said that, I acknowledge that there are materials that look like water/fire/smoke; so a render with textures that look like that is perfectly fine; I was careful on choosing my examples to select ones where water/fire is an integral part of the 3D render, not a texture trick.



  • @raven
    Hehehehe I worked hard at updating all those Pad props. Thanks, it's nice to see someone using them!



  • @fbs7 To be fair though you don't know what they're promoting. Honestly, I don't know if you can get those effects in Maya or Blender either without some modeling or sculpting. of a mesh. I do know that you can render those materials in Poser if, like most of the content used in Poser, it was modeled in another program and imported into Poser to be rendered. I think that was the point Ambient shade was trying to make earlier. So you tell me, what tool would YOU use in any modeling program to get that particular effect you keep pointing to?