Hmm... Am I the only one?

At first I was like 'wtf is this?'. Right now I'm not sure what to think. It seems like a good idea but I feel like it takes away from what the rest of us who render from scratch do - it's not just copy and paste or flip a few switches but with 3d stock I'm incline to think that people will look down at what we do just a little bit more. I dont know /shrug.

You know.. after looking that link, I'm inclined to agree with Sabreyn. don't think I'm much of a fan. Alot of that is due to what Roz said....

My first thoughts looking through that were teh same as Roz.. WTF is this? then as I continued to look through it, my WTF meter kept going up & up.

My hubby jokingly once said that poser/studio art is pretty much like doing paper dolls, (I made sure to correct him on that notion) and with stuff like this, people will definately think that.

Alright here are my rants on it.

1.) My 8yr old daughter could take one of those pre-made-paper-dolls & stick it on a pre-made-background then use a brush and add some sparkles.

2.) The people using this, didn't have to buy all the resources we had to buy.

3.) The people who get to use this, didn't devote hours in poser (or daz) picking and choosing what goes where and what looks good.

4.) People are saying its like Photo manipulation, but it isn't. With photo manipulations you have to remove the subject from a background (that is time consuming and work in its self). Photo manipulaters usually re-paint everything extensively. It requires work and artistic ability.

5.) This makes us & what we do look trivial and easy. And it isn't. =(

I could keep on going but I'll breathe fire if I do. I am really not happy with it.

^^Everything you said, I completely agree with! I just suck at putting my thoughts into words.

It's kind of funny to see the transitioning of "stock"; back when I first started messing around and thinking I could actually DO some of this stuff, I'd see "stock" sites that had backgrounds. That's it. Now, you can get A N Y T H I N G as stock. I'm really not keen on the thought that I'd work on something for hours and hours, put it up, and have other people look at it and say "psssh! I could do that in 3 minutes, see? BING BING BING- done!" I saw that DA recently ruled that anything you render yourself can be considered "stock", as long as you're not cutting something out of someone else's work and calling it stock. Hmmm...

The other thing that puzzles me is, WHY do people do this? Why do they render random bits and put 'em on a website like that? Is it for personal gratification? Totally unselfisha nd generous natures wanting to let other people have for free what they paid for? I just don't get it!

Why would you want to sell "stock" of artwork like this? I understand "clip art" and I understand "stock photos" those have a specific purpose. This seems to be setting folks up to be dishonnest about their abilities and skill. Which is just sad.

These look like 'tubes' to me...aren't they? And if they are, I see nothing wrong with them. A lot of people out there enjoy the poser images, but are unable to accomplish them on their own, like me, so when I want to create an image using a poser character, I appreciate being able to access them. Tubes have been around for years, for this specific purpose, and are made from real photos, as well as 3D graphics, and even clip art.

Of course I have my own biases, as you all do.

My other thing... is with tubes, its usually an image, right? leaves... fire... stars... etc.

My thing is... you look at one of those Fairies it is made up of:

Aiko3 + Morph Pack ($30)
A skin texture (sarsa it looks like) $15-20
An outfit... $15 or so
A texture for the outfit $10
Hair - $15 or so

Add that all together... and you have $80 or more invested in that one fairy. That all of us have had to pay for. And its just being handed out for free. That is *another* thing that pisses me off about it.

*shrugs*
I have paid for poser tubes, that I bought in sets, and didn't mind doing so, because I know the artists pay for them intially, and have a right to recoup costs.

I've also paid Eve to make me a custom character, and purchased one of the poser elements as well. Again, I really don't mind paying, because I can.

However, if this person wishes to share her graphics with others, I still think its nice. There are a lot of people out there who can't afford to buy these things. As long as they give proper credit to the artist, I still see nothing wrong with it.

I think that the biggest thing is that, for example, Sarsa made that pretty morph for Aiko. Stockartist1 buys that morph, uses it to make a piece of stock art, 1500 people use that piece of stock art... and credit stockartist1; where's Sarsa's credit? Some people may also care that 1 person paid for their work that 1500 people are using, as well...

*shrug* I don't know enough about this kind of thing to judge anyone. I only happen to think it tends to cheapen the work we do in Poser.

I think the one thing the rest of us who render from scratch are worried about is someone who takes a 3d stock piece and gets say...a DD from deviant art on it. Do you realize how many pissed off 3d'ers they're going to have on their hands? You're taking the skill of one person and 'cashing' in on it.

I know for me it'll sting when I see that happen and it will. I'm not nearly as great as my peers, but to have someone who doesn't do 3d take a 3d stock piece and earn accolades on it...it just doesn't seem fair. As for commission a custom piece - I really don't see that as anything close to using stock 3d pieces. You're commissioning a portrait, not something you'll cut to pieces and reuse again. You wouldn't take that piece, cut out your person and just paste it everywhere would you? Of course not.

/shrug

So if people credit the original poser artist, that would be okay? I'm trying to understand here, since there are other artists on line who let their 2d art be tubed, and used as such, as long as they get proper credit.

I guess this is where the "rules" get a little cloudy... I mean, you'll have to credit the stock creator, PLUS all of the pieces that that stock creator used, which you'll have to find out. I haven't seen many of the stock people note credits in their submissions, so how are you supposed to find out what hair, what eyes, what morph, what clothing, what textures, what pose, what props were used... Holy moly what a mess that would be. I don't know how something like this could be resolved, but considering the fact that people probably DO want credit for the stuff they create, I would think there should be something that's universally done to satisfy them. Personally, and this is JUST my opinion, I feel that it's not really appropriate to give credit to someone who slapped a character together, saved it in a few different poses, and presented it as their own, rather than saying "this was done using Aiko, Noa, Gwenith Hair, etc etc". IMHO. Totally humble here Maybe some of the stock people DO do that, I dunno; I just know I haven't seen any do that myself.

(still not getting the "why" of it all, either!)

It seems to me that all of your are looking at this from a 3D rendering point of view saying that it will make what you do look simple to do but at the same time almost all of you are putting down manip art as easy. If manip artwork is a worthy art form, and I think it is, then I don't see what the problem is. Some 3D artists who make their own models look down on poser people who buy everything instead of make it themselves. If you maintain that what you're doing is much more difficult than plugging and rendering then so is good manip work.

There is, of course, crap in both art forms but that is everywhere. Artists are creative people and will always strive to find an easier, better way to do something and help other people do something; the only thing you can do is be the best artist you can be and leave no doubt about the worth of your work.

Ouch, I hope I didn't come across as giving the impression that I think manip is easy; considering that's how I started out with this stuff I'm very well aware that photo manipulation is VERY challenging! I don't think that that's the complaint though, here, to be honest. I'm not great with words unless I've had gallons of caffienated beverages though, so I'll let someone else do the talking before I get myself in trouble

I too started art in photomanip so I know it's NOT an easy art. However that being said if I had nice neat transparent images to start with.. that need no touch up or alteration to be pleasing in their own right, it seems more like a click and create artform than any skill needed. I think the concept of stock is an interesting one but I have to agree that... why did I bother to buy these things if XYZ01 is giving away a nice quality render I can use with ABC's background and voila have a picture?

I can imagine the financial aspect of this must be a burn, but at the same time it costs something to make stock photography too - either time, money, or both. Photography is more than point and shoot as well, after all. I'm not sure on the original credits issue - on the one hand, the people who made the textures/poses/hair/clothes (tell me if I'm confused, I dun know 3d) have been thanked for their hard work in the form of cold hard cash. On the other hand, if you're posting this for an art community (and not, say, for your magelo background or something) then I think you need to be forthcoming about how it was created, just for the sake of having a good community.

All that said...some photographers (to continue the stock photography analogy, which I realize isn't perfect) sell their work, others display it for its own sake, and still others offer it freely for stock. I guess it partly depends on how generous people feel like being but in general I think the quality of images and artistic value (if you are willing to assign such things) found in each category speaks for itself.

I think the best thing 3Ders can do in terms of keeping their reputation as artists intact is to continue creating gorgeous pieces and try to educate the common jackass (like me) on what goes into their art.

No worries, Darsa. I was just looking at this from another side since everyone seemed to be all on one.

I do have to say though that plenty of people in the poser community don't have problems with using 3D backgrounds done by someone else. Those have been made using someone else's time and money, and some have plug ins and extras that probably should be credited as well and yet most don't. (other than to credit the person who made the stock) 3D image stock has been around for ages those who had bryce but not poser could get poser image stock to put in their landscapes and poser people could get landscape stock to put behind their poser work. So its not really new and I doubt it will effect the skilled poser artists here.

I used to be the head of an art department and did some interior craft painting on my own. I was greatly annoyed when they came out with nifty little kits to show people how to make faux marble and wood and such. Complaining "what's next? A kit with someone in it to come over and do the job for them?" But I've since learned that artists are many times people who want to share their tips and tricks with others and just because someone had that nifty kit...or that pretty 3d background it never guaranteed that they would make something worthwhile with it.

I suppose for me I get all squimish when I see a full on character with hair, makeup, clothes, props etc being used as 'stock'. Prop backgrounds I guess wouldn't be any different but I can't help but look at that and think 'for fuck sakes just the character alone would have taken me hours'. =/

It's a shortcut, so to speak. Makes me cry.

In truth, I'd love it if people would make nude stock posers, cause I'd love being able to dress them on my own, without trying to cover up what they used for clothing. I'd even settle for hairless poses, since I love drawing hair too. I've never come across anyone offering those though.