Be notified of site updates, subscribe to the newsletter.
Wonderful work of art. The setting is spectacular. My favorite piece yet, keep up the work!
Excellent piece, Catherine. It's a shame that such unjustified snobbery exists, though, in regards to the medium you've used; I've seen just as much, if not more, really horrendous stuff from these "professional 3D programs" as I have in the Poser forums, and not because of the tools used, but because of the users themselves.
C'mon, folks, ALL art is the result of a person's vision and efforts, and this applies just as fully to Poser, where the same program can result in either a masterpiece or a mud puddle, and the only differences are the hand that wields the tool, and the eye that guides it. Poser is nothing less than a virtual photography studio, and considerably more, as the truly gifted Poser artists can and do create a great deal of the elements in their works. Designing lighting is not just posing a light, nor is creating a mood or an expression simply a matter of typing in "pensive" and letting the computer do the job. What is more "professional" about a Lightwave figure that has poor proportions, terrible textures, and inappropriate lighting? What is more artistic about photographing a living person than doing so in the virtual world of Poser, where it is EXACTLY the same technique of pose-light-click?
As for whether this is 3D because of postwork, what is 3D about ANY picture posted in an image format? Every single one is 2D; unless it's a virtual model, and viewable as such, there's no difference. Do people have to only make movies in order to be considered "3D artists," because until computers have holographic monitors, that's the ONLY format that will demonstrate an image exists in more than 2 dimensions. And I've seen a large percentage of so-called "3D images" that were composited and had effects added in Photoshop, and for some reason they still seem to be acceptable as 3D.
I expect every person who has commented about this being "just Poser" should point us to his or her own Poser efforts; since it's such a "non-creative" program, I should think all of their works must either be so incredible as to dazzle us all, or so pathetic as to place the blame where it truly lies. And Peter Rooney (and your ilk): I might as well add that there's really no point in doing 'artwork' in Photoshop, either, when it can be done with brushes, oils, and sweat on a canvas.
Sorry about the rant, but such snobbery from people with nothing to back up their insults offends me, especially since I work not only in Poser, but also in Lightwave, Photoshop, AND traditional 2D and 3D media. I consider every one of these a tool, not art in itself, and I use whichever one is best suited to the task; unless my INTENT is to simply build a human figure, and not to create artwork that happens to utilize one, I'm more than happy to use Poser for my figures, even if the final result is rendered in Lightwave, or if the figure is merely the pose model for a painted image.
Back on topic, this is about Catherine's art ... and it truly IS art, no less so than anything painted, photographed, carved or (sad but true) exhumed. It is from the creator's mind, and if you don't like the tool, then I believe the problem is yours, not the artist's.
Ermm good use of lighting, make it a little more viceral
next time, the lady smiling or crying, did you have alot of problem's sculpting the hair?