Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Funnily enough, generic names change from country to country. In the UK, clear tape is almost always called 'Sellotape', but when I moved to Italy, I discovered they called it 'Scotch tape'. And Kleenex in Italy is called 'Scottex'
After reading this statement I did something I have not done in years.
I visted the poser Gallery over at r*****sity and was quite stunned at the anachronistic nature of most of the renders. It was like being right back in 1998 with metacreations poser4.
Many renders with no shadows enabled at all with figures completely detached from their surroundings yet being heaped with oozing praise in the comments section.
I cant speak about any Autodesk products but as a long time C4D user
I can surely spot most C4D renders/animations by the conspicuous absence of organic figures and an over abundance of shiny replicated motion graphic elements moving in unison.
And if there are figures they are inevitably nonhuman Cute& Cartoonish critter types who only "emote" but never speak.
That's what I call the fanboy/girl effect. The more people you praise, the more praise they bestow on you. No ones work improves, because no one's game enough to say the lighting's crap and the model's hovering above the floor, for fear of losing a "friend".
In my mind, part of the "poser art" poor image is due to the fact that almost everyone uploads their renders, good or bad, to various gallery sites. They're on the net forever and for everyone to see - to see 10 good images, you need to wade through 1,000 bad ones. However, if you've taken up watercolours, before you're famous, the only people that see your early paintings are family and friends, not the entire planet.
Many years ago, I was working in a Catholic hospital. We use to giggle profusely, when one of nuns would ask for some durex. Durex was a brand of stickytape/sellotape.
This is an interesting topic.
I'm still considered a noobie to to DAZ3D, having been involved with only its 3D aspects since August of 2015 (prior to that I only came here for Photoshop brushes by Deviney).
--> I had owned Poser 8 since my college years 5-6 years ago, but rarely used it due to its difficult interface.... however being on that kind of 'understanding' that there are stereotypes for Poser art & for DAZ art, I've come across both derogatory and positive forum threads on both --- for many a 3D website in the last three years.
When I came to DAZ Studio, I felt like I had to hide that I was using DAZ, because what I faced in varying forums was a strong dislike and negative label that our art was lifeless and lacked the dynamics that Poser had, zombie dolls, etc, etc. I didn't make an issue ot it, I just continued using DAZ, which was most comfortable for me.
Now, from what I'm reading on a DAZ forum (here in this thread) - apparently Poser art is the labelled the lifeless, bland, doll-like zombies without shadows and a plastic (corpse-like) appearance.
It's hard to say because the forums from this site, RDNA, and others are all in confliction as to which is the negative program and which is the positive.
For me personally, I owned Poser 8 Pro for six-ish years now. Used it three times. Kudos to those that can use it and create anything without pulling their hair out first (not even gonna mention that horrid manual that helped me very little)!
I downloaded DAZ Studio and was immediately immersed into the program's simplicity and easy interface, which can do (in my opinion) pretty much anything that Poser can do.
In the end, I've seen good Poser Art. I've seen good DAZ Art. And I've seen people still struggling to get the full OOMPH that both programs are designed to do in the end. ---> Really, the whole concept is beyond the character design, but also facial expression, lighting, and camera angles in order to avoid that zombie/doll look.
PS: My art hasn't been labelled Poser art yet, but it might be sooner or later.
With 3d -for me- the mark of the amateur for me is lack of expression or inappropriate expression, lack of eye contact, and poor lighting, compositional issues, or character placed square in front of the camera with no real detail beyound facial shot, skin which is blown out, images which are too dark or grainy or images which lack detail or interest.
I see both PA's and non-pa's have problems in composition and lighting, and time might improve the quality of the render, but if the rest is lacking a long render is not going to make it better.
I tend not to bag on other people's art though. 3d art is meant to be enjoyed and if people enjoy their results good for them.
Which is why I never comment directly in galleries anymore. I can't bring myself to gush. And my meager technical suggestions were often taken as elitist criticisms.
Me neither. We know that people work very hard to setup their characters, composition, and whatnot - so, I take whatever and base it upon whatever else the person has produced in DAZ. Often, I see the improvement.
For me, the realization of how to get the 'look' that brought life to my characters faces was to watch Disney animation (yes, seriously). The animators actually have the facial expressions down perfectly. See Ariel, The Little Mermaid sing, "Part of Your World," when she winces, squints her eyes, and looks in longing to the surface at the end of her song.
For the lighting and camera setup, I found Dreamlight's tutorials helped me immensely, but also many other YouTube DAZ tutorials did as well. A 3D artist needs to THINK like a movie director in terms of lighting, angles, composition. (or a photographer) - not a 2D artist... however, the rule of 3rds still applies to all visual art.
SIDE NOTE: I watch a LOT of Tarrantino movies, so his directing/angles, color composition, lighting and negative space in his films have always been a huge driving factor to my compositions in DAZ.
I've come across this a lot, when I see Daz tutorials there's usually someone saying that this isn't "real art." And you aren't learning anything...I use Daz for animation so I can focus more on pacing and learning to animate. Daz speeds up the process and the models are gorgeous.
I don't know. I mean a lot of works goes into the render even if you don't make it completely from scratch even in movies and video games not only one person makes everything if they did that would take...what decades?
I've been trying 3d modeling for the passed two years now needless to say I'm still terrible at it ha..
I've also seen comments about makehuman and fuse mixamo too. I would never claim anything as my own unless I made the skin or hair clothes etc.
What do you guys think? (And sorry if I offended anyone or if I have typos.)
That's the case across the board now. You WILL see everybody's early watercolours, you'll see their bad recitals, you will read their bad pastiches of Twilight, and let's not even get into photography. Going on the internet now is analgous to having to sit through someone's wedding pictures, which today can take up a considerable amount of time.
The thing to remember is that not everybody posting their renders are trying to be considered as artists, and therefore they aren't looking at their efforts with a critical eye. I don't criticize people who are merely having fun the same as I do people who are putting their work out there for public analysis, the problem is that can be very difficult to discern, but generally the nature of the work itself is the first clue. One of the first skills any serious artist has to learn is to look at their own work objectively and critically. The main problems with the democritization of the tools of art is that the numbers of bad examples of that art become ubiquitous. The "Poser" look became associated with the software because the majority of examples the general public saw were by amateurs. Unfortunately that "look" became associated with the software itself, which to be honest is one of the reasons that I never got into Poser. The reason programs like Maya don't have that stigma is because the early examples (and the majority) are by professionals, amateurs in great numbers weren't using it because they either couldn't afford it, or the hardware to adequately run it. And what gets me are the amount of people, some who should know better, who can not make that distinction between user and software. It only takes seeing ONE professionally done work with any tool to realize that you can't slam the tool, or to paint everything done utilizing it with the same brush.
Perfectly stated. 100% true.
I tend to view everything personkind does creatively as art. Whether it is painting a hand on a rock 20 thousand years ago to childrens's drawings for teacher. I don't feel the need to define what is and is not art because my view is quite broad and encompassing. We are a race who enjoys making and viewing art. Poser art is art. Grafitti is art.
Also true.
Art is subjective. Any form of art - from film, photography, sculpture, traditional, digital, writing, prose, poetry, & music - subjective. It's the first thing I was taught in Graphic Design 101 in college.
It is said that "One man's trash is another man's treasure" - and we are all so different in our likes.
For example: I like modern architechture from Japan & Sweeden, my parents love Cape Cods in New England, my brother likes Gothic Churches in NYC. Even buildings are an art form and are subjective to one's taste.
What I've found is as stated from the beginning of this topic... We are labelled Poser art users. Okay. It's an umbrella term, like everyone uses PCs as their computers - when there are an equal share of PC & Mac users across the slate these days.
Don't be offended.
Also - IMPORTANT - the number of art rehabilitation practices are on the rise with Austism, Depression, and other developmental/psychological disorders out there.
People producing art (even 3D art) may be trying to work through debilitating disabilities - both adults and children alike, and their art is therapeutic. It's hard to disparage 3D art that may look like lifeless zombies to us, but to those living on the Spectrum - this might be how they see the world - or how others help them to understand the concept of emotions that they don't recognize. (I know this, because I work with special needs children at my school).
Having problems with dyslexia - I write comics in order to help me improve my writing skills. I've been doing so for years even before they had a medical name for it. Now, I do the same to help children with this input processing disorder.
Everyone has to start somewhere. And there may or may not be improvement despite years of practice, but harshly judging others' abilities of composition is difficult in an age where we have a blending of visual aesthestics versus practical application for occupational rehabilitation.
I also think a lot of people simply don't consider the "Poser Look" as a legitimate style that some people actually like, and that it is completely intentional. For all the talk of how much PA's put into their renders, lots of PA's promos clearly have that Poser quality to them.
But this also touches on another of my button issues in that people will allow a designated professional accolades for the exact same thing they will criticize a beginner or an unknown for.
Actually I'm waiting for someone to start referring to the "Pixar Look", because I'm seeing more and more artwork in Daz that looks like a still from a Pixar film.
I am not exaggerating when I say that art keeps me alive.
Well, Iray renders are giving creepy realism to characters that are anything but 'real' in their looks and proportions. I can really see the renderer shine in the Daz Galleries and new level tech acheivement in the software. I really don't give rat's hairy behind about critics who actually do nothing but run off at the mouth, even the one's that make their living on youtube doing just that. Great fantasy art was made with Poser 4 despite all the complaints about its limitations. Every forum has the whole fan thing going on and we all sit and wonder how this or that generated that many votes while this or that got zero props. I finally rendered a few things this weekend with no background what so ever and I still put it in my gallery just as a benchmark for myself in the future. Well, and because I had nothing in my gallery at all. Anybody that can spot bad art can't miss the really great art made with the same tools. Some people enjoy putting people down to build themselves up without actually doing anything else that builds true self-esteem. Don't let it get to you. Don't wish the cheese would never grace the galleries and we would all be elevated to new heights. Just be happy and let others do the same and you're way ahead of the game.
Greetings,
I don't think anybody's bagging on 'Poser' the program, at least the current incarnation, but rather the idea that 'Poser Art' is problematic.
It's true, though, that very often folks have key concept they want to get across (in some cases a fetish, in others a message, in others they're just limited by the time they can spend on the scene) and they don't...notice stuff that's not related to it. Like still having their headlamp on (SUPER common!), floating, failure to shadow-catch, too-shiny skins, helmet-hair, etc... They don't care about the details because they're irrelevant to the thing that they want to see in the scene.
That's fine, and I'm glad folks are getting something out of it. *I* try not to post stuff like that, but other's aren't as stressed out about putting only their best stuff out there. I don't tell my friends/extended family what kind of illustrations I do, though...because even my best stuff isn't something I'm entirely comfortable sharing with folks who know me. I guess it's weird that I'm more comfortable sharing the stuff I do as I learn with strangers than folks medium-close to me.
But I think the OP's point was that DAZ Studio, Bryce, and probably Carrara all get lumped under 'Poser art', because that application got the dominant mindshare.
-- Morgan
I think the beauty of the 21st century is that, despite all the pessimism around Art programs worldwide, technology and social media have allowed for the proliferation of art *everywhere*, whether it be rendering, photography, or anything else. More and more people are into photography now, and now (unsurprisingly) the 1:1 (or 6:6) aspect ratio is arguably more popular than 4:3 or 16:9 because of the popularity of certain apps.
Similarly, "Middle-ware" like Poser and DAZ as well as widely available content procurement has essentially democratized CG Art. Rendering is no longer restricted to high-end computers with long render times and complicated assets. More people into art is *always* a good thing.
Not sure about the "always", but I am a complete advocate for the democratization of all art. The concept of getting "lost in the mix" was a problem for good artists even before the internet, and there are a ton of artists out there who deserve way more attention than they're getting, but aren't simply because there is so much content to wade through.
Anybody can create art, but all people do not possess the same skills, whether that skill be wordcraft, music, painting, or even digital art; not everybody possesses the same amount of imagination. It is not heretical to admit that. People who have the skills tend to display it no matter what tools they have access to, but I sometimes lament how many truly amazing artists we never got to see because they could not afford the tools they required. So you're never going to see me put down items like Daz, Blender, Poser, DSLRs, Iphone cameras, or whatever. These tools allow people to start getting the work out; and if you happen to be a professional and see someone displaying obvious skills, you should be offering to help mentor them instead of putting down their tools, which I see too much of by people who claim to have reached a certain level.
Ditto, Will. Ditto.
I completely agree. Whenever I help critique a person's photography, it's never 'get a better camera' but rather 'have you tried a different lighting scheme?'
In the end, if somebody taking a picture of a bowl of fruit, a landscape or a nude woman can be considered to be producing a work of art, then how is that different from maniplating purchased 3D assets to produce an image? The answer, of course, is that it isn't. CG is a tool like anything else, no more, no less.
Many years ago, the photographer Bill Brandt went out with a Kodak box camera and produced a stunning series of black and white images on a beach. He deliberately used an ancient technically-challenged camera to point out that it's not the tool, but the eye which creates the image.
The unfortunate effect of more realism in 3d is that the images tend to be (perhaps unconsciously) compared to photographs and judged accordingly. But whether you use a paintbrush, camera or software, the eye is still King. I think a lot of people forget that.
"The eye creates the image." Thanks, maclean (and also for your scene-filling props at affordable prices). This is physiologically true, as well, for we do not see what is in front of our eye but what is behind (brain) and above (mind) it. The eye is more a projector than a camera.
Eee'yup. That's about the exact same reasoning/explanation given when people say why they don't like Poser art. And I've heard that not just from other women, but some men as well.
I also remember being at a panel at Alamo City Comic Con last year about using 3D Artwork alongside 2D art when making comics. The artist, Brian Haberlin, is well-known for exenstively using the two in his work (not necessarily when he was drawing 'Spawn', but more in his creator-owned work). He gave us an anecdote about how in some interviews, when he's asked about what programs he uses to create his comics/art, he would list off Photoshop, Corel Painter, Sketchup, Manga Studio/Clip Studio Paint, and would hurriedly add "and Poser". Largely because he knew there's a huge stigma against Poser in professional art circles, usually either because of the aforementioned White Near-Nude Vicky with a Sword low quality renders or fetish-based renders (also low quality).
And even then, using Poser for comic book art is... hit or miss, IMHO. I get some pros use it for their comics -some examples of this would be the early runs of Justice League Dark, Grayson, some Top Cow sci-fi comic whose name escapes me, and anything Mike Deodato Jr. has put out recently- and the hypothetical reason is that it saves time and gets the work done by the monthly deadline, but it has this stiff, lifeless, uncanny valley-esque look to it. Needless to say, it's not a very well liked style by 4chan's /co/ board (and honestly, as crude as they might be, they're not exactly wrong in their criticism of it either...) As an artist, I have much more respect for someone who uses Poser/Studio to set up a scene as reference and later later drawing/inking it by hand, than I do someone who uses a plug-in/filter to fake line art/inking, but that's neither here nor there.
(Although I would not be surprised if there are even more veteran comic artists who use programs like Studio or Poser to help with their art, but again, because of the stigma the 3D art medium has in professional circles/the comic book community, they are very secretive about their usage of it)
I do think that if people want to combat the stereotype of 3D art in the Poser/Studio realm, they need to not be afraid to offer concrit (constructive critique), but as many have said in this thread, that's an extremely dicey area. Since not everyone wants to necessarily improve and just do 3D stuff in Poser/Studio for fun -which is perfectly okay-, or there are those who take even the slightest bit of concrit -however politely/positively phrased- as a personal attack/trolling/flaming. And that's a shame, IMHO, but what are you gonna do.
Although I wouldn't be at all surprised if Miku Miku Dance, if not XNALara/XNA Posing Studio becomes the next "Poser Art", especially with how prevalent that junk is on DeviantArt, yikes.
I think it comes down to how you define "art." I know there's a stigma against "Poser Art" and everyone here has elaborated on its root causes. Some people have cited unnatural, stiff poses, blank expresions, and doll-like anatomy among pet peeves. Yet if you look at handmade folk art hanging in museums, you'll see . . . . stiff poses, blank expressions, and doll-like anatomy. And you'll see it among many self-taught artists such as Henri Rousseau whose work is hanging in museums of modern art to this day. (To be fair, Rousseau's worked was often mocked in his lifetime.)
My own perspective comes from living in a country where art education - even as basic 'enrichment activity' is horrendously underfunded and often superficial. I'm glad people are expressing themselves despite their educational experiences outright implying that art doesn't matter. Much of what I see in online galleries isn't to my taste, but someone made this stuff and I think they may have made it to the best of their ability. I don't enjoy or praise everything I see and I may not actively seek it out, but I welcome the creators' willingness to create and to share. It's for that same reason that I wouldn't put down someone who paints from a Bob Ross kit, or colors in one of those modern coloring books intended for grownups, or who posts pictures of their dinner on Instagram, or any other type of self expression.
That said, I do understand why someone who creates an entire scene from ground up in Zbrush might look askance at "Poser Art" because it requires so much more work to sculpt and texture something yourself. But, to me, I keep thinking about how nice it is that people are choosing self-expression as their hobby, and how their art enriches their own lives. Just my two cents.
You mean the Renderosity galleries...
I personally think that you can see good and bad renders everywhere (even here in the DAZ gallery).
I think that one problem is that comments in the galleries are public. I, at least, would be much more receptive to constructive criticism in a private message than to read someone knocking a picture I made right under that picture.
I read one comment made about people gushing over mediocre art, but what people like is entirely subjective. The thing to consider; howver, is that in cases where people don't come out and ask for constructive criticism, or advice, people acually follow the mantra of "if you don't have anything nice to say", and not commenting at all on stuff they don't like, and only making comments of admiration on the stuff that they do like. Similar to "thumbs up". So simply looking at comments oft-times gives a skewed perspective, you certainly can't make the claim that everybody in the forums have bad taste.
I personally don't leave constructive criticism unless requested. I think it is rude to critique unsolicited. I don't really see the galleries as a place to critique. Really since it is designed for finished art not wip If someone requests constructive criticism I leave it. Otherwise only positive from me