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
Was there a film of it? I read the book and enjoyed it, although I've never read the original Pride ans Prejudice.
+1.
Scantily clad or naked northern european white women who went to the same plastic surgeon for perma-dripping wet silicon lips and oversize contact lens implants.
That is the Daz look of 2015-2017, I reckon.
Oddly, my artistic sense is less offended by the flesh-obsession, but more the visually mismatch of absurd anime-size irises, and meticulous "real" PBR-SSS skin pores on a "realistic" human.
Other disturbing "typical" Daz/Poser render disconnects...
- all the uneven fuss over nether region furr - yet hair realism is a CG blooper joke even a child would notice.
- all the fussy boobie shapes under heaven, yet the blindness over nonsensical lycra-fabric under those painstakingly artistically-crafted boobs!
How? How could one call oneself a 3D artists when such glaringly obvious 3D bloopers are ignored?
CG artists have eyes for 3D discrepencies, and notice 3D CG blooper things?
Seriously?
But first the wannabe artists need to admit a problem: if your actor/ actor body part/ costume/ scenery things can be identified as a Daz/Poser item, it will be labelled Poser Art. Because it is. And it will be more like The Sims Art than original art Art.
If a self-labelled 3D artist has 3D bloopers all the time, well, if he/she insists?
If a singer is tone-deaf and insists on singing or calling himself a singer, is he a singer outside his bathroom shower?
I think we need more show than tell...
ThePhilosopher, for example, doesn't create "Poser Art". Nor is it important that it is CG or which pro/free tools he used. I don't care if he didn't sculp those muscles in ZBrush or had formal/zero CG training or not.
It is just good art.
"look MY sexy dead-eyed doll wearing yet another temp-defying costume pouting/ shooting/ staring at nothing in particular" is probably a form of narrative. lol
To be fair, 97% PAs have their actors in contrived modeling poses for valid enough reasons. And most CG beginners start with mimicking store vendor pics, or fashion mags, or Facebook selfies (!!!)
DS or Poser come with realistic enough human figures... It's up to users to breathe life and soul or....turn them into clothes display.
I enjoy shopping at vendor stores featuring renders that say something in a single shot.
Its interesting that I have seen just as much bad art created with studio as I have with poser over the years and never mentioned, ony Poser. Seems like there is a bias there.
THERE IT IS !
For example:
I agree with you. I also think that there is a bias "here"... :)
There is no special skill needed to get people to argue over things.
So true, especially when you consider that the OP was not about what is and is not considered "art". People simply took it in that direction and ran with it.
Reading is fundamental.
SaveWhat the hell are you implying?
(heh heh)
Actually maybe it is a great skill that has been honed to a fine art by some people on the internet. They're just so deft in how they use it, that it appears effortless.
+1 Thank you
It is a familiar pattern
Any time there is a discussion about the objective quality of an image
or poor technical execution of the software features(no shadows default lighting,poor shot framing ,stiff poses,expressionless faces,gratuitous nudity,gravity defying breasts or no actual narrative to the image)
Well in comes the "you cant define what is art"crowd.
which IMHO only encourages the continued creation of the exact types of images that make people disparage Daz/Poser renders per the OP's complaint.
And it is not just the pinup stuff.
Poser/Daz Studio can create really good,well composed & lit renders these days.
learning to use the tools for better renders and pointing out when peoples images are poor due to lack of using the tools has nothing to do with defining the broader meaning of "Art"
To the original poster's comment: Daz/Poser art falls somewhere inbetween 3D art and Studio photography. The photographer uses pre made physical models and props, arranges them before a physical camera, lights them, etc to create a 2 dimensional composition. His art, what he sells to the world, and what he takes credit for is a 2 dimensionsional image. The 3D artist creates a 3 dimensional object. It has a front, back, bottom and top. He may display it in 2 dimensions, though increasingly we see images that can be moved and rotated in your browser. What he sells to the world and takes credit for is a 3 dimensional object, that can be rigged, textured, or imported to other programs.
The unique artform that Daz/Poser users participate in was created by the makers of Poser many years ago. The original software was called Poser as that was pretty much all you could do, pose figures. Daz "Studio" is more relevant to what the artform has become, a virtual photography studio. It's not really 3D, that's just the medium, like oil, watercolor or charcoal. What we create, present to the world, and take credit for is 2 dimensional not 3. For lack of a better term, "Poser art" has taken hold to represent this particulart art form. I would prefer another term, such as "virtual photography". It seems more appropriate and descriptive of what we actually do.
Some of the pushback from other artists may be because there is not a catagory of our own to present our work. So it's pushed or forced into the 3D category alongside those who actually model, texture, sculpt, etc.
As I tell everyone: I refuse to be called an artist. Artists create art. I am a technician, I create imagery.
Kendall
Same here
I tell people I am a "Visual Communications Producer"
Which is more accurate since I work in both 2D
( Print Graphic Design using Adobe CS)
and 3D (mostly 3D animation/simulation with 2D & 3D VFX)
http://www.coroflot.com/anabran
Of course there's a bias. It has to do with the original, seriously unfortunate product name. "Poser" is so aweful that it's great. It just drips insult. "Hey, you poser" or "he's no artist, he's just a poser". So "poser art" isn't art from someone using "poser", it's art created by a poser. Or we can even say "poseur" if we want to sound faux French, like saying the "m" word (which I will admit to overusing) ;-)
"Studio" doesn't sound at all bad. You can't go "Hey, you studio" and if you call someone a "studio artist", well, where's the insult in that? You can't even say "You're a DAZ studio artist", because -
a, who knows what "DAZ studio" is? Commedians, critics, etc. still pick on Poser.
b, even if you do know what it is, it just doesn't have the impact of "you poser!"
I suppose you could try another dash of faux French, "Oh, he's just another DAZ studio 'artiste'!" but even that isn't as effective as the basic "you're no artist, you're just a poser!"
Interesting image that you added as attachment. :)
I recognise it as it is a render of a 3D model to be printed in 3D on a 3D printer. That has happened too. And yes, the render itself was made in Poser but I generally don't use Poser for the final renders. Instead, I export the Poser model and import it again in Vue where I will add an additional background to the image and do the final render. This tends to improve the looks of the work. It's still called Poser Art, though. Most of the modeling is done in Poser.
So true, renders in Poser generally tend to be unfinished works. But when people are trying to learn to create 3D artwork, Poser is just a good tool for experiments.
Except for this model, which was printed in 3D instead, in white plastic. I still need to paint it, though...
You know, it's funny, considering this topic and reflecting.
I'm interested in getting some art gigs, particularly for RPGs, and one of the things I keep running into is that a lot of people flat-out avoid photorealistic CGI because they just think it all looks terrible, like 'plastic dolls.'
Now, while I think they may be selling CGI short, RPGs and a number of other venues don't traditionally go for a photorealistic look.
This, and general interest, has helped push me to develop more 'illustrated' looking render styles that suit such things.
I like photorealism, but I'll admit that it's INCREDIBLY hard to avoid even a wiff of cgi artificiality, particularly with portraits.
Greetings,
I'm an illustrator, at best. I illustrate the stories in my head.
-- Morgan
Photorealism? I don't even think that most Pozer/Daz users are even trying to make photorealistic artwork. That's because photorealism is a very complex job even for the professional CGI artists. And most people who use Studio or Poser are definitely just amateurs who use the software for slightly different purposes.
There is something called "Fun" that is just as important to Studio as making art. I myself am not making art. I'm just making fun. As I'm a software developer and not a professional artwork, using CGI is just a way for me to relax. And sometimes I use CGI to illustrate my work by creating images to use on websites I develop or to illustrate technical documents to make them less boring to read. It's not my job to be an illustrator but sometimes the customer isn't providing any artwork so I either has to "steal" it online or make it myself. So I make it myself...
Still, I started in 2005 or so with just Poser and nowadays I combine Poser with Vue for some nicer renders. I still use Victoria 4 as my main female model and I have a lot of additional props for this model to use. The reason is simple, as I just don't have a lot of time to work on CGI as it isn't my main job. So I've taught myself to set up a scene in Poser within 30 to 60 minutes before I export it all to Vue, where I will spend another 15 to 45 minutes setting up the environment and adjusting the materials. And if it is just for my personal fun, it will often include a scandily-clad lady in some fantasy-style pose with grass, water, trees and perhaps even a building. And sometimes even scenes that are a bit difficult to explain, like two primitively-clad ladies drinking wine in a classroom. Because that's where the fun actually starts. That's when I have to come up with a background story behind the image, which is just as fun as making the image itself.
Is it art? Meh. I don't even care. To me, it's just fun. It's different from my regular job, anyways...
And there I think you've touched on something. People say "poser art" mainly because poser was the first mass market program that many people heard of. Even if they didn't know what the program was, they recognized the results that the majority of people using it were achieving; however I don't really believe all those early poser users were trying for photorealism. As someone mentioned, they were using it because it helped them to achieve something else. The fetish communities were using it to create specific scenarios. Fans with no cash were using it for one man fan films that you could use to visualize and/or adapt your favorite literary stories that Hollywood would never do to film and post them on the internet for other fans. They weren't getting into the software that deep and were using it at it's most basic level.
I think artists were primarily the ones who really started pushing the envelop for true realism for a myriad of reasons, and I don't honestly believe their efforts were the ones most people were referring to when "average" people used the term [poser art]. Generally only other artists or wannabe artists use that term, and even then they tend to use the term selectively.
And we need to get off the "is it art" debate. The term "Poser Art" already presumes we're talking about a particular STYLE of ART. Art in it's simpliest definition is anything someone creates to be appreciated by other people for whatever reason, and there really isn't much need to make it more complicated than that unless you want to get philosophical about it. CGI is art regardless of your mastery of the medium, or the simplicity of your tools. We've gotten to a point in time that the refrain, "I don't care if what I'm doing is art or not" has become a kind of haughty, hipster reply people pull out to show how they are beyond labels. It's more like it's a pre-emptive defense again negative criticism, because they ARE exhibiting their creations as art.
A hint for everyone.... one thing that spoils the "realism" of a render is the ...
LACK OF DIRT/DAMAGE on background items.
In almost all renders everything looks new and perfectly clean. No dust on surfaces, no scratches in paint, no insects flying around, no birds in the air/on branches.
There is also a general lack of chaos/entropy.
Most of these can easily be added using LAMH. Adding dust/dirt to surfaces is done using the 3D Paint brush and an extremely short fiber (clumping can simulate denser dirt), bugs and garbage/household-items can be strewn about using the LAMH instancing features. Scratches can be done using overlays on the textures.
Kendall
That's good advice for anybody trying to recreate a sense of the real, and the fact that independent filmmakers and even Hollywood filmmakers forget this simple fact shows that is isn't necessarily an "amateur" trait. I remember that one of the big aspects people used to comment upon about the original Star Wars was that the world looked lived in. Ships looked dirty, and had weathering. That blew people's minds; especially in a Sci-fi/fantasy film when the custormary vision of the future was chrome, white and very clean.
Now think of all the period films you've seen where everybody looks like their wearing the clothes they have on for the first time. All the cars in a period film appear to be new off the assembly line. Nobody's hair is out of place. And it happens ALL the time. It doesn't necessarily destroy the "realism" so much as the authenticity of the piece; especially in situations where you expect things to look well-worn.
The thing about Poser Art; however is that it mostly consists of minimalist backgrounds amd props. There is very little in a scene that doesn't have a purpose for being there. I still argue that the poser look is a style, whose purpose is generally not to present a realistic picture in the first place, but is trying to achieve something else. Not having the Poser style is actually very easy to do now if one really doesn't want that look, and let's face it some schmuck's are going to deride your work no matter how accomplished it is if they know you used certain software to achieve it.
Too true
Exactly. So many vehicles, land, air, or space, look like the manufacturer's plastic wrap has just been stripped off. No dirt; no dust; no wear on floors, switches, panels or other frequently handled objects.
Greetings,
That's because in the future, we'll have networked nanobots which ooze over all the surfaces, when they're not being used, and bind to the dirt, oils, grime, etc., and dispose of them. The reason our clothes will all look like it's the first time we've worn them is because it will be; they were manufactured that morning, to the body specs our beds transmitted to the nanoconstructors. We already have paints and materials that can resist getting dusty, dirty, or (as in one recent news story) super-hydrophic paint that resists (and fights back!) being peed on.
I'm only half joking. I've known for maybe 20 years that the next huge field is going to be materials science, and it's still growing... The stuff people are coming up with in that space is outright miraculous, so I'm less disbelieving of a spit-shined future than most. :)
-- Morgan
I will gladly SHOW more. But I'm limited to showing what is good, what can be done.
But that's not the real challenge in this scene. No guidance or demo is effective without showing the converse .
The "art" created by 99% of Daz Studio users are best teaching examples - in digital art beginner level classrooms - of what not to do in 3D CG art .
Is what this community most need to hear, what they want to hear? Or busy drowning out with lalalalalala any old trash is art lalalalala?
Btw, giving unsolicited criticism is not my thing (in real life I get paid to critique) Still, I would if people ask, nicely and clearly.
Meanwhile, let's brace ourselves for more delusional "anything is art" CG geniuses dishing out artistic advice using their awesome renders that will never make the bottom row of ZBrush gallery in this life time.
Please buy buy buy more poisonous candies in Disneyland for a niche audience. How long will this party last? See Poser.
Oh no, Poser is not dead yet, just somewhat cobweb and frozen like their inanimating inanimate user base. Barely held together by a few rigging and render masters. But it is now irrelevant even within its CG niche due to their most vocal users' style stagnation and fantasy human form fixation.
Unimaginative spams pollute ANY art scene.
Stale art drives out good art.
Reputation and image matter, for the spirit, and for $$$$$$$$.
I'm not embarassed about being a "Daz Studio creative". Even if Daz3D itself doesn't care, I do feel Daz devs deserve better for the amount of energy they have invested.
When the true artists among us made commercial value arts using Poser/DS, why is it still "in spite of the tool"?
At best, "your photo is awesome, amazing that you shot it with a DazPoser consumer camera."
At neutral, "your photo is ok, but your tool is just consumer grade anyway"
At worst, "your photo has value, too bad it came out of a trash-infested social group"
Either way, not fair to Daz3D (and SM) devs. The tools are functional, good value in fact; anyone talented and disciplined enough could make something OF VALUE.
Clearly the derision is not in spite of tool functionality, or the creation's value, but? In Spite of the Insta-Artists.
Insta-Artists: automatically awesome art genius; no question, no self-doubt, no critique or further refinement required.
Insta-Artists, the loudest, flashiest, most self-promoting, most artless human-meat-exhibiting users are defining Daz Studio's image, reputation and mainstream awareness (and dismissal too).
DS image and reputation? Who cares! Who cares what mainstream users, or to "elitist 3D artists" think?! It's just MY fun and MY standard that counts!
Really?
Do the Insta-Artists want the fun to last? Or the content investments?
Will "elite ware" top content creators care to be part of this scene? Will participation add to their portfolio value or peer repute? Will products get better cheaper or worse yet expensive?
How about the everyday professionals (aren't we?) seeking an easy entry story-telling tool? Will they recommend their new found 3D illustration/ animation toy to their curious students, the Daz3D customers of tomorrow? Will architects and doctors openly share with their peers how to use DS to make pro demos?
How about the forum? Does it help refine artistic values or encourage the already over-indulged? Will the free CG teachers and techie volunteers increase and stick around for such charming fragrant atmosphere?
How long can things stay fresh inside a feedback loop:
Brand Image = Optics = Narrow Niche Fetish Exhibit = Under the Radar Brand Awareness
Don't forget the "I spent $75000 at the XYZ Academy of the Arts to get my DEGREE while learning how to use Maya. My DEGREE entitles me to call whatever I do 'Art' and the money I borrowed to get the DEGREE makes it automatically 'good'" people. There are a LOT of these running around. They empahsize their degrees at every turn to try to give themselves credibility. This is especially bad at some of the West Coast schools who are 'associated' with one Studio or another. For instance, the students from SCAD usually can get internships at Dreamworks. Many of them are hacks and Dreamworks will not hire them for non-intern positions after graduation, but they believe that anything they create is inherently great because they got their degrees and they can use Maya.
SMH
Kendall
THAT attitude is not just restricted to this field...the music industry is full of it too (and most 'business' and science degrees). Just change the names of the schools, software and companies...