What do you long time users think? C6 yea or nay?

[Nate Owens]

Originally Posted by behzad

I look at the added feature (with out the animation hair and water extras) and i do not see why the upgrade would be any different than version 5......

Seems to be quite a few differences ... like symmetrical modeling in the vertex room for one...

[Sketchy]

I used to participate in these kinds of discussions. Now I just prefer to enjoy reading them, see what's on other people's minds. "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", as the saying goes. Opinions are either cheap or gems or forgettable. I could sense that some people just don't welcome them even if you embed IMO a thousand times in there.

Keep the discussion going. It takes a few seconds to look at the WIPs. After that there's nothing to do other than to jump to another site, unless there's an interesting discussion going on like this.

[smudgee]

Einstein would jump at the chance to calculate physics 10 times as fast.

smudgee

[steama]

Most of my work is for print on ridiculous deadlines. There may be many 3D applications that do things better than Carrara but for a quick illustration for a magazine story or cover of a promotion piece that still must look good. I have yet to find anything that can keep up with Carrara (and for $100 bucks to upgrade! WOW). I am learning other tools all the time but Carrara will always have a place for certain types of art.

As far as pre-made stuff goes most of it looks bad if not used correctly. It can be like playing with fire. It can burn you if used wrong. But if I can make the pre-made stuff look good and help me nail those deadlines I will use pre-made stuff when necessary.

[philebus]

Well, I don’t claim to be an artist in any way, I’m just someone who sometimes has need of images and a content library is just the ticket for that – not as restrictive as clip art but still fast and effective. Hexagon and Carrara, on the other hand, are my grown up Lego, a pass-time to unwind with. I will return to topic but now that I’ve established that I’m not here to defend myself, I’ll mention Poser & content. It does make me groan inside to read people ranting on about what is or isn’t art. The word ‘art’ doesn’t admit of a simple or exclusive definition. If you really need me to go into the philosophical/linguistic debate, I will – but I would like to think that you folk are smart enough to figure it out for yourselves. I don’t much like calling Damien Hirst an artist – but he is, just not a very good one.

Of course, I have read the posts and know that you’re not all guilty of this, however, I would caution any of the rest of you against the ‘shake and bake’ analogy. It’s very funny at first but it takes you into the same territory and does reduce your own art to just the modelling. Once you’ve made your own content, what you do from there is the same as a Poser user – you make your own ingredients but it’s all ‘shake and bake’ after that. Your nice renders become just attractive showcases for the only real art there – the models. You might like to defend a claim that your renders are art beyond the models but that will mean conceding that there is art in composition, which is a concession to Poser users and even photographers, which may upset the painters. On the other hand, you might be happy to think of your renders as just presentations and no more but then you would have to make further arguments to defend other compositions that you might still want to call art, such as photography, film, music, poetry, and prose. And then, just when you think you got all that tied up, some clever-clogs will quite rightly start talking about your models as geometric compositions and you’re buggered again – because much of what we call art, though by no means all, consists of the composition of various elements. Words, notes, paint, polygons, models. Such is the slippery slope of trying to formulate an exclusive definition for ‘art’.

If you’ve been guilty of this, then do yourself a favour and allow the pickled sharks, photographers, and Posers. Restrict yourself to talking of good and bad art and justify your comments without being too broad or general in your attacks. You will suddenly start to make sense and may even say something constructive. Otherwise, you’re going to sound like just another bigoted art snob who goes around putting people down while contributing nothing to improving the situation they complain about. You are talented and intelligent people so you can afford to be bigger than that. There is, of course, a lot of really, really, really bad Poser work, art, no controversy, and no argument.

Sorry, that was a little longer than intended but sometimes things just take a lot of words to say.

As for Carrara 6 what this thread is supposed to be about, I would give it a thumbs up. If you aren’t upgrading, then I would say that there is a big price difference between std and pro, big enough to question the value of getting pro. If you have C5, std or pro, then the upgrade price to C6 pro is certainly worth it. The big bonus is hair (which might even get me trying to make a critter or two to put on it – I’ve not tried very hard with organic models yet), and could be very versatile. Given the competition’s prices, it’s worth the price of the upgrade alone. In a lot of instances I think this will be faster and better way to do grass. I had thought that density maps for grass might also be good but then grass doesn’t always thin evenly, so perhaps some modelled grass is still going to be better for the edges of grassland. The new shader and primitive will certainly help for water but I think we’ll still be using plug-ins to get the final look.
I won’t be building much in Carrara, preferring Hexagon’s environment (and soon Modo’s) but the extra tools will still be handy for doing something on the fly – just simple environment features, walls, fallen logs or rocks for me though. The displacement painting can also be handy for adding small detail (I probably need a better computer to get the most from it, so I can’t comment too much) such as weathering and getting rocks and the like to look a little better.

There are a lot of things that I would have liked to see still but the C7 wishlist thread is already underway at the DAZ site.

For those of us who do use content - the improvements are a godsend. Carrara won't replace Poser yet but it's threat is now clear. I don't think there was any doubt that DAZ would use Carrara to drive the wedge between them and e-frontier, so I'm not shocked to learn that DAZ could have had the SDK for Poser 7. They want people using their products instead of e-frontier's not along with them.

[gugesbri]

Originally Posted by steama

Most of my work is for print on ridiculous deadlines. There may be many 3D applications that do things better than Carrara but for a quick illustration for a magazine story or cover of a promotion piece that still must look good. I have yet to find anything that can keep up with Carrara (and for $100 bucks to upgrade! WOW). I am learning other tools all the time but Carrara will always have a place for certain types of art.

As far as pre-made stuff goes most of it looks bad if not used correctly. It can be like playing with fire. It can burn you if used wrong. But if I can make the pre-made stuff look good and help me nail those deadlines I will use pre-made stuff when necessary.

I agree with you.
I work for a metro New York newspaper and our deadlines are brutal.
Carrara was my best option because of it's user friendly set-up and the ability to import content for quick use.
Management tried to introduce other 3d products into our workflow but none where as easy to use as Carrara. I will not criticize other 3d programs. I feel all have their benefits, but, in a production environment, ease of use and deadline outweigh popularity.

Gustavo

[LoneGunman]

Originally Posted by philebus

Well, I don’t claim to be an artist in any way, I’m just someone who sometimes has need of images and a content library is just the ticket for that – not as restrictive as clip art but still fast and effective. Hexagon and Carrara, on the other hand, are my grown up Lego, a pass-time to unwind with. I will return to topic but now that I’ve established that I’m not here to defend myself, I’ll mention Poser & content. It does make me groan inside to read people ranting on about what is or isn’t art. The word ‘art’ doesn’t admit of a simple or exclusive definition. If you really need me to go into the philosophical/linguistic debate, I will – but I would like to think that you folk are smart enough to figure it out for yourselves. I don’t much like calling Damien Hirst an artist – but he is, just not a very good one.

Of course, I have read the posts and know that you’re not all guilty of this, however, I would caution any of the rest of you against the ‘shake and bake’ analogy. It’s very funny at first but it takes you into the same territory and does reduce your own art to just the modelling. Once you’ve made your own content, what you do from there is the same as a Poser user – you make your own ingredients but it’s all ‘shake and bake’ after that. Your nice renders become just attractive showcases for the only real art there – the models. You might like to defend a claim that your renders are art beyond the models but that will mean conceding that there is art in composition, which is a concession to Poser users and even photographers, which may upset the painters. On the other hand, you might be happy to think of your renders as just presentations and no more but then you would have to make further arguments to defend other compositions that you might still want to call art, such as photography, film, music, poetry, and prose. And then, just when you think you got all that tied up, some clever-clogs will quite rightly start talking about your models as geometric compositions and you’re buggered again – because much of what we call art, though by no means all, consists of the composition of various elements. Words, notes, paint, polygons, models. Such is the slippery slope of trying to formulate an exclusive definition for ‘art’.

If you’ve been guilty of this, then do yourself a favour and allow the pickled sharks, photographers, and Posers. Restrict yourself to talking of good and bad art and justify your comments without being too broad or general in your attacks. You will suddenly start to make sense and may even say something constructive. Otherwise, you’re going to sound like just another bigoted art snob who goes around putting people down while contributing nothing to improving the situation they complain about. You are talented and intelligent people so you can afford to be bigger than that. There is, of course, a lot of really, really, really bad Poser work, art, no controversy, and no argument.

Sorry, that was a little longer than intended but sometimes things just take a lot of words to say.

Yep, shake and bake is funny, not just at first, it is funny period.

Many of us here (and there, ) are full grown individuals and capable to see beyond just B&W, do not be fooled by the fact that analogy itself is shallow, it is for entertainment purposes only. Therefore, there is no mind trap, whatsoever

Shake and bake phrase is more aimed to point out lack of dedication, patience and effort, which is one of the components we all are capable, to the certain degree, to recognize and appreciate in someones work.

It's like taking a photo with disposable camera through the closed window of your car while it's moving 70 miles/hour and then asking someone to critique it...Can it be an art, sure, but it's still Shake&Bake.

Is leaving a critique which is saying something like "maybe you should open your window next time" a snobbery ? Not in my opinion, I say if you post it on PhotoSig that is exactly what you were looking for....

Cheers

[medeamajic]

I do not have Carrara 6 yet. In my opinion some nice features have been added. I think Carrara will continue to evolve into a great program under Daz. The new Open GL support of Carrara 6 should allow for some great animation previews.

On a side note. Content support is OK in my opinion. It should help increase sales and generate more inccome for R & D. I admit I am opposed to Daz using Carrara and Hexagon as bait for Platinum Club memberships but a good upgrade is a good upgrade.

[philebus]

Well, LoneGunman, you weren't one of those I was gunning for. While I agree with what you've said, I think my problem was that the 'shake and bake' seemed to be being used in the context of a limited idea of what constitutes art. My point is to keep any such idea very loose. Perhaps I wear my philosophical hat a little too often and a little too pedantically sometimes

Your analogy with photography is perfect for Poser though - it is basically vitual photography and the same range of uses apply to both. The thought out composition, badly taken snap, the quick photo illustration, through to the porn. You're right in this context, 'shake and bake' is a perfect term. Just comes down to context.

[Couerl]

"Well, LoneGunman, you weren't one of those I was gunning for.."

I wonder who has the target painted on their forehead?

LG; Shake and bake is indeed entertainment and you're spot on, however there was more intended to it than "patience, dedication and effort" alone. I'd like to see 3D become accepted as "Art" like Psychology was only recently accepted as "Science" and I think it will be.

I've said already I have nothing against pre-made content, nor do I make differentiation between self-made and purchased (A poly is a poly and a texture is a texture). The prefab stuff has it's place in 3D and will continue to grow, particularly with pro's who need it for deadline material like Stan and Gugesbri. I am glad it's a part of Carrara and gives people more choices in the end and I'd use it myself if it put bread on the table and paid the mortgage.

All that said, I dispute a couple assertions in this thread and would love to debate them. Before I do though, I think it's already pretty clear whether you are a content user or not that C6 is a smart buy and fills a need for a wide audience. This is the good news and the thread is based on this question, so it's essentially agreed upon in the affirmative I think.

What I disagree with; The notion that 3D is not art because non-3D artists say so (those "real" artists) and therefore we should be more like poser users and treat it all like a toy, hobby or game is flawed. I have a hard time buying this and think the opposite is in fact more true. I also have a hard time believing that Poser/DS users all do not believe their work is art. I think many of them do in fact think their work is art and I think some of it actually is art, even if they don't think that themselves. We all agree there are good and bad Poser renders and "Purist" renders and this is all old news.

Cautioning against the "shake and bake" viewpoint in my opinion however is essentially handing a ticket or pass to anyone who would call themself a 3D artist and I'm against it. This notion that one cannot or should not define art is actually a new one in man's history. It goes back less than 100 years in fact to the modernists and those who asserted that if the artist say's it's art, then it's art. LG is more correct in fact by saying if others say it's art,.. it's art. The Romans, Greeks, Native American Indians, Mayans, Aztecs, Chinese, French, Italians, Russians, English, early Americans, Japanese, Viet-Cong, Middle Easterners, Austrolopithicus and the Eskimos all had clearly defined views of what is art and what is not art and these definitions have changed from culture to culture and time period to time period. Maybe it's better to say that Art (with a capitol A) indeed has a definition, but like software, it is always changing.

My only real concern in all of this drama is what is it changing to? For me art is about process and the process of creation (no matter how good or bad that creation is as we all learn at our own pace). This is why I think the forum is steering away from specific softwares to halt the perception that it is a help desk for shake and bake content assemblers and is moving toward specific aspects of creation, such as modeling and UV's and lighting, texturing, independant of specific applications etc,...

I don't see this as snobbery or elitism or shutting people out or discounting them because they use pre-made content. I see it as inviting people who wish to create their own 3D content to find what they are looking for in an ever diminishing sphere of 3D creation. The fact that you are here and reading this must mean in some measure that you look for more than just content related answers themselves, otherwise you'd probably never leave the Daz website.


Peace,

Steve

[philebus]

I did try to clarify in my last post, the context in which I had a problem with 'shake and bake'.

I absolutely don't want to be put in the modernist camp and what I said was not out of line with 'art is what others call art'. However, some words, such as 'art' or 'game' just don't pin down very easily, their use over many centuries has become too broad to allow that. I have tried to illustrate in my first post, just how problematic an exclusive definition could be.

Say what you like about me though, please, don't call me a moderninst, post-modernist, deconstructionalist, or any other kind of relativist. I boarder on Platonic realism. I try not to - but I do.

[philebus]

Perhaps it is more helpful to think of 'purists' with the label 'autuers', to borrow from film - they are the authors of everthing in their work. We tend to place a little extra respect with those film directors we call autuers and I think that the same extra respect exists in 3D - and it is well deserved. Perhaps then, instead of the purist/content user divide, this would serve us better.

[Couerl]

Nothing wrong with any of that.

I actually love Plato, although I don't consider myself (or anyone else) an "anything" as far as who they actually are, we all change too. Definitions are hard to pin down, true, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make them and I see this site as one that isn't afraid to try.

If someone came here and tried to tell me that any one of 50 or 60 people who post images here are not creating art then I would be the first one to tell them they are wrong.

Nice chat Phil,

Take care

Steve

[achrystie]

Originally Posted by Couerl

like Psychology was only recently accepted as "Science" and I think it will be.

Psychology is a perfect example, and in all too many cases, it's "practice" is "still" not definable as science, or if it is, just like our art debate, it's at least definable in all too many cases as "poor" science. Science implies the use of the scientific method and gathering/analysis of "significant" quantitative data to have a valid scientific argument. Unfortunately, Psychology all too often does "not" provide us with this sort of information, and therefore, doesn't sell itself as being science (when it very well could be if the research and conclusions were approached correctly).

Art is very similar. You can broadly call anything, whether every detail is created from scratch, or just a bunch of things put together in collage "art", but you can easily differ between things that have followed an artistic process, or demonstrated "artistry". We can evaluate the works in and of themselves and readily decide which things we find appealing and which things we don't, regardless of whether we broadly classify it as art or not.

The issue at hand is the precedent that using all or mostly premade content sets for the "aspiring" artists themselves and how that fits in with the outlook and vision of this particular forum. Unfortunately, using content doesn't readily lend itself to the progression of learning to use that content in an "artistic way". It allows people to all too easily create "something", call it art, and move on. This does very little to teach people to push their art to its limits and produce quality work, and does very little to teach them to "see" (around them and/or in their minds eye) which is truly what a talent for art is. Those that use content predominantly, also set themselves up to being judged by higher standard. If someone produces a poor piece (poor composition, color, lighting, the works), there is very little positive to say about the work or admire about the work if it doesn't have at least some component that was "created" by the user. At least when a lot of things are created from scratch (hand modeled, hand painted, etc.) the fall back position is you can at least admire the hard work and the "process" involved. Therefore, those content users have a much more difficult path to follow for admiration and recognition as the composition and "idea" have to be truly exceptional to transcend the lack of creativity and artistry in the production of the assets themselves.

Here's an example. If someone builds his or her own table and chair set, even if it's ugly and poorly built, most would admire the effort and ingenuity in doing so. If someone "buys" an ugly and poorly built table and chair set, there is very little compliment to be given. If someone "buys" a beautiful and well built table and chair set, you can admire the persons "eye" for quality, but of course that will never, at least for me, be as impressive as designing and building, particularly by hand, a beautiful and well built kitchen and table set. In fact, even designing and building a "slightly inferior" kitchen and table set is still more impressive and valid than the "beautiful" purchased one, purely from the required skill and love put into the process.

Regardless,
I think Thomas has merely said that the focus of this forum is predominantly for table and chair "designers" and "makers", or at least table and chair "painters", but not for table and chair "buyers", which is just a choice of where to dedicate ones efforts rather than a statement about what is art and what is not.

ABC

[Sketchy]

Originally Posted by Couerl

If someone came here and tried to tell me that any one of 50 or 60 people who post images here are not creating art then I would be the first one to tell them they are wrong.

For me it's all about freedom. Freedom to deviate and not copy everything in nature to the last detail. Art, after all, is an expression of one's unique personality, IMHO. It's just impossible for two people to see the same thing and digest it the same way. Unless, of course, they're using the same camera in the same exact setting.

[LoneGunman]

Back to original question of this thread, upgrade for version6 is out, $70 only, i could not hep myself but purchase it, , cheapest hair module I have ever seen

[Grendel]

Originally Posted by achrystie

Here's an example. If someone builds his or her own table and chair set, even if it's ugly and poorly built, most would admire the effort and ingenuity in doing so. If someone "buys" an ugly and poorly built table and chair set, there is very little compliment to be given. If someone "buys" a beautiful and well built table and chair set, you can admire the persons "eye" for quality, but of course that will never, at least for me, be as impressive as designing and building, particularly by hand, a beautiful and well built kitchen and table set. In fact, even designing and building a "slightly inferior" kitchen and table set is still more impressive and valid than the "beautiful" purchased one, purely from the required skill and love put into the process.

This is great, I could not agree more. I've actually done woodwork myself and this is a perfect analogy. I always hold a hand built item to a higher level of esteem because of the effort involved than something from a store.

[bwtr]

You really don't need to see my old woodworking workshop out the back of my house--the wood lathe--the multy purpose PRO woodworking machine-all the beautuful wood carving tools------

AND you don't want to see ALL the stuff my wife and I have made over the years--the Antiques for our grand children!

When you get old and arthritic you have to lower yourself to doing it all on a 3D computer programme!!!!!

(But you meet nice people!)

[Wася]

Rafael and Rembrandt in their painting used chairs and tables made by others. They did not make women they've paint. Ergo Rafael and Rembrandt are lamers.

You can build from scratch a wonderfull 3D model of B-52 plane, Lamborghini car, Eiffel tower, Longines watches, Panzerkampfwagen IV tank or Japanese katana, but the fact remains - all this things were designed by third parties. Rare person could be good in design in all sort and kind. Ergo the rest 99% of 3D artists are thieves.

If you use photos or still images made by third parties as a reference images, you are not an artist. If you are using photos for making textures you are not real artist.

Did I forget something?

[Pete Exxtreme]

i found this interesting defintion ( i think) in Wikipedia about 'artist' :

Artist is a descriptive term applied to a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art. An artist also may be defined unofficially, as, "a person who expresses themselves through a medium". The word also is used in a qualitative sense of, a person creative in, innovative in, or adept at, an artistic practice.....

Quality...innovative... i think it's all about. For 3D artist, if you cannot see that prebuilt content was used, then i think the creation is in a good way.

When the subject is once again (for the 1,000th time) a more or less morphed product from the DollHouse with always the same default at the elbows etc..., my reaction is 'oh, no once again'

my my 2 cents