Shapes - worth it?

I know a few people who have an unreasoning prejudice against the saddlebag slider merely because of its name and who always set it to zero, but if you are looking for a nice hourglass curve over your hips you need to add some saddlebag.

Yup, and body fat. Unless you are going for a reedy or waif-like look, add some body fat (12+)! It will make you look sexy and curvy, not fat, unless you slide it all the way up!

Indeed - again, to use Poser as an analogy, it's the difference between a character made by twiddling the standard dials and one using a "custom morph" created in a 3D modeler.

Incidentally, those who think painting is as easy as slider-adjusting can never have tried it. Not even a skillful artist would claim that.

Creating a skin is much harder. With a shape you are just making choices: 65% this, 23% that. With a skin you actually have to draw something on a blank canvas.

Shapes and skins subscribe to the same aesthetic. I really believe they have a mutualistic symbiotic relationship with one another. The argument of whether one is more difficult to create than another is somewhat beside the point. What should be the focus is not the cost of either, but their aesthetic appeal of each and/or both. There is another active thread on skins that I think takes the right approach. I think it reveals how many subtle underlying factors (general look, popularity of look, popularity of creator, marketing strategy, cost, trends, etc., etc.) we may conciously or unconciously bring into play when making subjective decisions on what is most appealing to the eye.

Maybe the original title and direction of this thread should have been "Shapes, who has the best?"

No, I think the problem is with the view that: "slider adjusting is easier than painting, therefore anyone can do it." Which doesn't work. I mean, try it with other things: "arm surgery is easier than brain surgery, therefore anyone can do it." Doesn't make sense, does it?

*shrugs* I do make skins; it generally boils down to just making choices. Pick the base colour, then it's just choosing to add darker or lighter pixels. Harder stroke, softer stroke. More red, less red. Layer transparency to 65% here, 23% there.

I don't think anyone is saying dragging sliders is *as* easy as painting. What seems to be said is, neither dragging the sliders is universally easy, nor is painting universally hard. Given number of available options both will depend on the skill and experience particular person in question is gifted with, to produce results that are something more than what only mother could love.

And everything feels easy when you happen to know how to do it. But it doesn't mean *everyone* shares your experience, so they may find the task at hand far harder than you do. If it's easy for you then great, you found something you happen to be good at... capitalize on it or just enjoy the knowledge.

Well sid Joannah...


"Easy" is relative to the person who is actually doing the work. Painting takes nearly no effort for me and hours spent working on a painting is pure pleasure, while 2 seconds dealing with shapes is boring, annoying and not worth my energy.

If someone can be successful in this shape maing endeavor then I applaud them and appreciate their efforts.

Best,
~Ari

Riding in a car is easier than driving a car, therefore anyone can do it.

Looking at the sky is easier than flying, therefore anyone can do it.

Hmmm ...

Anyway, once I get a shop going, I'll start selling some shapes, since I seem to be getting some encouragement to do so here. The one I'm wearing is exactly the same as I first created it on day one. Haven't felt any need to tweak it. It took me a while to find a suitable skin though. But that's another thread.

Afraid there's no logical reason for that "therefore" -- 'anyone' can be moved in a car and anyone can look at the sky (unless they happen to be blind) but it's not because these activities are "easier" than something else that's barely if even related... but because stand-alone, they don't require any skill or specific knowledge to begin with. Or in other words, flying could be as easy or as hard as you wish, and the impact of it on the ability to look at the sky would still be none whatsever.

This, like pointed out, breaks your reasoning chain -- the leap from estimate that something relatively easier, to presumption that it's "therefore" within skill/experience range of if not everyone then at least noticeable majority. The catch is, there's no grounds for that leap other than your opinion "but it's so easy" which is based on personal experience and skill rather than population-wide analysis of such qualities.