[opuscroakus]

I know that computer-generated covers got a bad reputation in the romance genre a few years ago, when Ellora's Cave was using Poser covers almost exclusively. They looked atrocious. I would guess that computer design has come a long way since then, however.

It has come a very long way. I use Bryce (DAZ 3D now) with mine, and you just can't tell the difference in some since they've made vast improvements with the IBL lighting. I actually prefer a computer generated scene from scratch that depicts the abstract aspects of the concept, to a poorly-chosen stock photo that doesn't.

Oh, and I still don't like most Poser renders. Even though we've made vast advances in graphics with lighting and textures, still, you can spot a CGI person a mile away, especially in those video games. With shadows and lighting and textures, reflections and refractions, sometimes even my trained eye has a hard time telling the difference, but stick a Poser person in there and it's a dead give-away.

I think that was my post to which you responded, and because I shared my experiences with someone who doesn't like CGI and was very vocal about it, I think that's why it was removed. I'll send the OP a PM, PDQ.

 

[opuscroakus]

Her original post said "So, beware." and also said I had not posted any of my "design credentials". It was definitely directed at me, although I really have no idea why.

No, it "definitely"wasn't. I said that it was another poster who constantly posts to design threads. You said you don't. Comprehension, much?

 

[opuscroakus]

Tara, I read opuscroakus' post, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't mistaking you for someone else-- she was just referring to what someone else had said on the topic. Unfortunately, the post has been removed, so that's impossible to confirm, but that was my strong impression.

I'm glad I didn't have the wrong thread, anyway.

Right.

 

[opuscroakus]

I believe that there was a misunderstanding. I read the post, and she wasn't saying anything to discredit you or insult you. She words in CGI too. She was saying to beware of another poster who bashed CGI in another thread.

It was just a misunderstanding.

Exactly. Thank-you for understanding and being able to comprehend a simple message.

 

[opuscroakus]

The PM I sent you was a very polite request for clarification.

All you had to do was tell me that. You certainly didn't have to resort to telling me I had a "head injury" or telling me I needed to "take medication".

Yeah, we'll disagree about that being "polite." It was accusatory from the word go. You didn't ASK for anything, you DEMANDED to know if there was anything I wanted to talk to you about, and then you got surprised when I became angry over it. Der.

I'm sorry you misunderstood the message and then decided to make it all about you. It wasn't. End of.

 

[opuscroakus]

I apologize if I misread your original post, and I'm sorry if you felt my PM to you was accusatory. It was not meant to be. It was a simple request for clarification, and nothing more.

I just didn't see how asking why I decided to ATTACK you and then WARN others about you can be viewed by anyone as innocuous. That's very different than, "Did I misread this? Were you talking about me? Can you clarify please, because the way I'm reading it might be wrong."

I get attacked enough around here without being blamed for crap I didn't do.

But I accept your apology.

 

[opuscroakus]

Thank you.

For what it's worth, my apology was entirely sincere.

I know; as was mine. I hate confrontation with folks and hate misunderstandings even more. But, they're to be expected in this medium.