I’m a cynic when it comes to 3D content (not only that, of course, but other aspects of my cynicism aren’t relevant for this post).
I will buy stuff I need from a vendor whose other products are clearly aimed at pinup artists, to put it mildly (two words: Perfect V4). I will download freebies of the sort I’ll never pay money for (I don’t buy pose presets, but I do have quite a few free packs installed, and I don’t mind bundled pose packs either; I will even use them for tests/studies, although I always tweak).
But there is one particular freebie outlet that makes my blood boil, and that’s the ‘DS Creative’ fanzine.
If anything, I should vow to dl their freebies and then delete the PDFs immediately, sans flipping through the pages, like, EVAH. Or better yet, abstain from partaking of said darned freebies. ‘Tis not like my runtime is lacking in something, y’know.
There is a thousand little reasons for my disliking that mag (one being their inability to filter out the instances where newcomers call DS ‘DAZ’ for short… DAZ is the company, y’know), but some things totally tick me off, and that’s… Correct. Ignorance.
Amazing self-aggrandizing ignorance.
Whenever someone starts talking ‘serious render stuff’ on those pages, I’m left with two options: facepalm and headdesk.
Example: “Shadows are by nature sharp”.
I mean… on the Moon, maybe! And that’s not entirely true because the Sun will still occupy a non-infinitesimal area of the sky… and hence shadows will be soft, if just a little bit.
It’s not only bounce/IDL that softens shadows (that, actually, does more like lighten them than soften). It’s the emitter geometry. Why no-one takes glamour portraits with a tiny diode lamp that’s so cheap and easy to carry, but rather with a giant, unwieldy and often expensive softbox, huh?
I have a degree in physics. I am not a Hawking, I’m a very average, regular researcher, but I do it for real. If I weren’t queer and anti-government (and hence paranoid), I wouldn’t be shy about pointing you to my real-world publications. Yup I specialise in continuum mechanics, but the principles of wave diffraction/interference/what have you are much the same; and here in Russia, we study all branches of physics before specialising, so I’m no stranger to optics.
I’m also a wannabe traditional ‘artist’ who has invested a lot of time and money into studying trad art technique manuals, where behaviour of light is explained in ‘less techie’ words, but still according to the same principles (cuz the ‘real world’ is kinda shared).
I don’t know who that guy is by trade, how old he is and what country he comes from, or if he has dyslexia or whatever; all I know that each and every ‘tutorial’ of his is riddled with mistakes like that.
And then, he has the audacity to condemn a heavy portion of Iray-related forum posts as ‘wrong, very wrong or just plain stupid’.
It’s not like I could take this personally – I don’t post in Iray threads on the DAZ forums.
But man… A Duke Crocker quote comes to mind: hey pot, that’s the kettle calling!
Or that ‘there are no he-mice and no she-mice’ scene from one of the Witcher books.
PS Actually, a lot of posts on DAZ forums are rather… misguided. One of the reasons I avoid the forums outside of my threads and free stuff (and it’s hopeless trying to fight that unless you have traction, like being a prominent ‘pinup artist’ or a PA; those unfortunately will often spread misconceptions around, though). But still.