Looks great. the only thing I would change is the blood, it looks to much like frosting, its too thick and clumped.
Ciao Leo,
hai perfettamente ragione…puoi radere al suolo una città, ma non puoi mostrare del nudo…(almeno in questo forum).
Comunque io penso che il forum è frequentatao da tanti bravi ragazzi e quindi vale la pena di sopportare alcune…stranezze.
Complimenti per il tuo lavoro.
cameyo
p.s. un tutorial su questa immagine ??(magari con qualche zona censurata 
:))
Cameo, exactly what I meant!
Marciani, just have been at your site & gallery: I love the gargoyle and this “digit” man!!! Outstanding things to see there!!!
Plan to open your tut’s page soon???
Since you are using Bryce quite a few times: ever tried Vue?? Ithas some things considering light and atmosphere that are hard to get in/from Bryce 
!!
Thank’s for all reply.
All people give me great sensation, and in a couple of day i’m turn from frustrated to happy stay here!
Thanks for everythingh this thread has showed about our point of view ( i don’t know if you understand, is difficult for me explain my concept, when i speak english not well :rolleyes: )
P.S. I’ll buy a bikini and i put a little step by step
Bye
Leo
Great Marciani, I just wait for this tut¡¡¡ please step by step¡¡¡¡
Congratulations
marciani: forget about the dress 
, we’ll look for your - hidden - tutorial to do nudity by using our right mouse button !!!
Better still, and a lot more serious: put it up on your site, please!?
Hi everybody,i take a time to build my tutorial’s homepage.
Hope you like it.
P.S. I don’t know if i can put a link where find the tutorial about this pic, if not i apologize…
P.S. This image contain nudity and other disturbing thinghs if you don’t want see don’t click here (i’m feel very professional boyscout )
In the CG talk i’ve hear opposite opinion about this…
Next time i’ll post Mickey Mouse…
Bye
Leo
all those tutorial are very impressive this gonna be a real long study subject for me thx for the link…
First let me say I think the picture is very impressive, and gratuitous neither in its violence nor nudity. 
I also made the comparison that Equalizer made with “Audition” which was screened on TV here a couple of nights ago. (And a much better film than the director’s more recent “Ichi the Killer” in my opinion.)
I agree with Willog, having made exactly the same comment myself in another case of a “banned” image. At least times have moved on - in the previous instance, a bowdlerised version was substituted with the male genitalia “airbrushed” out - this time we have been treated to an external link for the image.
Whilst accepting that this is a preferable solution, it seems to me ill-judged. Firstly the index to the post clearly stated that it contained nudity. Thus the option was there for the viewer to accept that this ,ight be culturally or otherwise not to their taste and they could refrain from clicking to view. It is difficult to see how this differs from the “solution” offered, where you now have a second chance to click a further link to view. I presume the moderators would claim that it offers a second line of defence against viewing material you might find offensive, but I would assert that if you had been prepared to click the first time knowing it contained nudity, you would scarcely be likely to refrain the second time - except possibly out of frustration, hardly a reasonable motive.
This may be a “family” forum, but it is also an art forum - and nudity and violence have both been long established accepted subjects for artistic portrayal. I have seen many images on this forum that contain a considerable degree of “horror comic” violence, gore or deformity that are applauded - mostly of far less artistic merit than this. Also a number of relatively discreet images portraying nudity. I assume the reason this has been the subject of pseudo-censorship is because it embraces both in the one image, and maybe because the violence is self-inflicted. If so it seems a rather perverse judgement to me - a bit like saying you can eat steak or you can eat mushrooms, but you can’t have them together in the same meal.
I am totally opposed to censorship, but I accept that people should be protected from inadvertent exposure to material they might find offensive. (I have no time for the whingers who, having been warned, go to view the material anyway, then protest about the content.) Given the nature of this forum, I would not expect the administrators to permit pornographic images to be posted. And whilst I would agree that the border between what is pornographic and what is legitimate art can in a few cases be rather blurred (e.g. some of Mapplethorpe’s photography), that is hardly the situation here. This image is clearly a legitimate piece of art and as such should have required no more than the content warning for the sensitive.
Interestingly, whenever cases of moderator interference of this kind occur, they seem to solicit far more responses in defence of the piece, than agreeing with the censorial action. In fact come to think of it, the only cases I can think of where the subject has been attacked were on religious grounds (!) or some images thought to be either anti-American or pro-war jingoism during the recent war in Iraq (both clearly due to the heightened sensibilities arising from an ongoing conflict.
So I’ll repeat my plea once more. Please moderators stop exercising judgement on what you consider to be a suitable subject for art. Art is intended to produce a reaction in its viewers. That reaction legitimately includes the intent to cause people to think, to be provocative or even to shock - it doesn’t all have to be landscapes, chocolate-box imagery or comic-book horror/sci-fi. And sadly over the years the images that have received some form of censorship have generally tended to be of higher artistic integrity and value than much of what passes without adverse comment.
erf !! google tranlator… job for you !!!
guys !! your are graphistes !! speak with pictures !! please !! like an comic book !! 
3 tomes of Fly roman :))
edit: Ok I’m translating
I would like to specify that Flycatcher hold a language clean and constant. Google succeeded has to translate without too many inconsistencies!! incredible. I agree with the remarks held. just did a precision personally this image shock me not in the direction of nudity, but the pain, and yes I am phobic with the punctures and other surgical acts? but that does not say to the point to censure anything in this subject right… I take the choice not to delay me on the image in question.
however, I would like to specify that we speak about censure, whereas, this is not a censure, since it does not remove the exposure of creation, the link is always present that I know.
:rolleyes:
Fantastic!!
Looks like one of the grammar school teachers,here in New York.
Proportions are correct too.
LOL Fouad! Sorry to have given you another big Google translation job.
I agree: perhaps censorship is too strong a term in this instance, though I’m not quite sure what else to call an action that removes a legitimate image from the gallery (censorship) but leaves a link to an external site where it may be viewed (simple inconvenience) whereby rendering the whole exercise totally ineffective. Just a pointless annoyance then, but one guaranteed to get me and a few other like-minded individuals back on our respective soap-boxes in protest.
Sorry - this has probably turned into another Google translation.
No comments, I thought puck was disgusting!
Hey congratulations for the others images, they are great.
Saludos
G
not sure if this has been said before. but is it just me, or does the gift box look like the softimage one?
hehe
brilliant work though!
I agree with Fouad that this is not literally censorship. Furthermore, at least in the U.S., the concepts of censorship do not apply to a business or company-run website or publication. They can do whatever they want, and they do have a valid self-interest in maintaining a certain ‘family-friendly’ atmosphere. Someone can call it censorship, but there are no laws or Constitutional guarantees that require or even suggest that a company must or should allow anything to be posted, regardless of content.
I personally have recommended this site to some young people I know, and I will have to stop doing so if the moderators allow any picture to be posted, regardless of content.
While I may personally appreciate certain types of art, I believe that some are is not appropriate for all ages. If I create some of this type of art, I’m certainly not going to demand that everyone be exposed to it against their will, especially on a site provided by a private company. The point of warnings and having to perform an extra click to get to the picture is that no one can claim to have been exposed to the art against their will.
Hi Fouad
I appreciate your use of Google’s translator
As you said the start must be writing in a great form !
Yes Google is some elitist
It translates just the great authors Have fun!
Pilou
Ps traduction Googolienne
“J’apprécie votre utilisation du traducteur de Google. Comme vous avez dit que le début doit écrire dans un grand formez. Oui Google est un certain élitiste. Il traduit juste les grands auteurs. Ayez l’amusement!”
Bigre, je ne suis pas un grand auteur! :D:
non point très cher, un grand auteur vous n’êtes pas, au vue de la traduction!!
(a great author you are not, with the sight of the translation!!)
M’enfin il dépanne pas mal :rolleyes:
(pas moi, j’ai un p’tit dico en sous-main dans la machine, chacun ses trucs
Pilou
. deleted6254 .
that has come from this is the conversation about censorship. So, pat yourself on the back Marciani for at least stimulating the forum audience. But I am sure your goal was to discuss the work not the moral issues of art. It is unavoidable, however.
With that , my thoughts on your piece are as follows: Generally it looks good. Not only is art subjective, so are breasts and it seems to me her right one in particular looks a bit lumpy.
I think that the response to the piece that is negative is not the nudity, but rather the combination of “percieved” violence and nudity. It is always risky to combine sexuality and iconic violence. If this were a nude male, I bet you anyhting it would not have been as controvertial (think Conan, etc.). But since it is a naked woman, it is immediatly “sexual”. Right or wrong, I encourage people to “speak” thier mind. Out of opposing points of view we evolve.
To be completely honest, I really dislike the subject matter but admire the work and the commitment in your opinions. Keep it up.