Don't get me wrong, they look fantastic, I can't do anything half as good etc.. etc.. but surely doesn't this lead one day to spot the difference between the poser gallery and the photography gallery? So why do it? What's the point? Just wondering. Shanna :-)

Why do dogs lick their balls? Becourse they CAN ;o) What's the point in asking?

I think a photorealistic Poser work is more closely related to classical painting that photography. A photographer has to accept some limitations because he is dealing objects that can not be changed at whim. In contrast, painters (and people working in Poser) can pretty much alter anything in the picture. - Well, that is not entirely true with Poser, but things are improving.

The end result of these improvements are fewer limits on what you can do with creativity.

Somehow myth got started in this culture that realism and creativity are mutually exclusive. Just the opposite is true. The ability to do realistic artwork is what FREES creativity.

Got to correct a typo:
"...photorealistic Poser work is more closely related to classical painting THAN photography."

Some people like it, some not so much. It's the nature of art to radiate out to fill everyone's fancy - even Poser Art. I much prefer Photo-realism, but I can appreciate a good toon render or even a surreal theme like Sofandolo's art. If it blurs the line between CGI and photography, my feeling is that's what CGI started out for originally, and the other "flavors" are just gravy, and byproducts of the process. Creativity is wonderful. Something for everyone :-))

To me CGI is about using these tools to create something that may LOOK real but could not be so in real life - maybe because it is impossible (fantasy or sci-fi) coz it would be too expensive to create (large scenes or exotic locations) or because you do not have access to some or all of the components - do you have a real woman who looks like Vicky laying around???

"do you have a real woman who looks like Vicky laying around" LOL not for about 2 years, now - and when I did, I had no TIME to do GCI, or even turn on my computer! (Talk about the real-world interfering with virtual pleasures!) Ahhhh, memories!

What bothers me is that photorealism in Poser is more a question of photorealism in the imported materials than the work of the Poser artist. If you buy a hi-res texture made from photos, and put it on a hi-res model like V3, then no wonder you get a result that looks like a photo. It's no big deal.

Even if the pictures become like photos....photography is an art as well. Anyone can snap a picture with a camera....but only in the hands of a skilled photographer, will a picture become art. The same will evolve for poser/cgi as well. The art will eventually rise above the (excuse the pun) "posers" and "wannabe's" ;) This is an evolving medium...and who can say what the final art will become...The easier it gets for people to make "decent" images, the more an artist is challenged to improve his own art.....and such growth is a good thing for anyone. (my 2 cents) ;) Rawnrr

Photorealistic is one way of dong your Poser stuff - there are many others. So it's a matter of taste, what you want to do, what you like to see, what you find challenging, etc. Does anyone complain about how awfully, terribly 'photorealistic' a film like Matrix is? Where a lot of the scenery and stuff is created in computers but looks like it's real? Hardly likely. That's the whole fascination with it, that one can make the 'not real' look like it is real. :] Fish

I like anything that doesn't look like a mannikin ;) It doesn't matter whether it looks photorealistic or cartoony. In fact I'm fascinated by those who can make 2D looking comics out of poser renders, which is more than just slapping on a sketch designer render.

One can compare the photorealist schools of painting. It's possible to paint so that the result looks like a photo, but most artists don't try, even if they could achieve it. The argument goes, why bother? If you want a photo, take a photo. Using a hi-res photo-based texture is a bit like loading a 2D plane into Poser, texturing it with a photo of someone, and rendering it. The result is a Poser render and it's photo-realistic. The big deal. Actually I may try that sometime :)

You beat me to it, Phantast. Here in the SF Bay Area, there was a strong photorealist movement in painting which I believe lasted approx. 1968-1974, give or take a few years. Artists such as Richard Estes faced exactly these sorts of questions. I believe that the process of questioning why a painter would bother to make a picture that looked like a Poloroid snapshot was an important one, perhaps the raison d'etre for the movement, besides the other answer, which ernyoka1 answered so colorfully in post #2. But I'm not sure the aesthetic questions matter as much in the Poser world. If you buy, say, a photo-real texture from StefyZZ, chances are you're going to end up with a render more "photo-real" than if you were to use a hand-painted texture, whether or not you were thinking about issues of aesthetics. I don't happen to care whether my renders look "real" or not...I like it very much when they look cartoony, dreamlike, or painterly. I doubt if there's any one answer to Shoshanna's question, but IMO it's perfectly valid. Interestingly, a lot of people found the alleged realism of the Final Fantasy movie to be "disturbing."

Quote:"It's possible to paint so that the result looks like a photo, but most artists don't try, even if they could achieve it. The argument goes, why bother? If you want a photo, take a photo."

Take a look at the work of some turn of the century painters like Bouguereau, Gerome, or Frederick Church. The work may look "real" like a photo, but that is where the similarity ends. A good painter can alter every element a picture while still retaining the illusion of reality - photographers can't do this. Photography and realistic painting are not necessarily the same thing. I know much of this is a rehash of my earlier post, but so many people belittle realistic art work with the comment "If you want a photo, take a photo."

Is this a photograph?:
Link to Painting by Bouguereau
If you answered yes, then you are seeing the world in a very limited way.

A real practical answer: It would cost a fortune to arrange all the people and props and the environment needed to create most of the images that are "photo-real" Not many people have access to a 20' tall concrete Temple, and an 18th century sword. ~EA

I would NEVER say that anything by Bouguereau, Gerome, or Frederick Church looked like a photograph. It may be realistic, but it's not photo-realistic in the way that Estes is. The hand of the painter is evident throughout. Just compare with some actual photos.