Personally, I don't think Poser does "real" all that well. Yes, I know, with good textures and a good model, etc., but Poser's "real" leaves a lot to be desired, so I don't even bother to try for it. When you're trying for "real", the littlest thing will throw off the illusion. Something else to think about is that two 3D animated movies came out around the same time, Pixar's "A Bug's Life," and PDI's "Antz". Which is more "realistic"? One could argue that it's "Antz," since those ants are brown and have six legs, rather than being pink and/or blue with four legs, but when you think about it, they're talking ants. How realistic do they HAVE to be? I do a lot of fantasy type pictures. Fairies, angels, demonic types, stuff like that. How "real" do fairies have to be? What about angels? shrug I suppose it all depends on what you're doing and why. "Realism" might be a goal if you're trying to do, say, high quality print ads for something, but most of the time and for most people, "realism" is very much a subjective thing. My husband, who has worked for professionally for some years with 3D rendering software (as a programmer, not an artist), is of the opinion that "South Park" is actually the most realistic of all current 3D/computer graphic productions. Why? Because it looks exactly like they want to look: like torn paper, with shadows, depth, edges, etc. The illusion is so good that people tend to forget that it's 3D graphic (they model and render it in Maya, in case you wondered). As for Poser, I tend to prefer a painterly or particle-speckled or illustrated look (not that I can achieve it successfully all the time; still working on it). I think for that purpose, Poser does a very GOOD job and provides a good base from which to work. Just my own general reflections. Take it for what it's worth. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis