Quote - > Quote - Phantast: But in most non-porn nude poses detailed genitalia are not needed, so this discussion may be veering off in an unnecessary direction. Two magnets are all you need.

That is a somewhat dishonest attempt to defeat the argument. You're making the presumption that that part of the body has no place being seen outside of porn. If that was a legitimate argument, the male figures would not need any genitals either. I have said already in here that I am not referring to porn, and now this statement tries to claim that I and those who might agree with me are. I am not, I will say that again. In -any- nude where the pubic region of the body can be seen, haired or not, a texture rendition of the anatomy is obvious for its jarring level of unreality. 

Good Heavens, you completely misunderstand me. When I say "detailed genitalia" I am referring to bits which even in most nude poses do not show, unless the model for some reason is sitting with her legs apart. Unlike the male, the female of the species has internal genitalia. Thus the pubic region can be seen without the genitals being really visible - unless there is a specific desire to expose them, which usually means either porn or gynecology. I quite agree with you about the jarring level of unreality of the lower hip. What I'm saying is that Magic G will not even begin to fix that. It will give you some plumbing.

To mention two other topics raised above:

Expressions: I find a common fault is over-exaggeration. Look at people around you and study the range of expressions they actually use. Much of the time the face is in repose. The face sets you see for sale in the RMP are mostly gross caricatures and are best avoided.

Photo-realism: Personally I don't want my renders to look like photos. I want them to look like what you see when you look at the world through your eyes, not through a camera lens. Thus I dislike focusing effects, lens flares and other such tricks.