And how do I get it???  Poser characters seem to come to life in particular artist's hands.  I am thinking of people like FS, mirrorofsoul, AdamWright, RGUS, louly, Erynn.  It isn't realistic skin or anything like that but it's something else. Eyes or pose or something.  Is it an intangible quality or can it be learned?

Franchesca

Practice, practice & more practice.

I think it is skill which can be learned, at least I hope it is for my own sake. :lol:

Quote - And how do I get it???  Poser characters seem to come to life in particular artist's hands.  I am thinking of people like FS, mirrorofsoul, AdamWright, RGUS, louly, Erynn.  It isn't realistic skin or anything like that but it's something else. Eyes or pose or something.  Is it an intangible quality or can it be learned?

Franchesca

Could you post some examples of what you mean?  Maybe, linking something that you feel stands out in their work would help narrow it down?

It's posing and the little details working together. If you look at RGUS's work, every element in the pic tells the story. Nothing is left forgotten. Facial expression, hair, pose, accessories, down to fine posing of hand and feet - nothing is left forgotten or in an awkward position. Then also a good pick of coloring snd composition to support the mood. RGUS's lighting, in most images is pretty inconspicuous, letting the character tell the story.

It's a combination of talent and learning. Those with little less talent spend a bit more time learning.

Do search in the galleries (search by artust) on the names he gives in and you'll know what he's refering too. I personally don't care for their style and for me the characters don't come to life at all in those images, I do find there's something missing. They're not telling me a story at all. For me they're dead, they don't speak to me, they don't tell me anything, they're just standing they're looking into an empty space with empty eyes. They look a lot these young teen models you see in magazines, looking empty.

But if that's what your looking for the answer to your question is very simple and one word..... postwork. Learn to photoshop. Seriously, you need to learn to use photoshop to accomplish these kind of images. They've got very little to do with Poser. The main character was rendered in Poser, the rest has been done in Poser. If you study some of these images closely, you will notice that some the hair and clothes handdrawn in photoshop.

All you need for this is a very basis skill in Poser. You need to know how to pose a nude character, give it a body texture, at times know how to add some basic hair and perhaps some clothes, a light here and there (but not too fancy) and know where the render button is found. That's about it. The rest is done in photoshop and similair applications. You need to know all about those applications and very little about about Poser. You need to know how to postwork, that's what they mainly rely on.

Imo all these images should be in a photoshop category, but that one still is missing. But that's a different discussion.

Quote - Do search in the galleries (search by artust) on the names he gives in and you'll know what he's refering too. I personally don't care for their style and for me the characters don't come to life at all in those images, I do find there's something missing. They're not telling me a story at all. For me they're dead, they don't speak to me, they don't tell me anything, they're just standing they're looking into an empty space with empty eyes. They look a lot these young teen models you see in magazines, looking empty.

But if that's what your looking for the answer to your question is very simple and one word..... postwork. Learn to photoshop. Seriously, you need to learn to use photoshop to accomplish these kind of images. They've got very little to do with Poser. The main character was rendered in Poser, the rest has been done in Poser. If you study some of these images closely, you will notice that some the hair and clothes handdrawn in photoshop.

All you need for this is a very basis skill in Poser. You need to know how to pose a nude character, give it a body texture, at times know how to add some basic hair and perhaps some clothes, a light here and there (but not too fancy) and know where the render button is found. That's about it. The rest is done in photoshop and similair applications. You need to know all about those applications and very little about about Poser. You need to know how to postwork, that's what they mainly rely on.

Imo all these images should be in a photoshop category, but that one still is missing. But that's a different discussion.

I'm not real convinced by your arguements that you have looked at the artists she mentions.  It is possible to get results like that with minimal to no postwork.  Just takes practice and an understanding of the program.

Quote - I'm not real convinced by your arguements that you have looked at the artists she mentions.  It is possible to get results like that with minimal to no postwork.  Just takes practice and an understanding of the program.

Said the person who heavily postworks a lot of her images. (I'm not trying to be mean)

Wrong.

Quote - Do search in the galleries (search by artust) on the names he gives in and you'll know what he's refering too. I personally don't care for their style .......

.....
Imo all these images should be in a photoshop category, but that one still is missing. But that's a different discussion.

Perhaps you should 'show'em how it's done instead of just knocking down what they're doing.

In the meantime, I see many prople, including myself admiriong artwork of artists that the OP mentioned, in my case, RGUS especially.
Last time I had a chance to chat witrh RGUS for a little bit, IIRC he mentioned that he doesn't do postwork.

learn lighting - photography books are a good place to start.  Lighting can make or break a render. 

You can do all the postwork you want on an image...but as the OP points out..it's that certain something.....the artistic talent behind it that is what you are seeing and or feeling. Some artists postwork some do not. Some also do not use Poser as their actual render engine either. 

And while some of the artists mentioned may or may not trip my trigger, it doesn't take the "X" factor away from them.  It just means I'm not into their style.

But they are right, if you have the talent ....that innate something to be an artist, then it takes practicing of your craft to get the results you are seeing.  :)

Personally, I could care less if an image is postworked or not, I either like it or not...I certainly don't think that postwork is a dirty word :)

Quote - And how do I get it???  Poser characters seem to come to life in particular artist's hands.  I am thinking of people like FS, mirrorofsoul, AdamWright, RGUS, louly, Erynn.  It isn't realistic skin or anything like that but it's something else. Eyes or pose or something.  Is it an intangible quality or can it be learned?

Franchesca

I'm still not quite sure what it is you're referring to.  Bear with me on this:

A Character "Coming to Life" means a lot of different things to people.  But, what it really means is that the character/setting flows well and it communicates something about the character that takes a human element to recognize.

You can make a stick figure "come to life."

That's a happy stick figure.  It, apparently, has found a "friend."  It may be a love interest, it may be a parent.. whatever.  The point is, there is something there more than just some lines and squiggles that communicates more than the sum of its parts.  Thus, the stick figure "has come to life."

The quality of a render has absolutely nothing to do with communicating a message UNLESS it is so terribad that its "badness" overshadows any possible message the artist was trying to convey.

IMO, there are a few things that make a human character "come to life."

Facial expression - Too often, people simply have human characters making expressions that a human being is not capable of.  /sigh  There is no possible way some of these expressions could be realized in the real world.. Yet, they get stuck in "realistic renders."  That is a "discordant note" in the artist's work.  If your render is supposed to be realistic, make the expression realistic as well.  That goes for the eyes, especially.  TOO many renders seem to have deadpan eyes, looking at nothing, seeing nothing, revealing.. nothing.    Look at the above stick figure's eyes!  Those have more expression in them than half the realistic renders I saw when doing a search.

Pose - Gravity, gravity, gravity... it exists.  Pay attention to it.  Movement is always about "realistic" movement.  Why?  Look at it this way - You are used to seeing people move a certain way constrained by gravity, their skeleton and simple physics.  Now, in an "unrealistic" render, whacky movements are fine.  Heck, awesome cartoon shows have wacky movements and out of sink motion all the time and it ADDS to the value of the show.  But, ignoring physics doesn't add to anything in a realistic render.  It detracts from it and introduces another "discordant" note.

Match up the theme with the above - That's the "art" part.  For instance, a realistic render that shows a housewife washing dishes with shoulders and elbows somewhat out of realism in her pose, hunched over a sink with completely deadpan eyes and a big smile on her face isn't bad... in fact, it is GOOD if the artist is trying to communicate the physical drudgery and mindlessness that some housewives may feel.  In that composition, the discordant notes actually are significant communicators.  But, if they're not isolated properly or there is too much distraction caused by terribad rendering their nuances will be easily overlooked.

Remove discordant notes in the work or emphasize only the ones that actually convey a message if you're using them for that.  That goes for everything from realistic renders to stick figures.  An artistic work must successfully communicate something more than just the sum of its parts.  If discordant notes and bad rendering overpower any message the artist was trying to communicate, then it is "badly done art."

PS - In the artist's portfolios I quickly browsed, RGUS seemed to have the best nack with human figures and combining good facial expressions, good poses and eyes that "worked" for the image.  Others also did similarly well but RGUS's seemed to be the most consistent.

I really like ebrink's work. He mostly uses Vue for his renders. But in his works I can often feel the mood and action of the scene. When I look at his scenes his figures are in full action even while standing still, every line of the figure is in motion toward whatever they are about.
     Another favorite of mine is Raphael for the same reason, his figures and scenes flow and move usually around a heightened center of action. Raphael is one of the great artists and a good source for study.
     For color and light I like to study Caravagio (I'm partial to that kind of dramatic lighting)
    

I'm going to have to agree with Aeilkema's assesment of the mentioned artists. Just looking at the first page of thumbnails for each artist, I see postworked hair, bland expressions with minimum adjustments made to the eyes on occassion and sometimes a pursed pair of lips. Other than that, I see no life in the expressions.

You can't tell me RGUS does no post work. I saw only two of his images where the hair looked like it might have originally been Poser hair before some touchups. The rest of the hair all looked painted on to me. I have nothing against postwork, but it doesn't really bring life to a face for me. Life comes from the use of actual expressions other than dead-eyed Dick and Jane, or in these cases Mike and Vicky.

I'm certainly not saying these guys aren't good at what they do, but I don't see any X factor that brings their work to life for me.

Morkonen could not have said it better. His examples are excellent.
Here's my 2 cents
Don't get hung up with what applications to use. Whether you use poser, daz studio, vue, or photoshop, the end result is what counts. Some are comfortable with pure renders, some with postwork.  You can convey your ideas more effectively by focussing on composition, colors, lighting, and posing. You've already noticed that realism isn't the necessary ingredient for the "x-factor".  You just have to make your image real enough to be believable.
One important thing, which a lot of us overlook, is an audience.  Your message has to have an audience, and that audience has to understand what you are conveying, otherwise, it's just a bad message.
Last but not least. Try to develop your own style. This is the most difficult part IMHO.
I am guilty of not having my own style, but then hey, I do this as a  hobby and enjoy every min of it.

Render on
JV

looked at them all, and
i see great lighting, good use of bump maps on skin and lips, good eye placement, and eye highlights, lots of post worked hair, and post worked effects, such as softening, and color enhancements, ect....
but, they all look pretty great,
i on the other hand try my best to produce images with no postwork at all  and i found its all the small stuff that you have to watch out for, check those fingers, hair tips, and feet........are they intersecting something?? is the feet/butte actually touching the surface it's suposted to be?
are the eyes looking at you or staring off into space?
how about placement of other items? is the distance and scale right?
and always watch your hues,  the same value of colors in a pic with the right hue of lights can make or break a pic.
good luck, and just keep trying

aeilkema, "for me the characters don't come to life.."

I don't understand at all. There is no way 3D models can be made life-like no matter how skilled you are. Just try to put a Poser model in a photograph and it looks completely out of place. 3D models are meant to be used for games and animated film, advertising.

But if we are talking about 2D stills (called "Art" by some), then all depends on the skill of the artist. I believe Raphael and Caravagio was mentioned? I don't think anyone doubt that those gentlemen would be just as outstanding in digital media as they were with paint and brush.

Like some of the others, I took a look at the galleries of a couple of the artists mentioned. Here's my 0.02, FWIW.

One has zeroed in on a near-perfect method of doing eyes and now uses it in everything -- and that's okay. It might get a little relentless after a while because it so predominates every image, but it works within the context of each image. Beyond that, though, I didnt see a whole lot that would distinguish this particular artist from the pack.

And that, I think, is the thing: if you look at all of these guys, they've found some small thing that works for them really, really well, and they work it hard. It's not exactly a hallmark of individual style, just a trick that gives their various images a little more oomph than, say, the usual Hot Yo Mama 20 type of picture. And finding that little something that you can claim as your own is one of the best things you can do for yourself.

Beyond that, as someone else pointed out, it's lots and lots of practice. There's a lot of work that's gone into these (and yeah, a lot of postwork as well), so dont kid yourself that it's something that can just be thrown in the mix like yet another part of the predictable assortment of Poser tricks.

But one thing these various galleries affirmed for me is that dogged old argument about whether or not these are "art". If anything, many of them confirmed that they're not. They're very well crafted -- in some cases extremely so -- but the result is just a very well-crafted image, one that's a spectacular piece of work. But art? Hmm... nah, dont think so, sorry. See, I look at these, and I'm so impressed by the technical skills on display that they dont really engage me emotionally. They're all very pretty to look at (and by that, I mean the resulting combination of skills on display, not the content), but I can just as easily walk away after a while, secure in the knowledge that once Ive seen one or two, I've basically seen the whole shot of what their creator has to offer. It's kinda like looking at the graphics done by an artist (whose name I cant remember, sorry) who did a lot of editorial illustrations for magazines like Playboy and then remanufactured his work into high end posters. They were nice to look at, in a very corporate-art kind of way, but he has only one trick up his sleeve. The stuff from the end of his career looked damn little different from the stuff at the end: stunning but predictable.

And sorry, but I dont consider that "art". Again, very good illustration coupled with solid craftsmanship, no doubt about it. But the work of someone who's discovered a couple of stylistic tricks, not someone with an engaging insight.

So I think the decision you have to make is: what are you trying to do with your Poser work? Are you trying to be engaging? Or just look good? I make no pretensions about my own work: it's facile... but it's supposed to be facile, and it doesnt take long to see why it's facile. But it does the job it's supposed to do, with no illusions of being "art". And I'm perfectly happy with that.

So again, it comes down to what you expect of your own work. Do you want your images to tell us a story? Then go as deep into that story as you can. Dont settle for a column-A-column-B mix and match of stuff just because they look good together or more or less kinda/sorta say what you want us to see. Truly think about what you're presenting: who is this character? Why is s/he in this particular setting? And how does s/he react to it -- not just facially, but in every gesture, in every placement of every element of the body. What's the mood you're building, and what does it take to get it to that particular mood? Is it lighting (something most people really ignore, to their detriment)? Is it atmospherics? Is it a change in texturing somewhere to give the image an element of surprise?

Finally, never declare an image done until you've set it aside for 48 hours and gone back to look at it afresh. You'd be surprsied what you discover that needs attention.

Quote - aeilkema, "for me the characters don't come to life.." I don't understand at all. There is no way 3D models can be made life-like no matter how skilled you are. Just try to put a Poser model in a photograph and it looks completely out of place

In the main, yes, you're right, because the Poser body meshes look so unnaturally perfect to begin with. But I've seen facial closeups that really, really blur the line. Like everything else, it's a matter of technical skill and a good eye.

In a way, that's the somewhat ironic thing about little used character meshes like Sydney: the proportions there are actually closer to a real person, as opposed to the all-legs-all-the-time look of the Showgirl and her various iterations. And maybe, in a sad kind of way, that's why Sydney doesnt get as much use: she's too much like the majority of people in the real world, an anathema when you're dealing with a format that seems to demand fantasy over everything else.

With coming to life I don't mean that they need to be realistic, life like, that is very hard (if not impossible) to achieve with poser. I hardly every do create realistic life like images, mainly toon/comic focussed.

With coming to life I mean that the characters don't speak to the imagination. They don't tell a story, all they do is stand there being pretty (and even that's debatable), but that's it. The challenge the imagination, they're images you see thousands of around here. When looking at excellent poser images (even if there's only one figure in it) they tell a story. You start seeing much more in the image then there is, the characters come to life and start living the rest of the story that is being conveyed, even though only one scene or figure is being portrayed. Most of these images do miss that feature.

Quote - I don't understand at all. There is no way 3D models can be made life-like no matter how skilled you are. Just try to put a Poser model in a photograph and it looks completely out of place. 3D models are meant to be used for games and animated film, advertising.

Poser renders/models are not the benchmark for this sort of thing.

And this image right here is an excellent example of something that, while nicely crafted, just doesnt cut it as art. It's a near-stereotypical pose with a bland expression. The lighting is nicely soft and the texturing is quite wonderful -- but cut through it, and what is it? Nothing you wouldnt see a thousand times over in only slight variations. No real engagement needed on the part of the viewer because the end result requires about as much thought as a shopping list. There's no story here, no core idea. It's a lovely (and let me emphasize that once more) sketch... but a sketch nevertheless. Truly, a triumph of style over substance.

If you only seek to emulate somebody else's style (whatever merit that might have) then at best, you will be compared to who you're emulating and almost always found lacking.  Ignore the number of comments or number of favorites and gushing "omg +++++" comments, and look very hard at what you think is appealing.  If you can't even express why a given image is appealing or unappealing, then something is probably warped with your perception of it.

Quote - And this image right here is an excellent example of something that, while nicely crafted, just doesnt cut it as art. It's a near-stereotypical pose with a bland expression. The lighting is nicely soft and the texturing is quite wonderful -- but cut through it, and what is it? Nothing you wouldnt see a thousand times over in only slight variations. No real engagement needed on the part of the viewer because the end result requires about as much thought as a shopping list. There's no story here, no core idea. It's a lovely (and let me emphasize that once more) sketch... but a sketch nevertheless. Truly, a triumph of style over substance.

That's all fine, but before you aspire to anything as lofty as 'engagement', first you actually have to know how to handle your tools. Until then, any discussion about 'X-factors' is premature at best. If you're still struggling with basic lighting, composition, color theory or whatever, then those are the things you need to work on, rather then some mythical factor that will immediately make your work all artistic and stuff.

Substance without style is just some unwashed guy on a soapbox that no one listens to.

pjz99, "[you should not try to] emulate somebody else's style"

That is well and good advice for a mature artist but after all most of us here at Renderosity is not that yet. To emulate famous master’s technique and style has been a successful way of learning for centuries.

To make photos, Vue/Bryce landscapes, Poser and 3D objects work convincingly together in a 2D still you must apply a consisting artistic style to the wholeness.

To have something to refer to I take my favourite painting of John Waterhouse (1849-1917) as an example, http://www.praeraffaeliten.de/bilder/Waterhouse-Hylas-Nymphs.jpg

So, now this is a true piece of art. Waterhouse would have no problem transforming everything into his own personal style. Ideally, you will some day be capable to do the same, but with your own unique style. Until then, to imitate may not be wrong.

BTW you cannot do something like this without postwork, in other words, no style - no art.

**ghonma, "**Substance without style is just some unwashed guy on a soapbox that no one listens to"  :)))

I will presume to ask a favour. I have just made my very first portrait, based on a Poser figure, but still I must have made an error, because alpha102039 was able to see that it was a Poser figure. What did I do wrong? I would very much like to get help in this matter. My try is here,
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1832672

>> "If you're still struggling with basic lighting, composition, color theory or whatever, then those are the things you need to work on, rather then some mythical factor that will immediately make your work all artistic and stuff."

Not always true. Look at work like the Primitive Masters, like Grandma Moses. There's no composition worth spit in there, certainly no lighting. Yet her work is considered classic -- and for good reason -- because it evokes. Tools are great, but that image in particular is only about tools, proving that style over substance is just another Hannah Montana.

"What did I do wrong?"

Primarily, the hair, which honestly screams Poser. That's not a bad thing, in and of itself, but it's the dead giveaway, as far as I can see. There's something about most Poser hair props that seem almost redundant after a while because they try to accomplish too much with too few polygons. Compare that to anything by Neftis, and you'll see what I mean.

Now, whether it's the P4 woman or V4 or Sydney? :: shrug :: I dont especially think that it looks like any of them per se. You can tell it's CG, but thats not a bad thing either. For a first image, it's a damn sight better than my first.

**
*Sorry, but I can not see Grandma Moses struggling with basic lighting, composition and color theory . And she most definitely has her own distinct style.

SeanMartin, thank you for taking time to comment. The hair was not from Poser (which I didn't like) I got it from a Photoshop collection but I guess it looks too much the same. The reason I didn't use real hair was that it would have destroyed the "stilized" effect I am striving for/after. I guess I need to think long and hard on what to do with hair.

Quote - pjz99, "[you should not try to] emulate somebody else's style" ...

That's not what I said, and not what I meant.  I said if you only try to emulate someone else's style, at best you'll remind the viewer of that other person's style.  If your goal is to be "just like Jim PoserRenderer", then you may attain that goal.  Whether it's a good goal to strive for is something to evaluate for yourself.

The real point I was getting at was, it may be worth while to examine what exactly is appealing in Jim PoserRenderer's images.  If you don't understand why something is appealing, how can you ever hope to emulate it and be just like Jim PoserRenderer?

incidentally regarding the gallery pic you pointed at:  The features are almost unmistakably Posette, and the light coming out of her nostrils is a dead giveaway also.  Poser people make terrible, terrible references for painting work, they just do not resemble anything other than Poser people.

>> The real point I was getting at was, it may be worth while to examine what exactly is appealing in Jim PoserRenderer's images.  If you don't understand why something is appealing, how can you ever hope to emulate it and be just like Jim PoserRenderer?

Amen. And I'd simply add that just because it works for him doesnt ipso facto mean it'll work for you. I love books by Tom Wolfe and I can try to emulate them based on what seems to work within them... but the bottom line is, I'm not Tom Wolfe. Tom Wolfe is Tom Wolfe. I'm Sean Martin and I draw cartoons and sometimes write bizarre little stories to go with them. And some folks seem to enjoy that. So if I've found something on my own that works for me, why should I bother trying to be like Jim PoserRenderer or Tom Wolfe, for that matter? :)

Copying someone elses style is good for learning purposes (I copied StanLee as a kid and got quite good) and is an awesome way to start your own development...but you must ultimately find your own voice.

I think most Poser users rush too fast to display their renders. You should let a render sit for at least a day or two and then come back to it and see how it strikes you then...rinse, repeat.

pjz99,  "Poser people make terrible, terrible references for painting work"

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I did noticed the nostrils and corrected it, but not enough obviously.  Regarding the use of Poser figures as references, even the old masters used models, live models in their case but still models. I am a beginner in art (but not in the programs), but I believe if you are skilled enough you can make use of anything. I cannot afford live models anyhow I have to make do with what is possible. Programs like Maya for example, help with perspective, otherwise overwhelmingly difficult for a beginner. My basic ambition is to make landscapes, with some occasional people in now and then. 

Quote - Copying someone elses style is good for learning purposes (I copied StanLee as a kid and got quite good) and is an awesome way to start your own development...but you must ultimately find your own voice. 

Which unfortunally most people that post images in the poser selection never do. Good for learning, but most never find their own voice. Anyone can copy, but talent is needed to go beyond.

Quote - Regarding the use of Poser figures as references, even the old masters used models, live models in their case but still models.

The old masters used models that were human beings, and thus their results resemble human beings.  If you use models of Poser people, your paintings will resemble Poser people.  If this is a goal for you, for your painting to always resemble Poser people and for the viewer to immediately recognize this (which you've already noticed), then you are on a good track for success.

Quote - I will presume to ask a favour. I have just made my very first portrait, based on a Poser figure, but still I must have made an error, because alpha102039 was able to see that it was a Poser figure. What did I do wrong? I would very much like to get help in this matter. My try is here,

If you want one reason, then i agree it would have to be the nose. There are some things a bit off in other parts of the face but they can be ascribed to your personal style. The nose, though, is almost stereotypically poser. From the thin bridge, glowing nostrils, the way the nostrils are flaring and the little nubbin at the tip, it pretty much screams 'poser.'

Quote - Not always true. Look at work like the Primitive Masters, like Grandma Moses. There's no composition worth spit in there, certainly no lighting. Yet her work is considered classic -- and for good reason -- because it evokes. Tools are great, but that image in particular is only about tools, proving that style over substance is just another Hannah Montana.

Well there are always exceptions but i dont think you'll find many 'masters' in any discipline that weren't also masters of technique. You certainly wont find any in CG, even people who work with something as abstract as fractals need ultimate understanding of their tools to produce anything worthwhile.

As for poor hannah montana, note that dumb as she is, she still manages to influence millions of people with her 'art.' And even work by/on someone as shallow as marylin monroe is considered a 'classic' in some circles, so what does that tell you about the whole substance thing anyway :p

*>> As for poor hannah montana, note that dumb as she is, she still manages to influence millions of people with her 'art.' And even work by/on someone as shallow as marylin monroe is considered a 'classic' in some circles, so what does that tell you about the whole substance thing anyway :p

I will simply refer you to the latest image in my gallery. :)

pjz99, " If this is a goal for you, for your painting to always resemble Poser people"

No of course not! I only want to use it as a reference image, but I also use other references so no trace of poser is allowed to exist. I know that I as a beginner probably shouldn't say this, but IMO I can't see anyone in this thread who make less Poserlike figures..With all due respect as far as I can see, they have not made the slightest attempt to "de-Poser", ie they do not even want to.

**ghonma, "**If you want one reason, then i agree it would have to be the nose."

Thank you ghonma, yes yes the nose. I most certainly will not do that mistake again. What to do with the hair I don't know, but the nose and the bonestructure is easely fixed.

>> With all due respect as far as I can see, they have not made the slightest attempt to "de-Poser", ie they do not even want to.

Exactly. Some of us -- myself included -- actually revel in the fact that I'm working with a Poser character and have no desire whatsoever to de-Poser them. :)

SeanMartin, I greatly enjoyed you art, but it depend as much upon the texts than on the figures! It would probably work as equally well with South Park style 'models'. Nevertheless, one can see your artistic mastery in the perfectly balanced people, obeying gravity, and in the intricate backgrounds you can see here and there. If you ever should decide to become a landscape painter you could do that as easy as a drop of the hat.

That's very kind, thank you.

Hmm.... landscape painter...

Nah, thanks, I'll stick to cartoons, :)

<gah!  i hate this stupid JS editor!  just lost a post again!>

getting back to the original post...

i wouldn't have said those artist's works had life, because i find them particularly lifeless if technically accomplished.  but then i think that of fashion photos as well.  a whole industry is dedicated to making real women look CG.  just to clarify, i don't think that's bad, just deliberately not full of life, still, cool and poised.

if you want to make images that are consistent and slick and commercial:

• only use plain color or abstract backgrounds.
• never give your subject much of an expression.
• part the lips slightly, and use oblique looks occassionally
• choose 5 of the most popular and well-made outfits, textures and hair styles, and make them your staple products. 
• use very light  ibl (hdri if you can).  never use directional light as your main light, and always have very ambient works.
• keep your palette simple and limited.
• use only one or two props in a scene.  usually make them weapons.
• use bold colors sparingly.
• make a set of poses from 40s to 60s pinup photos. study their lighting.
• make a set of poses from contemporary fashion magazine photos. study their lighting.
• never have your characters do anything complex.  they should always be posing for the camera, and in the kind of pose you can identify in a second while moving (like a billboard).
• try to work with one character and change her only subtly in each image.
• follow threads like bagginsbills to make your materials realistic.
• use gamma correction.
• try to have use one focal/jarring element.  makeup, weird eyes, tattoos, etc.
• juxtapose model physiques, sexy poses and menace, or cuteness and menace.
• mix sex and violence in impersonal and restrained ways at odds with the pose.

most people here are trying to tell you how to give your work life.  you probably actually want the opposite.

Learn composition and lighting and they will help to make your renders better, and don`t just render the latest victoria in the centre of the picture.

But... but... but .... that's what all these so called experts do, I'm confused now (not really).

Quote - But... but... but .... that's what all these so called experts do, I'm confused now (not really).

exactly.  people are answering as if the question is about a lively figure.  instead, it's really about how to make a striking image.  and actually, yeah, a vicky in the middle of the page is about right.  you shouldn't center, but seriously, this isn't about original composition or lighting.  it's about stock composition and lighting.  set up a "studio," get the lighting you want, and just do minor tweaks after that.  use fashion photos as a guide.  most sets of fashion photos are incredibly consistent, and i find almost none of them, even by different artitists, vary that much in terms of scenery.  mostly, it's the ambient white room with some variations on lighting.

oh, and let me add, try to light hair, not the face.  i came across that in some real world photography references.

What are we talking about?

?

To make a stock photo is one thing, and requires its own set of skills. To place Victoria in a context with scenery, in rooms with other people etc, and deliver a statement -that is something else, it is called "Art".

Quote -
What are we talking about?

?

To make a stock photo is one thing, and requires its own set of skills. To place Victoria in a context with scenery, in rooms with other people etc, and deliver a statement -that is something else, it is called "Art".

 

read the original post, and go to those galleries.  each of those artists does plain portrait pictures.  if there's a scene, it's basically a backdrop, not something the main figure is interacting with.  i don't believe i've ever seen an RGUS image with a background.  i'm not going to define art one way or another, and i'd never say a fashion photographer wasn't an artist.  and if you look at most fashion photos, imho, there isn't a scene, other people, or a statement (usually, it's more of an attitude)  and most of the artists mentioned in the original do what i would call fashion renders, even if the fashion is SF or fantasy.

cobaltdream,

You are right of course you will never get people to agree what is art. A chimp was an artist according to some. You are also right in that most of the more qualified works here is of the fashion photographer type. But nevertheless and don't mind what you call it, I would like to see more examples of other type of works. For my part I have seen enough fashion photography to last me a lifetime.