I agree with Deecey. I don't think it's fair to call the figures caricatures carte blanche, since the better ones are in the ballpark and can be morphed to get them much of the rest of the way. I've seen numerous images that were quite convincing (not photographic, but very good representation), which you can't do with a caricature, which is all about exaggeration. And that's what I was referencing with some of the older characters I've seen - a great deal of exaggeration to emphasize "this is an older character" instead of trusting to the more subtle differences that reality usually generates.

Apple, "essential" in minor details, yes, but not for creating wrinkles and the accompanying shadows. That is precisely the problem with the approach. Carodan has shown how much can and should be done by transforming the mesh rather than the diffuse texture. In comparison, what can be done with the diffuse texture, while it can add real value to the effect, is minor. If you're after realism, I'd venture to say that what is done with the mesh via morph and displacement, combined with bump, contributes probably a good 75%. Diffuse texture done well (not baked-in shadows) maybe 25%.

But my observation tells me that a lot of this is NOT done well. The diffuse textures are from photos of older people, and that means that the shadows are baked in. IMO, if using photos, it is much better to use photos from someone younger without wrinkles and use the diffuse texture for what it's intended, modifying it for genuine colouration and leaving the rest to bump and mesh deformation. That's the only way it's gonna look real. (I'm not saying I can do this myself - I know firsthand how difficult it is to create a good bump map, and displacement is at least as difficult, I think.)

______________

Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM

Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3