http://www.denispeterson.com/Rwanda.html

"I recognize and appreciate the skill required to create a photorealistic render.  I just don't believe it to be (necessarily) art."

Does anyone have the right to tell this guy he doesnt create art?

http://www.denispeterson.com/Imagine.html
http://www.denispeterson.com/Madonna.html

Im in awe at the attention to detail...as an artist our eyes are our primary tools, this guy uses them to the extreme.

Quote - It is where art starts, not where it finishes.

what? Realism is where art STARTS? So basically you need it?

Don't you want to say something like: "Realism is where art goes to die"

Sounded more like "I don't like realism, so nobody else should either".

I was at the MOMA musium in San Francisco one day... i was looking at a beautiful photoreal oil portrait of a young lady, a few feet from it was a giant canvas with a orange square and a blue square on it....everyone was talking about how complex the color contrast and how sophisticated the minimilsm is and they didnt have much to say about the photoreal portriate other than, wow, very talented artist.........are you kidding me!

personal taste is everything in art.

Well, if someone, someday does manage to make a true photorealistic render,
it will most likely be some form of  Victoria and very likely to be a nude image.
Someone please PM or email me when this happens because I will miss it.
Why ?
I gave up looking at "photorealistic", naked Vickies in the last decade, 2002 to be exact. :)

As far as I can see reading this, most people here confuse photo realism with realistic and beautiful details, a painting can be very beautiful, full of details and realistic but never photorealistic :-)

As far as I can see by now true photorealism can be achieved in most CG with no human figures, I've seen very realistic CG humans a lot of beautiful humans, but I'm not shure absolute and real photorealism can be achieved by now, and I'm quite shure not in poser.

Painting can never be Photorealistic isnt entirely accurate. and for poser8 http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1981674&user_id=223738&favorite&np

this could change your mind.

Ahh yet another example of my rant in the forums..never mind that link as it may have been rendered in carrera - only for him to say "I just got poser 8, played with it for a few hours and this is what came out" , then later on in comments he says , I usually load everything in Poser and render in carrera. ...AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH. so irritating.

That pic a) could very well have been rendered in Poser, it's well within Poser's capabilities since it's pretty much just a photo projected onto the mesh and almost all the lighting effect is coming from the photograph; and b) is not particularly realistic anyway, note how the mouth wrinkles obtrude into the neck straight over the jaw bone, and the shadows of the photo texture do not match shadows cast on the mesh from 3D lights.

Quote - Ahh yet another example of my rant in the forums..never mind that link as it may have been rendered in carrera - only for him to say "I just got poser 8, played with it for a few hours and this is what came out" , then later on in comments he says , I usually load everything in Poser and render in carrera. ...AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH. so irritating.

Well, that's a very realistic picture, poser or carrara, I specially like those realistic, plastic, very Michael 4 ears, and all pjz99 say. I've seen a lot of very beautiful (not this) very realistic (this one) renders but always there is something that tell me it's CG, Don't misunderstand me, don't confuse realistic with photo realism, I like a lot realistic renders I envy the atention to details that some people can achieve.

 sigh  I don't think HeWhoWatches was saying that photorealism isn't art.  Just that technical skill isn't always everything you need to make art.  

Then again, there are things I've seen in art museums that I wouldn't consider art, but it's not up to me.  (I wouldn't hang my work in a museum, either.  It's pretty, but maybe not what the "pros" would consider art.)

Agree with you JenX, my bad english don't let me say it the way you do :-) 

Good obsevation on the shadows, I over looked that...however if the texture was nutral in shadows and relied on ambience from IDL and IBL , a proper morph to smooth out inconsistancies I'd say it would be really damn close.

Jen X:
Well I guess I took this :
"He showed me a render of Barack Obama's face which came very close to photorealism, expressing admiration for its "realism."  I tried to explain to him that while this portrait no doubt took a lot of time to make, it wasn't art.  Making photorealistic renders of people's faces doesn't take any artistic insight or talent, just time and patience.  Not that there isn't value to this; after all, a bricklayer or stonemason who has spent a lifetime learning the trade can do wonderful work which delights and inspires -- but it isn't art.  There is a difference between an artist and an artisan.

I'm not trying to be some kind of effete art snob.  I recognize and appreciate the skill required to create a photorealistic render.  I just don't believe it to be (necessarily) art."

Litorally , as though he was expressing his disike for photorealism and at the same time saying it wasnt art . I guess I just didnt metaphoricaly interpret this enough. as him saying its not the only form of art there is.

 Could he have worded it better?  Probably.
Does everyone have to assume something that he explicitly didn't say?  No, and that's how arguments start. 

I think the guy can speak for himself, let him.

 That probably would have already happened if people didn't jump down his throat first thing. 
That's not inviting dialogue.  That's attacks.  Something to remember, folks.

Quote -  That probably would have already happened if people didn't jump down his throat first thing. 
That's not inviting dialogue.  That's attacks.  Something to remember, folks.

Hey!

Kindly keep your calm and reasonable opinions out of our inflamed and uninformed internet debate!  ;)

I like Smurfs.

Err, I went back and read over the entire thread, and I don't see anything that remotely resembles an attack.  The whole conversation has been (surprisingly) quite reasonable and calm.  At any rate, the guy is perfectly able to speak for himself, why not let him do it.

Quote - I like Smurfs.

Me too but I couldn't eat a whole one.

Regardless of how you or I feel about the topic, or whether or not what was said is viewed as attacks, taking one or two sentences of what someone posted and twisting it to mean what wasn't even intended isn't conducive to a healthy discussion.  
In any case, let's get back to the subject at hand, not the semantics of the thread, shall we?

passes Jen some Smurf on toast

Jen who are you talking to and what are you talking about?  I'm baffled.

Quote -  sigh  I don't think HeWhoWatches was saying that photorealism isn't art.  Just that technical skill isn't always everything you need to make art.

That's exactly what I meant when I said that "photorealism isn't (necessarily) art."  Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.  There's a difference between technical skill with something and the creation of artwork.  A stonemason CAN make art, but generally doesn't.  She or he doesn't have to do so.  A good, solid, functional, aesthetically-appealing wall is a fine goal without having to be art.  The render I saw of Obama's face clearly took a lot of skill and talent.  The goal of the piece was clearly to create a photorealistic render of Obama's face, not to make a statement or engage the emotions of the viewer.  This is just fine, and there's nothing wrong with it.  As several people here have pointed out, creating photorealism can be just as challenging as assembling oddly-shaped stones into a sturdy wall.  My argument -- my opinion if you will -- is that a great many people here seem to have made photorealism their goal instead of the creation of art.

Photorealism can be art, just as arrangements of stones can be art.  But when the goal itself is technical and not artistic, then it is axiomatically not art.

Quote - > Quote - I like Smurfs.

Me too but I couldn't eat a whole one.

Gawd, I'm so glad I didn't have any coffee in my mouth...

LMAO!!

You crack me up ;o).

Laurie

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - I like Smurfs.

Me too but I couldn't eat a whole one.

Gawd, I'm so glad I didn't have any coffee in my mouth...

LMAO!!

You crack me up ;o).

Laurie

Thanks.  All part of the service.

I'd like to ask what folk here consider to be 'photo-real'?
This might seem an obvious question but there are examples of quite well known works of art widely accepted as falling into this category (paintings by Chuck Close and Gerhard Richter for example) that I suspect wouldn't be accepted as such by some here. The paintings of these two artists are rarely totally indestinguishable from photos, and yet are obviously referenced from them. Both artists have made insightful works both about and from the use of photographs, but there are certainly examples of which, when seen in isolation from their wider bodies of work, might appear to many as having little meaning beyond being a painting of a photo. I would suggest looking at greater depth (especially at Richter, who I personally consider to be one of the modern masters).

I'm not sure it's always so obvious from any given piece to assert that the goal of the creator wasn't to make a statement or evoke an emotion, or to create a dialogue. There are times when artists just fail to pull off their intended messages, as there are also times when the viewer just fails to get it.

While I understand the concerns the original poster  from a certain perspective, I also think it's wise not to assume too readily what peoples goals and motivations are based on one or two examples of work. I do accept that there may be many artists working in CG and traditional media who get caught up in the persuit of realism (momentarily) as an ends in itself, something I personally feel is lacking in vision, but this isn't always the case. There's a lot that can be learned from the study of realism.

I'm not really sure I see that much of a trend toward photo-realism in the galleries here anyway - a relatively small percentage of the overall postings.

This is pretty photoreal

As is This

This Maybe ?

Wow! Those are pretty impressive, though I note they all used high-end apps; maybe that's the secret.

Poser's getting there with version 8, but it's beyond my capabilities to produce stuff that good.

Simply using an expensive app is not at all helpful if you start with mesh that is unrealistic, or textures that are unrealistic, or poses or lighting or various other things.  I've seen images come out of Poser or DAZ|Studio that are more realistic than many I've seen come out of Cinema or Max or Maya.

Photo real characters are just too freaky for me. They look ... empty, soulless, vacant.

Possible solution...  Increase the purchase price of Poser to $2000.00 for a basic version.   Then add modules for improvement to specific Poser Rooms at perhaps $1000.00 each..

With all of this extra cash going into R&D.   Poser would be the #1 Software package it has the potential to be..

P.S.   I Believe in porcine levitation..!!

The elements in a render need to look consistent or you end up with a crap look. Light has to behave properly. Those are two essential keys to a fine looking render, it can be realistic or any other kind of istic.

Exactly. As I said, I'm not an artist, and have nothing much to say. But I support other artists who have trouble with technical aspects. They are not exploring these technical things for the sake of doing so, but rather to express their creativity the way they want, which is to say, usually, to create a fantasy (something that could not be staged and photographed) and present it convincingly.

Pretending to be an artist for a moment, here's a pitiful example from me. Here's the story. Andy is the house bot. He takes care of all the things the family doesn't want to do. But in the early morning, before they wake up, he's free to enjoy the sunrise. Admire his joy.

Now - to me, if I were to ignore the issues of light and shadow here, it would be less good than it is. And, moreover, if I could get Poser to stop making those distracting artifacts in the corners of things, it would be more good. I suppose I could work on the pose a bit more, and probably should add some furniture, but the main problem with my attempt is that the lighting is still not quite right because I've got IDL issues. But if I removed the IDL altogether, it would look even less good. And, intentionally, I left out the window glass reflections, which jump out at me as being a big technical faux pas. If I were of a mind to put this in the gallery, I'd work on those artifacts and put the darn glass in first.

After I get those fixed, will I have a great work of art? No, and I don't really care. But there are people who will do a better job of set design, composition, and posing, and then they will still fall short because the light isn't even close to this good. I will look at that and offer to help. They will like the help. I don't see why this interaction which amuses me, and pleases them, is worthy of argument of any kind.

A potential great work of art can be hindered by any number of failures. Why is concern over all possible failures, including lighting and shaders, something to be scoffed at? I don't get it.

Nobody said that the only thing important is the lighting and shaders. No that isn't art yet. Similarly, a great musician has to be able to emote and convey stuff, and practicing scales for 8 hours isn't going to address all of that. But exclusively being concerned with emotion, while ignoring the technical aspects, like being able to play triplets evenly on the keyboard, is a mistake and will not result in a virtuoso performance. So, too, if you have a great emotional idea for an image, but you have no shadows, or they aren't blurred properly, or they're in the wrong place, then it's a "nice try, keep practicing" and no more.

By the way, a long time ago I was a child-prodigy concert-pianist-in-training. When I was 12, I spent an entire summer preparing for my application to a music college. I practiced 8 hours a day, 6 days a week. Each day, the entire first two hours was - scales. First, you must master technique - then you may pursue emotion. Otherwise, you're just an amateur.

By the way, squared, that September I was accepted by Peter Serkin to the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia, at age 12. They suggested I wait a year before starting college. Then I found out that, as a rule, concert pianists don't make much money, and I liked math, and I discovered computers, and the rest is history.

Quote - here's a pitiful example from me. Here's the story. Andy is the house bot. He takes care of all the things the family doesn't want to do. But in the early morning, before they wake up, he's free to enjoy the sunrise. Admire his joy.

If you got this render out of Poser you did a nice job. I don't think light behaves very well in Poser at all. There was so much you could have done to screw up this render, a bad setting or texture  on any of the room materials for instance. The 3d pic is an illusion, you do the best you can to make the illusion work the way you want it too, but it is all tricking the viewer's eye and that isn't easy to do, when the eyes are so good they know something is wrong with the render even if the conscious mind hasn't figured it out.

Quote - I've never understood the rush to "realism."

Have you gone through the Gallery lately?  There is no rush.

Quote - Photo real characters are just too freaky for me. They look ... empty, soulless, vacant.

Do you have a link to a character that doesn't look empty, soulless, vacant?

 Oddly enough, the better-made toony figures have better "soul" than some of the more realistic ones.  This is rampant throughout 3D, though, not just in the Poser gallery.  The less it has to be realistic, the easier it is to make it look, well, full of life.  Humans are just picky.  :lol:

Quote - ....when the goal itself is technical and not artistic, then it is axiomatically not art.

I still take issue with that as a generalisation because - to some people, perhaps some with OCD, for example - the pursuit of technical excellence of itself may well be their method of artistic expression.

I do agree with you on a purely personal level, however.  I have been bemoaning my own lack of "art" at the expense of technique.  There are still things which need attention in my technique but from now I'll be spending more time on the substance, rather than the style.

I take my inspiration where I find it.

The eyes aren't looking at the food in question.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - I like Smurfs.

Me too but I couldn't eat a whole one.

I take my inspiration where I find it.

I like it!

I don't always look at what I'm eating, specially if I'm watching telly at the time.

Quote -  Oddly enough, the better-made toony figures have better "soul" than some of the more realistic ones.  This is rampant throughout 3D, though, not just in the Poser gallery.  The less it has to be realistic, the easier it is to make it look, well, full of life.  Humans are just picky.  :lol:

Good point.  I read an interesting article about the psychology regarding humanoid robots and our attraction/revulsion.  It seems the more realistic they become, the more likely we are to find them disturbing and more likely to look at their faults.  It seems to be hard wired, too.  Not even a cultural thing, just the way humans react.

Maybe something similar happens when we see "realistic" Poser figures.

Quote - Maybe something similar happens when we see "realistic" Poser figures.

The uncanny valley shows up when nearly-realistic figures are animated poorly.  I have not seen Avatar.  But I assume the movie effects easily traversed over it.

Quote - > Quote -  Oddly enough, the better-made toony figures have better "soul" than some of the more realistic ones.  This is rampant throughout 3D, though, not just in the Poser gallery.  The less it has to be realistic, the easier it is to make it look, well, full of life.  Humans are just picky.  :lol:

Good point.  I read an interesting article about the psychology regarding humanoid robots and our attraction/revulsion.  It seems the more realistic they become, the more likely we are to find them disturbing and more likely to look at their faults.  It seems to be hard wired, too.  Not even a cultural thing, just the way humans react.

Maybe something similar happens when we see "realistic" Poser figures.

welcome to Robophobia.... (an interesting take on this was in Doctor Who and the Robots of Death when one of the sandminer crew discovers the robot servants are conducting the murders.....)

Quote -
welcome to Robophobia.... (an interesting take on this was in Doctor Who and the Robots of Death when one of the sandminer crew discovers the robot servants are conducting the murders.....)

I remember it vaguely.  Another fine example (or examples) are the Alien movies.

Quote -  Oddly enough, the better-made toony figures have better "soul" than some of the more realistic ones.  This is rampant throughout 3D, though, not just in the Poser gallery.  The less it has to be realistic, the easier it is to make it look, well, full of life.  Humans are just picky.  :lol:

I think that's because when it is obvious you aren't creating something real you are able to put more touches on it, like slightly larger eyes or whatever that give it more personality.  With the realistic stuff you have a smaller margin of error and more difficulty involved in getting it right.  If not it looks like a cheap knockoff where a toony character wouldn't.

I just checked poser realism gallery here.  whilst almost all are renders of beautiful girls:

• less than half are nudie pix
• only 1 or 2 on the first page had nostril glow
• most are not in empty scenes
• quite a few are not expressionless zombies

so the situation is becoming more sophisticated vs. poser 4, even if they don't render 'em in poser.