Quote - 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 think that there is a big difference between photorealism in Poser and photorealism in painting (Richard Estes comes to mind as an early master.) In painting, photorealism is often called superrealism, or hyperrealism. It's true that the artists take a photo as a starting point, and project it on the canvas, but in general the lights, reflections etc. are not quite real, but more of an idealization of what really goes on. Typically, they don't use depth-of-field blur, nor do they introduce lens artifacts.