In the article stewer linked to, GC is discussed in an enclosed game enviroment.

There a single person has control over:

1. How the textures are created
2. What shaders are used
3. The settings of the render engine
4. The lights used

So there is absolute control from texture to finished render.
And despite all that control the article still suggests a (crude) means of "dialing in" gamma necessary before playing the game to compensate for different monitors.

The article also admits that in many cases GC can't be actually SEEN because two "wrong gammas" cancel each other out.

Poser, otoh is not a controlled game environment.
You have different artists creating textures using different cameras, processing these textures using different programs while using different monitors.
Then you have users sitting in front of different monitors, using different light sets, using different textures, using different shader setups, using different render settings.

In short, you have a mindboggling variety of variables that determin the final render and that you have no control over whatsoever.

So, running around and telling people that using a certain shader set and a certain PRO feature (Available at extra cost, thankyouverymuch), will turn their work from the usual Poser fare to CGTalk feature worthy, is....well....a little stretching reality IMVHO.

I don't argue the underlying math behind GC.

But I very much argue the conclusions drawn here.

With all due respect, but mentioning "Poser" and "Photorealism" in the same sentence reveals a lot of wishfull thinking.

There's not a single truly "photorealistic" human mesh available for Poser.
Not a single.

So the FIRST thing you'd have to do is sit down and learn how to sculpt and rig.
THEN, and only THEN you can start worrying about lights and textures and shaders.
But you'll soon find out that Poser isn't even remotely capeable of doing the things that need to be done to create "True Photorealism".

There is a reason MAX is so expensive and it takes years to master.

So, right now, as much as I love all the things the Poser team did with Poser 8 and PP2010, I will dismiss GC and most other new light features right now as pure marketing hype, similar to "All textures must be 4000x4000 minimum" and "A quality figure must have 70000+ polygons".

TRUE Photorealism takes the right equipment, talent, and years of honing that talent.

Maybe in five years Vicky 7 will actually look like a human being without extensive re-sculpting and rigging.
Maybe in five years PP2015 will have a "perfect sunny day" default light and all the bits and pieces needed to create realistic skin instead of wax candles.
Maybe even a way to create large outdoor scenes with real grass and trees.

I really, truly wish Poser will be like that some day.
Click, click, click, render, and the result will look like a photograph.
(If you WANT it to look like a photograph)

But these days aren't even close.

If SmithMicro REALLY want's to "promote TRUE PHOTOREALISM", start paying some real professional figure sculpters.

Make head to toe laser scans of some adults and kids, then let a real CGI artist create quality meshes from that data with proper detailed edgeflow and sensible UV mapping.
Then have those meshes rigged using the latest Poser tech by someone like Phantom3D who actually knows what he's doing.

Don't try to imitate Vicky. Imitate LIFE.

James 1, Koji 1 and MIKI 1 were ALMOST there.

This will do A LOT more to raise the quality of your average Poser render and promote Poser as a PRO tool than some esoteric feature that actually most CGI PROFESSIONALS haven't even heard of:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=2&t=610790

Again, I don't argue the validity of the math behind GC.

I just think this constant "hype" is at best a waste of time and in the worst case counter productive.