You must have seen it. Many sites carry the advertisements. The image alternates: first there is a photo of a perfectly normal girl, lots of skin detail, a slight blemish on the skin, cheeks a bit ruddy. Next, she looks like a bad Poser render. There is another one too: Dark hair, distinctive features, quite beautiful. And next, the bad Poser render.

Here we are, trying to make our Poser people look real. And then there are some people going the opposite way with photographs and buying software to do so.

Yes, I always thought it somewhat ironic that Poser character packages often want to show every blemish to achieve realism, while RL models use makeup and retouching for the sake of "perfection".

You mean you don't want to render V4 with a big blemish on her nose and then use one of those apps or plugins to fix it so V4 looks like a Poser person?

Welcome to the wonderful world of glamour/magazine photography where very little is actually what it seems

i was blown away a couple of times by the amount of airbrushing, makeup and all that goes into most of those glamour mag shots. Those women for the most part are not real, in fact V4 with the textures now available is closer to the real thing.

Yeah, it's ironic.

I sometimes think the primary purpose of photoshop is to make live people look like mannequins. Of course, I fix my own portraits, too... but I try to use a little self control and hopefully leave the subject looking human.

I was watching TV the other day and saw an ad for Oil of Olay. It was truly the worst airbrushing job I've seen on film. I mean, the woman had NO pores. Her skin had turned into plastic. It was frightening. If they had used a Poser animation, it would have seem more realistic.

if that's what the client is requesting then that is what the client is going to get if you want to a) get paid for the job and b) get any more work from them.

In all likelihood, that perfectly normal girl wears powder, foundation, whatever when she goes out to cover her ruddy complexion and that slight blemish - they probably scrubbed it off for the 'before' shot. Art is only imitating life. Women have been altering the reality of their appearance since the days of Cleopatra at least. Makeup, hair dye, waist cinching corsets, breast implants, fat sucking, collagen... Men are finally getting there too, hair plugs, skin treatments, elevator shoes, and how many guys have stuffed a sock in their pants at least once? :-)

"Here we are, trying to make our Poser people look real"

Actually I don't see very many trying to make Poser people look real. Perhaps you could direct me or give a link?

?

Quote - "Here we are, trying to make our Poser people look real"

Actually I don't see very many trying to make Poser people look real. Perhaps you could direct me or give a link?

?

Just go to the galleries and look under "realism". It's not all cars and landscapes.

Of course, I don't think anyone's saying necessarily that people are succeeding. I find very, very few renders of poser people to look particularly real. There are too many things standing in the way, from unexceptional transmapped hair to flesh that does not displace when it contacts other things to stiff poses to incorrect lighting to oddly morphed conforming clothing. It only takes one wrong thing in a scene to break the spell.

People keep complaining that poser doesn't render photo real. with the way life and makeup and airbrushing are going, pretty soon it will catch up with poser and everyone will thin it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

moriador, "I find very, very few renders of poser people to look particularly real. There are too many things standing in the way"

That is not any special just for Poser. 3Ds max, Maya and C4D or any computer software inclusive Renderman and Disney studios have this problem. There is one one way to do it and that is by postwork. Like addy do and a few others.
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1189652&user_id=122068&page=3&member&np">realistic Poser figure

So the great majority doesn't even bother to try... That is what I find rather - sad.

Quote - moriador, "I find very, very few renders of poser people to look particularly real. There are too many things standing in the way"

That is not any special just for Poser. 3Ds max, Maya and C4D or any computer software inclusive Renderman and Disney studios have this problem. There is one one way to do it and that is by postwork. Like addy do and a few others.
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1189652&user_id=122068&page=3&member&np">realistic Poser figure

So the great majority doesn't even bother to try... That is what I find rather - sad.

There's either a lot of photo layering on that image or a lot of painting. I've certainly seen some traditional art on canvas done with acrylics that could pass as photorealistic. But if you're going to paint, then paint. Why use poser?

To wit, same artist:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2144323&user_id=122068&member&np

The whole reason so many people use Poser is that they either CAN'T paint like that, or because they don't have photo references (essential for both of those example images) for the sort of things they're creating.

And many don't try because they don't want to create photorealistic images. I'm one of them. I make illustrations, and sometimes toons.

"And many don't try because they don't want to create photorealistic images"

I understand that, illustrations, toons and manga is also a form of art. But for myself, I will not rest before I can paint like addy, or die trying.

Rendering "reality" covers a very wide range. You have all those perfect faces staring at you from magazine covers (and there have been some breath-taking ones of Elizabeth Taylor lately), and then there are the faces of the people around you. Some don't bother with makeup or grooming, some over-do it, and everything in-between.

Attraction to beautiful faces is hard wired into humans, so it's no great wonder most would-be artists gravitate toward beauty shots. Just consider what is commonly accepted as one the greatest portraits of all time, the Mona Lisa. Captivating, but hardly photo-real.

Anyone remember an old Twilight Zone episode, in which Donna Douglas was being pressured to have her 'coming of age' plastic surgery? Everyone must conform to current standards of beauty, no matter how bizzare...

"the greatest portraits of all time, the Mona Lisa. Captivating, but hardly photo-real."

But a Poser render is hardly beautiful, no matter how you see it. On the other hand a photograph is only a, well - a photograph. I should be possible to work from photographic refs or Poser figures or preferably both, to achieve that what we call art.

To just render a Poser model and upload it without any postwork at all is a deplorable praxis IMO. Even if you are a illustrator they needs postwork. Just look at Frazetta and Royo's work! It certainly doesn't look like Poser figures to me.

I'm not sure how useful the term 'photo-realism' is. If you're trying to make a render look like a photograph, then you have to take into account the fact that photographs, especially portraiture, are often manipulated in various ways to be something other than perfect documents of the subject.

There are entire packages devoted to mimicking the characteristics of traditional film stocks in digital images. If you use one of those, is your render then more or less realistic? If you're dealing with photo-journalism then perhaps the raw unaltered image that hit the film or image sensor is the ideal, but that is only a subset of photography. In most cases, some degree of manipulation either in the darkroom and/or in software - for artistic or technical reasons - is probably more the norm. At that point, it seems to me, the definition of realism becomes rather arbitrary.

N.B. Did you see that they're going to exhume the supposed model for Mona Lisa to see if it's really her?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/apr/05/remains-real-mona-lisa 

We had already passed the question of photo realism and were talking about art.

But forget art too, I really only have one simple petition,

"please spare me the basic plain Poser renders"

That's all I ask.

Well, that is just silly. The beauty of the Mona Lisa isn't who it portrays, but the skill of breathing life into oils. Of course, it would settle the argument that it's actually a self-portrait. ;)

To say that no Poser render is beautiful is to impose the same taste on everyone. You know, the old "eye of the beholder" thing. And not all photos are created equal, either.

It all comes down to innate talent, and that's more rare than most people think. I'm very lucky to have a friend who has a deadly eye for composition and color, and who constantly amazes me by being humble and insisting on remaining an amateur.  Me, every once in a while there's something I need to say in an image, and can limp along just enough to maybe get the idea across.

Quote - "And many don't try because they don't want to create photorealistic images" I understand that, illustrations, toons and manga is also a form of art. But for myself, I will not rest before I can paint like addy, or die trying.

She's done quite a lot of images, using a wide range styles. Shje doesn't seem to want to paint every one of her images to such a degree. But I agree: it would be awesome to have that level of skill.

Quote - But a Poser render is hardly beautiful, no matter how you see it. On the other hand a photograph is only a, well - a photograph. I should be possible to work from photographic refs or Poser figures or preferably both, to achieve that what we call art. To just render a Poser model and upload it without any postwork at all is a deplorable praxis IMO. Even if you are a illustrator they needs postwork. Just look at Frazetta and Royo's work! It certainly doesn't look like Poser figures to me.

I agree, but not completely. Creating poser images and bragging that there is no postwork is not, in my mind, much different from taking a digital photograph and claiming there was no postwork. Since there was software involved in converting the image, there was postwork, whether the camera or poser did it all, or the user worked on it in photoshop. But some people make a hobby out of restricting themselves to what their cameras or their renders can do alone. That's their choice.

However, I will agree that it's rare that an image which has not been postworked will look good, especially if there is a human figure involved. Poser's humans are not quite good enough for their anatomical flaws to unnoticeable in almost all initial renders.

And as a photographer, I think that there is a great deal of art involved in photography. All you have to do is look at the massive number of shockingly awful photos and the huge number of truly average and uninspiring shots to realize that both skill and artistic sensibilities are required to make photographic art.

Quote - But forget art too, I really only have one simple petition, "please spare me the basic plain Poser renders"

Well, I do know what you mean. Almost all of them are well... rather... uninspiring.

Myself, I LOVE postwork, on renders and photos. I have many PSD files with 70 layers or so that are over a GB in size. Postwork is often my favourite part of the whole process.

But I still won't deny the possibility that there exist people who can make great images, straight out of their cameras or renderers. It's just really hard and therefore very very rare.

moriador,

You and I agree in all things, except that you say it better.

This autor also know how to express himself,

“Even the hint of a hand-created element can activate a surface, instill passion and energy into a medium, and reassure the recipient that human understanding and insight are the foundation for the message.” Josh Chen

Quote - I'm not sure how useful the term 'photo-realism' is. If you're trying to make a render look like a photograph, then you have to take into account the fact that photographs, especially portraiture, are often manipulated in various ways to be something other than perfect documents of the subject.

This is true. But I think part of the goal of "photo-realism" is to create an image which cannot be distinguished from a photograph, even when there is no concrete reality with which to compare the image. Hence, "photorealism," and not "realism."

http://www.old-boy.co.uk/personal/personal.html -- Have a look at "Bernadette"
The question is, I think, if you show this picture to people, are they going to say, "Oh, that's a nice photo," or are they going to say, "Oh, great CGI. Very realistic"?

Vintorix, you're very kind.

It's a great quote. :)