I believe that the term "photoreal" is subjective.  Your Tyrese looks good, but when I render, I find it far easier to get the lighting right with my dark-skinned characters than I do when using my light-skinned ones.  When I combine the two, I have a REALLY hard time getting the light to look good on both shades of skin.

Yet, I can stand next to my best friend--who is a dead ringer for Will Smith--in front of a camera, and the resulting photo looks "real."  (Ok, I'm pale enough to cause glare on a sunny day, so the photographer DOES have to accommodate my skin tone.)  And one of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that many photographic effects are not naturally discerned by the human eye.  What are we trying to accomplish when we're seeking to emulate a photograph?  Aren't we just trying to portray a subject as we see it?

If there was a singular set of parameters that could be used to define "photoreal," I think many of us would use them.  The problem is, every render is different.  Lighting that works well in one instance will look terrible in another.  It's self-evident that every pose has to be different, too.

So, while some of the contributors to this thread decry the consistent return to "What is Art?" the simple answer to photorealism involves using a camera.  Since we can't photograph trolls and other mythical creatures, and the subject matter of many renders could never be adequately explored using a camera, the issue of artistic expression in our rendering shall forever be closely affiliated with the desire to attain "realism."

If we're going to use photography as the standard by which our renders are measured, then surely, some brilliant person should be able to create a solution to the ongoing dilemma that Poser renders approach reality, but don't quite emulate it.

Any takers?