I call it "Balls". Interpret it as artistic expression, because I say so. In particular, ponder the symbolism of R, G, B.

Poser Pro 2010 - no postwork

Every render presents a different set of demands.  Personally, I struggle with lighting more than anything else, despite working with Poser since version 3.  When I look back on early renders, I roll my eyes in disgust.  However, that work represents a "place in time," and all of us who persist at this will improve, eventually.  (There's also a fairly substantial difference between my renders done in P6 and those I created when I upgrade to PPro 2010.  The creative tool improved significantly, and now, bagginsbill says the newer version will be even better!)

Photorealism is a bit of a slippery term.  I have a collection of photos that I took in high school that are uniformly blurry (I needed glasses, what can I say?) and often suffer from exposure problems.  I can do bad lighting in Poser without difficulty, too!  (I'm highly skilled at that, in fact . . .)

:)

Having written all of this, I try to evoke some kind of response out of the viewer when I create renders.  Most of you are much better at the technical aspects of the program than I am, and honestly, some of the talk in this forum lies beyond my ability to understand.  But if I look at the figures I was using a few years ago and compare them to the quality of the figures we have available now, the difference is quite glaring.  Clothing is better, too!  (In some cases, a LOT better!) Those of you who are pushing the frontier of what is "photorealistic" wind up dragging people like me along for the ride.  Personally I'm grateful for that, because the less my viewers have to complain about with respect to realism in my renders, the easier it is for said viewers to understand what I'm trying to portray.

Soft tissue dynamics?  Nice!  Improved rigging, so that elbows, knees and shoulders don't distort when they're bent?  Yeah, I can handle that.  Bring it on, ladies and gentlemen . . .

In the same way I can say, "I don't know what art is, but I can recognize it when I see it".  Above all it is something difficult, that not everyone can do.

And especially not something a mere beginner can do.

Your reflections are unrealistic. The Fresnel effect is missing - the amount of reflection is not supposed to be even like that. The sum of reflection and diffusion is greater than 1. The result is they appear metallic and glowy.

Attached Link: Check out what Vestmann has done!

I still wonder why CG-artists want to imitate foto's, even with their imperfections. Does anybody see lensflare in real life, or DOF, or speed blurring? Or do you see that on (realistic) paintings? These are imperfections of the camera that for some reason we appreciate on foto's. So software engineers incorporated that in the rendering programs. Speaking about faking! If you want real fotorealism let's put red eyes in it, but that are the kind of foto's we throw away.

best regards,

Bopper.

@Vintorix  and Vestman.

I agree: beautiful work.

Quote - I still wonder why CG-artists want to imitate foto's, even with their imperfections. Does anybody see lensflare in real life, or DOF, or speed blurring? Or do you see that on (realistic) paintings? These are imperfections of the camera that for some reason we appreciate on foto's. So software engineers incorporated that in the rendering programs. Speaking about faking! If you want real fotorealism let's put red eyes in it, but that are the kind of foto's we throw away.

best regards,

Bopper.

Because when I show you a photo of a troll sitting in my living room watching TV with me, it is missing the troll.

I once tried to photograph an Orc, but he just smashed my camera to bits.

You've just crossed a line.

I had no intention in trolling, I just wanted to show there's more to realistic rendering than fotorealisme. I've always admired your input in the posercommunity, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.

Bopper.

Bopper - you're not understanding me. I have not crossed any line at all.

I didn't say you are a troll or that you were trolling. A troll is a fictional creature - one you cannot photograph. My point was that people wish realism for fantasy because it makes the fantasy more interesting. I used the troll as an example of a fantasy character you cannot take a photo of, but you would like to if you could.

What is more fun to see - a drawing of me with a Dragon, or a "photo" of me sitting on what appears to be a real dragon?

What is more fun to see - a drawing of me watching TV with a troll, or a "photo" of me sitting with a troll?

This is a troll:

I would like to see a photo of you watching Tv with a troll, that would be fun.You've made a point, I thought you were too serious, but perhaps I am.

Thanks for you reply, I appreciate that.

Bopper.

Paul this loosk very realistic

Quote - About as photo-realistic as I can get in Poser, which IMVHO isn't very!  No post, at the risk of offending anyone.  Not that I have a problem with postwork, as you can probably tell from my gallery.  IDL and DOF both switched on.

Looks great! Would like to know about your lights!

for me i enjoy both the challenge of setting up the rendering and post working the shit out of it to achive any kind of realistic result  , i still havint quite given up on firefly just yet and i do like the direction in which poser is going ,on the other hand i do find the lack of documentation frustrating as hell, ive learned more from this renderosity forum than i have from any official  poser tutorials or documents.- below image was rendered with firefly and postworked in photoshop ,

Paul Francis:

What does DOF stand for?

lmk

Depth of Field.

Quote - Paul Francis:

What does DOF stand for?

lmk

Specifically it's something you get with photographs where things either far away and/or very close to the camera get blurred because they go out of focus. The farther away/closer they are, the more they blur. You can see it in the image of the Asian woman above.

I used it myself in this image, but only very slightly.

Laurie

Quote - > Quote - Paul Francis:

What does DOF stand for?

lmk

Specifically it's something you get with photographs where things either far away and/or very close to the camera get blurred because they go out of focus. The farther away/closer they are, the more they blur. You can see it in the image of the Asian woman above.

I used it myself in this image, but only very slightly.

Laurie

You can get this with Poser as well... and any halfway decent digital camera.

Yes, there is a Focus Distance guide that you can use to help you with DOF in Poser. I know at least in Poser 7 there was a script where you could select an object, run the script and it could tell you how far the object was from the camera. Not sure if it's in Poser 8 - I don't have it open right now and I haven't used it in Poser since version 7...hehe.

Laurie

I used Poser DoF in "Balls" on the previous page.

Quote - Every time somebody wants to discuss tactics to decrease fakeness, i.e. realism, a whole lot of "what is art" comes up.

Please go make a separate thread for the 10,347th discussion of "what is art". Note that since nothing in "art" has changed, I don't think such a thread adds anything to the several thousand posts one can find on the subject already.

On the other hand, I think we haven't had a serious discussion of realism tactics in about three years, and since then Poser has changed a lot. There was a "realism" thread that went on a very long time with face_off participating heavily, and I learned a ton from that thread. That is still an important thread, although it doesn't say anything about GC, IDL, modern understanding of SSS, and modern approaches to specularity. I say modern, and by that I mean what I discovered and published since then. Prior to that thread, there was practically nothing about the subject of "less fake". Outside the Poser community, these things were already well known and heavily in use long ago.

If you don't want to talk about how to remove fakeness, then just leave the thread.

I'm not really interested in reading this thread but I got to this post and just had to quote it. After I finished LOL'ing that is. ;-)

I love the directness in the above and I don't think the above sentiments could have possibly been better stated.

And yet the discussion continued unabated with what is art. So I posted balls.

Why don't you discuss DOF instead? It is important and soo difficult. I am sure that after 8 more years, you still will discuss DOF amd other important matters.

:)))

I was wondering - what is the source of your particular brand of vitriol vintorix? Unless something got lost in translation with your last post...

It would seem that in any discussion, you have nothing but derision...whatever the topic. I find that curious.

Laurie

Laurie I am so sorry I will behave. I just couldn't resist!

Attached Link: Tyrese

To me, realistic is what our eyes see. Photoreal is what a camera sees. It's realistic, yes ;).

Laurie

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?

Quote - Would this seem photorealistic or just a good art work?  Now I've done this 2 years ago, coming this November. Don't know if I'll ever get it good this way again.

I think the light under the left eyebrow looks somewhat strange -- with this sharp line between eyesocket (lit) and nose (dark). I wonder how it got there.

Thanks:

Depth of field.

Even the eye has this characteristic, though we don't usually notice it.

Wheter one uses DOF or not is probably a matter of taste/preference.

lmk

We're not at all sure that the OP actually meant photorealism as rokket hasn't returned.

However, if you want to mimic what we're used to seeing in photos, then DoF is more than a matter of taste. Apparently you've never heard of the almost rabid quest for "bokeh" among photography enthusiasts and pros. This is the pleasing smoothness associated with the out-of-focus areas produced by the best, most expensive lenses. Google bokeh.  It's fascinating.

This is bad bokeh.

Submit this to a photography forum and you'll get slammed immediately, ten times worse than around here for lack of good shader work.

I think a lot of people want sharp focus from one corner of their renders to the other, from the closest flower to the fatherest mountain peak. They want vivid colors. They want dramatic lighting and poses. They want their figures to be of heroic proportions and form. They want what I call "hyper-realistic" renders. They may say they want realism, but they clearly want to borrow from realism, not duplicate it.

The best fantasy artists made their pictures look "believable." The genre esteemed by many Poser users is fantasy art. But, they want their work to be "believable," so the users and viewers can join the fantasy.

I think others would like to have viewers stop and take a closer look at their work to see if it is a render or a clever photograph. I have seen Poser renders that made me look twice, and I am seeing more. Poser is easily able to do the first and increasingly able to do the second.

lmk

Quote - I think a lot of people want sharp focus from one corner of their renders to the other, from the closest flower to the fatherest mountain peak. They want vivid colors. They want dramatic lighting and poses. They want their figures to be of heroic proportions and form.

Indeed!  Often of completely unrealistic proportions and form . . .

:)

Quote - They want what I call "hyper-realistic" renders. They may say they want realism, but they clearly want to borrow from realism, not duplicate it. The best fantasy artists made their pictures look "believable." The genre esteemed by many Poser users is fantasy art. But, they want their work to be "believable," so the users and viewers can join the fantasy.

This is a statement I can certainly agree with, and it's probably more attainable, too!  Personally, I strive to avoid that plastic "Poser Look" that prevailed in nearly everyone's rendering from many years ago, and try to evoke some kind of emotional response in my viewers.  I don't think anyone with a reasonably sharp eye would EVER mistake one of my renders for a photo.

bagginsBill:

No, sadly I have not heard before of the "bokeh" ideal. I will Google for some pictures. I do not think I am ready yet to try and achieve it, as I am still struggling with composition,  lighting, and shadows. I do, however enjoy learning and improving. In the end, I have the freedom to please myself.

lmk

Hmmm, I just looked through an image seach on Google at several hundred pictures. Nine out of 10 were irritatingly the same, and I don't think many were a good representation of the "bokeh" effect.

If all one wants is a bunch of fuzzy colored balls in the background, that should be very easy to do in Poser. I am thinking that this is more a matter of blending the backround to a smooth blurr where color and shadow, not decernible edges, are the defining features. I saw a very few pictures like that.

If someone could dirrect me to some outstanding examples of "bokeh" photographs, I would appreciate it very much.

lmk

I think my english is not enough to explain it but I remember from my old times of studing photograph that Bokeh is an artistic efect achieved using a "tool" called Deph of field, DOF in a photograph not allways is a Bokeh, as I say my english is not good to explain it so just google ;-)

**artdude41 I like your picture a lot.
**

Quote - If someone could dirrect me to some outstanding examples of "bokeh" photographs, I would appreciate it very much.

lmk

http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_wing_and_a_prayer/5685403525

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cteteris/3868690359/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ktp/2480727252/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27633837@N03/3423813358/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jexca/2552788857/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/safetylast/3408479705/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pianomom/2571151106/

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

(emphasis added by me)

In photography, bokeh (Japanese pronunciation: [boke]) is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light." Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting**—"good" and "bad" bokeh**, respectively. Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

...

Bokeh is also important for medium telephoto "portrait lenses" (typically 85–150 mm on 35 mm format) because in portraiture photography, the photographer typically seeks to obtain a shallow depth of field to achieve an out-of-focus background and make the subject stand out.

Obviously 'bokeh'or DOF or Depth of field has nothing to to with reality, as the human eye doesn't perceive objects in that way. It is an strained attempt to turn a photographic bug into an advantage, an artistic effect that is most overused and tiresome, as bagginsbill has demonstrated. Unfortunately for them (the photographers) most people don't like 'bokeh' or whatever you call it. Serves only to prove that taste and style is more important than any technical knowledge.

Quote - Obviously 'bokeh'or DOF or Depth of field has nothing to to with reality, as the human eye doesn't perceive objects in that way. It is an strained attempt to turn a photographic bug into an advantage, an artistic effect that is most overused and tiresome, as bagginsbill has demonstrated. Unfortunately for them (the photographers) most people don't like 'bokeh' or whatever you call it. Serves only to prove that taste and style is more important than any technical knowledge.

Most people don't like bokeh, eh? How do you know? Have you asked most people? I think your assumption is incorrect. Can you show me some evidence?

Who cares whether cameras re-create reality accurately or not? That's not the question at all. "Reality" is one of those slippery terms which can have us meandering through thousands of years of philosophical discourse as we attempt to define it. We will not succeed here.

I thought what we were discussing was "photorealism," which seems to me to be a bit easier to understand -- as something which closely resembles the sort of images created by a camera. I think when we see an image we pretty much know immediately whether we could be fooled into thinking it was a photograph. Some people are more easily fooled than others. But each one of us is in no doubt as to when it's happened to us. We say things like, "I thought that was a photograph." Or "For a moment, I was convinced that was a photograph," and so on. And when we are fooled (momentarily or for longer), I'd say, for us, that image was "photorealistic."

I think BB's cue balls fall into the category of photorealism for me. If I saw them on a stock photography site, I would not question whether or not they were produced by a camera. So Poser can handle the lighting and shaders for close-ups of inanimate objects. I await the day when it can manage human figures convincingly. But then again, I still think that's a matter of how much effort is put into the meshes that are being rendered, the poses, the textures, etc as well.

" So Poser can handle the lighting and shaders for close-ups of inanimate objects.."

Is that so? I wouldn't be caught dead using Poser shaders.

And it is not only me. Archvision, the most successful vendor of 3D models so far with their plug-ins and subscription service that costs thousands of dollar, carefully points out in marketing terms that they only use high res photographic material.

Wow. We are just stupid. Cheap, poor stupid crackers bringing a mule to the races. I feel relief now for all the time I have wasted. Thankyou.

I either unsubscribed or got unsubscribed from this thread. Not a problem, though - from the follow-up reading I can see I haven't missed much. :blink: Guess I'll take my ideas and thoughts elsewhere - I've been told! :unsure:

"Serves only to prove that taste and style is more important than any technical knowledge."
Incorrect generalization!!!
Perhaps for thats true for hobbiests tooling around and only need to render STILLS for their personal online poser galleries.

But if you Do professional CG work for paying clients  and dont know that .5 change in  fluid viscosity will  make your Fluid sim look alot less like pudding and more like actual water, then all the so called "taste and style" in the world will not give you a Correct looking result
in RealFlow4 for Example.

A one point change in water vapor or turbidity will completely change the color of your "physical sky " and everything under it in an outdoor Vray render.

BTW That image you linked to earlier  featured a glaring example of why poser people look so Fake!!
..the eyes!!!
bogus"painted in" highlights/reflections and ZERO thickness to the lower eyelid.

I agree we cant all be "tech heads" running  our computers through a command line interface
but this notion of "ignore the tech stuff and follow your artistic passion" is why utterly craptastic renders with no shadows at all continue to be posted here to a chorus of oozing praise.

Cheers

"if you Do professional CG work for paying clients and dont know that .5 change in fluid viscosity..  A one point change in water vapor or turbidity..."

I just take a look again at - for example - world famous Andy Simmon's work (aka hobbit), and I feel entirely comfortable. I may never be able to paint like him, but at least my technical knowledge will suffice.

I apologize if I have offended someone, but I get tired of this preaching for the choir.

Man, the ebot has really dropped the ball on delivering me mail concerning this thread.  I need some time to take this all in ;)  But for starters I agree with Wolf about eyes in Poser.  Even if we get new shaders and an eyeball from bagginsbill that won't be enough.  The lacrimal and the lower eyelid will always be unconvincing until Poser updates it's material room with better shader nodes.  Luckily, bagginsbill has produced some excellent shaders for sunglasses so we can esily hide the problem ;)

Quote - Fantastic work.

Thank you kindly vintorix!

Quote - About as photo-realistic as I can get in Poser, which IMVHO isn't very!  No post, at the risk of offending anyone.  Not that I have a problem with postwork, as you can probably tell from my gallery.  IDL and DOF both switched on.

You're one of my favorites here at R'osity, Paul and with good reason.  Your renders are technically well executed, your postwork is fantastic and your eye for composition is fantastic as well.

I haven't used DOF in Poser since it first came out (when was that? Poser 5...).  It was sooo slow and with out very high render settings looked sooo bad.  Has it become more usable with newer versions of Poser?  Maybe I'll check it out.

Quote - The lacrimal and the lower eyelid will always be unconvincing until Poser updates it's material room with better shader nodes.

Mmmph mphfh fffhhsmppfh, mpfhfhfp hmfpmf mfpmmm.