Attached Link: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/why-katy-perry-will-never-forgive-russell-brand-2012191

What do you think of this kind of super realism in magazine cover art/photo postwork?

Do you aim for this kind of  'realism' in your Poser work?

I never aim for photo realism (when I work in Poser).  For me imagination is too beautiful and amazing to limit it to the real world by making it photo realism.  I do create realism from time to time but I never strive for photo realism.

I've never been a fan of "doctored" images of real people with the purpose of making people believe that the image is real.  Magazine that do that are are intentially trying to mislead the viewer.  If it was something that was stated as art then no problem, but the fact that their focus is to "enhance" the celebs image by performing plastic surgery via photoshop makes me sick.  I never cared much for deception like this.

How many girls and women will try to be like an image that the celeb can't even be?

It's not right. But it's been happening since photo manipulation has been possible. I think it started with airbrushing. Even before that (and now) "soft" lenses and what not were/are used.

As it turns out... no one really wants to see "real" celebrities.
I just think about how I feel when someone "exposes" something like...say Jennifer Love Hewett's over weight, cellulite fanny on a Mag Cover. Plus... they do the opposite in those situations... touching "down"(I guess I like quotation marks) photos to make them look worse. Celecrities may have chosen to open themselves up to public scrutiny... but they are still people (some may actually BE people) with feelings. Heh... at least Katie Perry does "Poactive Commercials" for people with acne... even showing photos of her zits. ""Pretty" sells better than...uh... well let's say ...uh... Me!

I think part of the mystique of celebity is pretending that they aren't just like everyone else.... except in some... uh... "thing" like "Branjolina" where their entire careers are based on good genetics more than anythiing else (Just my opinion). I still don't like to believe that girls pass gas. Or that ANYBODY has ever picked their nostralinear projection.

Sad fact... but pretty people usually, not always... (though the prettiest or most handsome person in the crack house is probably the most popular) have an easier times of things exactly because they are pretty. 

P.S. nothing I say is endoursed by Renderosity. I just talk too much.

Actually photo manipulation began back in the days when photographs (espeicially portraits) were painted.

Many photographic studios employed artists to touch up photos with paint to give them color and improve the portrait.

Some art supply and photography supply catalogs still sell photographic paints.

Quote - Postworked Katy Perry is fake, but it's also hyper real.

What do you think of this kind of super realism in magazine cover art/photo postwork?

I think she needs more specular on her skin shader, and shadows need to be enabled... :lol:

I couldn't do photo realism in 3D, so I don't even try.  My poser images look like "poser images" and I'm good with that.  I just like making pretty pictures.

10 years ago, I speculated that photo-realism was 10 years away for poser users.

Today, I'm adding on 10 more years.

Yesterday I saw a picture of Snooki without makeup - she's actually quite pretty :-) At any rate, I'm sure portrait painters used 'creative license' long before photography. The one's who made their subjects look better probably got more gigs.

I don't try to create a "photo" with Poser. In fact I do filtering in PhotoShop to reduce the realism. I think of it more like creating a detailed "painting" than taking a "photo." Not being tied to realism, I can be more creative, go wherever my  imagination takes me. That's the way I like it.

I like eggs....

Sorry, couldn't think of anything intelligent to say, as my thoughts have already been echoed, so I winged it...

 One thing that would add more realism would be a wider dynamic range in the lighting-I know Poser can use HDRI-but the relative contrast of dark and light seems very constrained when I compare it with Lightwave's render engine.

Quote - 10 years ago, I speculated that photo-realism was 10 years away for poser users.

 

Today, I'm adding on 10 more years.

How is the relative contrast of dark and light constrained in Poser? I mean the question literally because I don't understand what you're addressing.

Let me be more specific - the intensity dial can be .001% or 1000%, for any given light.

The math nodes can be used with images allowing you to increase or decrease the amplitude of any prop-based lighting object by any factor you want, up to at least 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 ... keep adding zeros until there are 37 of them.

I say "at least" this many zeros because that is the dynamic range of single-precision (32-bit) floating point numbers. I actually believe Poser uses bigger floating point (64-bit or 80-bit) numbers, which would make the dynamic range even more huge. But I don't have time to go prove that at the moment, so I'm going with the "smaller" number 10^38.

Magazine photos like these are constructs. Like any other manipulated images or artwork, constructs are a form of abstraction used to represent ideas. Constructs can just as easily be used to embody the ideals of a humanistic philosophy, a political belief or an artistic interpretation of some other aspect of life (paintings), as to promote the world celebrity (and thus sell magazines). Any of these kinds of constructs can be done well or badly.

Always though the question for me is, what are you looking to embody or promote about this world we all share in your construct? What does how you form or manipulate your images reveal about that focus of attention? Who does it benefit? (ok, that's three questions).

Curiously, I find the way these magazines deal with their focus is somewhat appropriate for the subject matter, creating artificial (fake?) icons of a world of that very few of us will ever experience but crave (for whatever reason). The form reveals the true face of celebrity and how that artificial world operates, if you're looking for it.

That's how I see it...kinda.

Where are the postwork-is-necessary-in-CG zealots? What happened? Why is postwork in CG renders desirable, but postwork of photos undesirable? Is it no longer art when your raw materials were made by (or are) somebody else? Slippery slope for this forum. Is a postworked render a "fake" render?

Also, no amount of postwork is going to get a photo of me on the cover. Just thought I'd point out the obvious for the heck of it. Or maybe because it provokes thought.

(i.e. do you want to see Katy Perry without makeup, and without postwork? I'm sure you can actually - but do you want to see that on the cover? Do you think it makes sense to try selling something people want, even if it is intellectually troublesome? Are you a communist?)

Celebrity just doesn't interest me, not for it's own sake. That was my point really. It isn't that a photo of Katy Perry may be post-worked or not that makes the world of celebrity fake for me. Maybe fake isn't the right word. Unimportant and an often unhelpful distraction in the grand scheme of things when it proliferates so greatly.

bb, can you expand on your question about communism? I'm not sure I understand.

Quote - 10 years ago, I speculated that photo-realism was 10 years away for poser users.
Today, I'm adding on 10 more years.

I think this is one of those "law of limits" sort of things.  Poser may approach photo-realism infinitely, but it will never reach it.  (And that's even without invoking things like the Uncanny Valley.  :unsure:)

Re the validity of modified (or unmodified) materials, it's whatever best represents the ideas you're dealing with IMO. If a raw render doesn't do what you want it to but offers a good base to work on, that's fine by me - I'll often tweak in Photoshop.

When I paint it involves a whole range of processes, starting with an un-primed canvas on a wooden stretcher. I'll prime it, then do an underpainting, like a monochromatic drawing or tonal sketch in paint on top of which I'll build progressive layers until I reach a satisfactory end result. There have been times when my underpainting has a power all it's own that satisfies the purpose of illustrating the idea I have in my head and it goes no further.

3d renders are no different for me.

A post-worked photo of a celebrity doesn't personally make me any more or less interested in them.

bb, maybe I'd be interested in seeing a photo (post-worked or otherwise) of you rather than Katy Perry;)

Hi BB

If it's not a renderer limitation-but just my improper understanding-maybe you can suggest a solution? When I use HDRI and IDL I don't see a vibrant image when I render. And I'm using some of those 200 mb images from OpenFootageNET. In LW the brightest parts of the image can strongly light a surface-without any Lights in the scene. LW uses 128 bit floating point single precision-but I agree that 32 or 64 should be more than enough dynamic range-so maybe it's something else? I use your envirosphere. I've played with the HSV, and IDL intensity in D3D's render firefly script. How would I go about adding a "contrast" math node to the BB sphere?

Quote - How is the relative contrast of dark and light constrained in Poser? I mean the question literally because I don't understand what you're addressing.

Let me be more specific - the intensity dial can be .001% or 1000%, for any given light.

The math nodes can be used with images allowing you to increase or decrease the amplitude of any prop-based lighting object by any factor you want, up to at least 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 ... keep adding zeros until there are 37 of them.

I say "at least" this many zeros because that is the dynamic range of single-precision (32-bit) floating point numbers. I actually believe Poser uses bigger floating point (64-bit or 80-bit) numbers, which would make the dynamic range even more huge. But I don't have time to go prove that at the moment, so I'm going with the "smaller" number 10^38.

Eric,

I'm at a disadvantage since I don't have experience with LW, so I'm totally speculating with zero data what the differences are.

One thing I'm well aware of and concerned with is that Poser IDL is Indirect DIFFUSE Light - this equation says zippo about specular effects, and we have to construct those ourselves. But as I've been posting recently, the new-improved Reflect node can do all sorts of specular highlights (blurred reflections) much better than before. It is now possible to get great highlights from an HDR EnvSphere, and this was not the case in the past.

Maybe we start a new thread? Can you show me something simple, like a sphere, rendered in LW and Poser and then I can address the question?

The wheels on this car in my gallery image:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/full.php?image_id=2289231

were done with blurred reflections. There are no lights in the scene.

And this render has no artistic merit whatsoever, it is simply an exercise in realism. I enjoyed it immensely, and it got into the staff picks. Apparently fake-realism is not so unpopular with some people.

Does anybody remember Aesop's fable about sour grapes? grin

Quote - bb, can you expand on your question about communism? I'm not sure I understand.

It was just a little dig at some of the folks here who demonstrate some intolerance of the views and likes of others. As if, like the communist regimes of the world, a few elite party leaders get to decide how the rest will do and experience pretty much everything.

Just so you know, I think Katy Perry is hot, and I like to see her - faked or not.

Thanks BB

I wll make some renders and post. Going out into the "REAL" world for a bit first.

Quote - Eric,

I'm at a disadvantage since I don't have experience with LW, so I'm totally speculating with zero data what the differences are.

One thing I'm well aware of and concerned with is that Poser IDL is Indirect DIFFUSE Light - this equation says zippo about specular effects, and we have to construct those ourselves. But as I've been posting recently, the new-improved Reflect node can do all sorts of specular highlights (blurred reflections) much better than before. It is now possible to get great highlights from an HDR EnvSphere, and this was not the case in the past.

Maybe we start a new thread? Can you show me something simple, like a sphere, rendered in LW and Poser and then I can address the question?

Quote - > Quote - bb, can you expand on your question about communism? I'm not sure I understand.

It was just a little dig at some of the folks here who demonstrate some intolerance of the views and likes of others. As if, like the communist regimes of the world, a few elite party leaders get to decide how the rest will do and experience pretty much everything.

Just so you know, I think Katy Perry is hot, and I like to see her - faked or not.

Heh, feels like there's  a lot of that going around lately, in our own back yard.

There are so many hot women in the world. I don't look at a lot of the mainstream media these days though. It's amazing how many exceptional people arn't bought to our attention through those channels. Been watching a lot of web TV instead.

Hallo Artisans!

Artistic Relativism is caused by Modifications in the Sensory Mind.

Quote - Render of Sensory Mind in Modified state.

Dude, put the crack pipe down. ;) 

If I posted an MRI Scan of a Brain Modified by a stroke, would that be Realistic enough for you?

Relevance to thread?  Realism as in Poser representation of scenes in everyday life?

Nul point on both, mate. 

 I took his comment as humor. If you were serious with the image-I'm afraid no one else gets it- at least without explanation.

Quote - If I posted an MRI Scan of a Brain Modified by a stroke, would that be Realistic enough for you?

i'm for realism if it's a made up character

but for a celebrity, i want the real thing

in re: bill's request, we'll see if anybody can do a katie perry render.  personally I was horrified when she got involved with russell brand.  it was so heart-rending to see it happen.

Quote - personally I was horrified when she got involved with russell brand.  it was so heart-rending to see it happen.

I agree. He's an intelligent and eloquent bloke, what would he possibly see in her? (Well, apart from the obvious, haha, but that's hardly enough to base a long term relationship on.)

I had high hopes when she came up with the West Ham United corset, but apparently that was as good as it got...

Quote - in re: bill's request, we'll see if anybody can do a katie perry render.  personally I was horrified when she got involved with russell brand.  it was so heart-rending to see it happen.

I can never tell when you're being ironic. 

Attached Link: http://universeabovetheearth.com/mandala_art.html

A Yantra is a geometrical diagram used for Meditation.

By using various computer applications one may construct these Material Objects according to ancient custom and/or modern methods such as Kaleidoscopes in a single or multiframe.  Motion can be expressed on the XYZ Planes.  Fractal Art is a variation of this Art Form.

If you would like to view this Image expressed as Mandala Music Video click the Link.

No thanks.  I'd rather stick needles in my eyes.  :)

 Thanks for explaining it. Still not sure what it has to do with realism in renders-except in a very abstract existential way. If you follow the connection to fractal art-and tie it in with the prevalence of fractal forms in nature- snowflakes, etc- then I can see it. Of course I may still be missing your point. Computers can make fractals very easily-but that does not translate to a realistically lighted, modeled and textured scene.

Quote - The Art of Mandala dates back to ancient times.  Flags, emblems, logos, icons, symbols, personages, geometrical shapes, words, letters are variations of this artistic technique.

A Yantra is a geometrical diagram used for Meditation.

By using various computer applications one may construct these Material Objects according to ancient custom and/or modern methods such as Kaleidoscopes in a single or multiframe.  Motion can be expressed on the XYZ Planes.  Fractal Art is a variation of this Art Form.

If you would like to view this Image expressed as Mandala Music Video click the Link.

 

From an un-scientific point of view: Tabloids and magazines do cover "art". The pick a story, decide on a point of view, find a photo that will quickly convey the point of view, and "enhance" whatever they're trying to say. Angelina is a princess? Find red carpet photo, apply filters, touch up any imperfections. Angelina is a demon? Get that 'alien neck' shot, and increase the contrast. They have less than 10 seconds to grab your attention and convey a basic message.

You have to applaud Britain for taking issue with models who are digitally made to look like human skeletons or airbrushed to impossible perfection, though.

And then there is perception. I'll be brave and pick car renders. We expect deep, highly reflective paint on those, and anything less doesn't look "real". I spent 6 hours in a car dealership yesterday, and even with the showroom lighting, none of those cars looked like the ads on TV. So which is real? The normal daylight/can lights at the dealers, or the huge, blinding lights in a studio?

"So which is real?"

I'd say real is what it'll look like sitting in your driveway covered in bird poop.

 The interesting thing is that people buy into the deception. They know that the car doesn't really look that shiny and that food never comes out looking like the packages. You'd think that products depicted more accurately would sell better but apparently not. The ads seem to be tapping into some 'primitive' appeal,  shiny = better, that bypasses rational thinking.  I often see ads for software that depict a box even though no boxed copy exists. Perhaps a box suggests a more substantial product. 

Why show cars parked on top of mountain peaks (where most people would be terrified) instead of on a street? What effect does the age/race/gender of those 'photos of strangers' they put in wallets have on sales? Why are bikini clad hotties used to sell beer but whiskey ads look like they were photographed in a board room? The answers are out there.

I have to admit I get sucked into those ads, too. Show a digital car racing around ooOOoo pretty shiny lights on a glass track, and I'm stoked! But you're right about the bird poop, now add dust and water spots from that light rain. ;)

Interestingly enough, sitting in traffic generated by the Barrett-Jackson Auto Show and Auction, people were ignoring the poor Ferrari that couldn't get out of 1st gear, and were staring at a Silverado done in matte black with red detailing. Well, that, and something that looked like a chromed Art Deco 1930's toaster with a speed boat on top of it. Not a clue what that thing was.

You wouldn't get bikini babes advertising beer over here.  In fact, the advertising of alcohol is very strictly regulated in the UK.  Strange, since we're pretty much relaxed about the actual sale and distribution of the product, when compared to the USA.

Anyhow, the guidelines are something like, all people in the ad must appear to be at least 30 years old, behaving in a responsible manner and must not be seen to consume excessively.

Ads for whisky usually show rugged countryside, wild animals native to Scotland or Ireland, or a warm cosy room with a glowing fire and lots of dark, polished wood.

You're right about shiny = better, though.  I bet it's because in nature, back in our hunter/gatherer days, the only shiny things we'd be likely to see were fresh berries and running water.  Both very good things and essential to our survival.  Despite thousands of years of "progress", we're still those old hunter/gatherers at heart (or brain, to be exact). 

I am going to correct myself on car paint, though. I took a photo of the new ride to send my sister, and was floored to see the results. Funny how things you don't notice show up in a photo. (The neighbor's truck is solid primer, and has been for 10 years.) Taken just after sunrise, there are those "studio" reflections. Granted, it was just detailed by the dealer, but still, it's pretty reflective.

Cleanliness is a relatively new thing.  Even doctors didn't wash their hands after using the toilet and so people died from secondary infections.  It took a long time - several years - before it finally sunk in that washing and cleanliness in general helps prevent the spread of disease.  

Back in the middle ages and for a long time after, people beleived diseases were caused by bad smells, hence the nosegays that were popular in the days of open sewers.

French royalty - and others, no doubt - had vermin living in their elaborate wigs; most people had fleas, worms and rotten teeth.  Shall I go on, or are you losing your lunch yet?  ;)

LOL! I have a nephew who wishes he lived in the Middle Ages. I've mentioned things like, not only no plumbing, but no toilet paper. Yeah, go wash yourself, your clothes, and your food in that water, but keep in mind your neighbors upstream already used it. And those crunchy bits in the food? Care to guess what those might be? Fleas, ticks, flies, worms, maggots, bedbugs (now making a comeback) all love your straw mattress, and your woolen clothes, and your hair! And, darn it, bathing will make you sick in the winter!

It's easy to romaticize things in the past, but the truth is, we'd all last about 10 minutes. (What?! No disinfectant wipes for the grocery cart handles?!)

OTOH, you may not notice the crunchy bits in your food if you're off your face with ergot poisoning.  :)

Yeah, I'd just love to live in an era where a toothache or a grazed elbow could kill you. 

Quote - OTOH, you may not notice the crunchy bits in your food if you're off your face with ergot poisoning.  :)

Yeah, I'd just love to live in an era where a toothache or a grazed elbow could kill you. 

If doctors keep prescribing antibiotics to everyone who demands them (such as those with viral infections) and people continue to ignore orders to finish their prescriptions, drug resistance will take us right back there in only a few years.

Not to mention leprosy was still around. Nothing like having bits of you falling off. Sort of makes meltdowns over blemishes look silly. And the black death. Oozing pustules and cart loads of bodies can put you off your feed. Makes you feel pretty fortunate to have missed all that. Wonder what people will point out 1000 years from now about us? Other than shiny cars, that is.

To the tune of "Yesterday" by The Beatles... 

Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be

Bits and pieces falling off of me

I caught a dose of leprosy. 

I remember when 'caught a dose' referred to a very specific type of disease and it wasn't leprosy :-) 

Would you rather be destitute in 2012, unable to afford all those miracle medicines, or rich in 1812? 

Destitute in 2012 is a pretty good bet in the UK, since we get medical treatment free. :D

Haha! Or in England- har har! How horrible is Rotherham?

Quote - To the tune of "Yesterday" by The Beatles... 

Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be

Bits and pieces falling off of me

I caught a dose of leprosy.