This guys render is classy and grade A. His renders are amazing. These are probably some of the best I've seen on renderosity for Poser related renders.

ARTIST: Artdude41 (Gallery, Homepage)

**Does anyone know what face morph is used on the left woman? ** This guy is truly the master of V4 faces (I think their V4, pretty sure). I really, really hope the face morph on the left is available somewhere to buy, but chances are he did the face himself. The legs are so realistic.

How can I get renders that look like the one above?

What kind of postwork do you think is involved here? I would love to be able to do work like above by the end of the year.

LET'S FIGURE THIS OUT TOGETHER, PLEASE.

No idea, but the one on the left reminds me of Michelle Pfeiffer's face.  The one on the right also has a familiar face - I want to say Michelle Trachtenberg or Mira Sorvino, but I am probably wrong for both figures.

As for you getting there by the end of the year, that would really depend on where you are with it now and how much time you can put into it on a regular basis.  I would be lucky to get the lighting that good by the end of May.  Or the clothes.

Zanzo, do you realize that it is impolite to post an artist's work in the forums without getting the artist's permission first? It would have been better to give us the link to the image and we could all go there, have a look and therefore add to the artist's page views and perhaps also leave a comment behind for the artist. Then we would come back to this thread and make our comments to you on the points that you were asking about. It would just be nice form to do that. At least you did put a link to the artist's gallery and I thank you for that and I had a browse of the artist's work thru the link.

Quote - Zanzo, do you realize that it is impolite to post an artist's work in the forums without getting the artist's permission first?

Is it really? I assumed he'd be fine with it since he watermarked his image and takes commissions.  Since he stamped his brand on the bottom right I think he wants that name to get out there. STUDIO AD.

Quote - It would have been better to give us the link to the image and we could all go there, have a look and therefore add to the artist's page views and perhaps also leave a comment behind for the artist. Then we would come back to this thread and make our comments to you on the points that you were asking about. It would just be nice form to do that. At least you did put a link to the artist's gallery and I thank you for that and I had a browse of the artist's work thru the link.

I still want the photo to be instantly seen, but if I could I would edit the post and add the image gallery for the particular image above as well.  I wonder why we can't edit posts after a certain time?

No problem, his gallery is definitely worth checking out to see what can truly be done with Poser.

The safest course is not to assume anything on the part of the original artist's intent. Better to site mail them or simply create a link directly to the image you have a question about. It would be good site ettiquette.

Not taking a side in this but, the link is for the artist's gallery here, whereas the image shown is from another site.  The last local gallery upload was October, 2012.

Since the image is not from the artist's personal or professional site (if he has one), I have to wonder about the marking/signature given the venue.

Quote - The safest course is not to assume anything on the part of the original artist's intent. Better to site mail them or simply create a link directly to the image you have a question about. It would be good site ettiquette.

You know what, I have an obligation to say this. This odd way of thinking has got to go to the trash.

INVISIBLE WATERMARKING OF IMAGES WITH PHOTOSHOP: http://www.psdbox.com/tutorials/create-an-invisible-watermark-in-photoshop/

Once your image is public on the internet it's going to float around and there is NOTHING, not even the artist can do about it. If it gets ripped off he does a DMCA takedown.  HOWEVER, he WATERMARKED AND STAMPED HIS BRAND ON HIS IMAGE. He realizes his image will float around and is prepared for it. The artist is a PROFESSIONAL, not a hobbyist.

ALL OF YOU HOBBYISTS GET THIS STUPID WAY OF THINKING OUT OF YOUR HEAD AND ENTER THE REAL WORLD.  Stamp and watermark your images, don't be naive. Let your image go and let it roam the internet and advertise your name/website.

If your not ready for your image to go public, DON'T UPLOAD IT.

On a side note, I think I figured out what one of his primary methods is. I'm gonna test it.

I think I have to agree with what Zanzo just said.

...............................................

I'm crap for matching faces so this is  probably laughably inaccurate but hey, the name's the same.

I agree that esp. since the artist is a member here, posting their work from another site, esp. a commission - without their permission probably isn't the best practice.

The image is technically 1st rate IMO. The lighting, composition, posing etc. are all extremely nice. I agree that the detail on the legs and especially the feet and ankles is great. No idea what's up with her knee - maybe something OSHA should to look into.

They do look rather vacuous and dead to me though. There's no energy, or much affect - not even the sensuous languor the pose suggests. Looking at his gallery here, his characters are usually much more alive and engaging. These girls seem to be more like mailing it in. I wouldn't say that sexy or classy come to mind - just your average silicone enhanced, rather scantily clad, twenty something femmes - dimes to doughnuts one or both has a 'tramp stamp.' Personal taste though.

IMO, this illustrates the danger of becoming too enamored with realism. The image, IMO, is near photographic, but once you get beyond that novelty … You could take the figures out and (again, IMO) have a more interesting photograph, looking at the play of light, shadow and surface. Since you're dealing in explicit erotica, I can see where this level of realism would give you a leg up (no pun intended). The typical punter probably isn't interested in any emotional or esthetic involvement above the pelvic level. Ironically though, the market is so saturated with that - real and virtual -  one could probably do well creating some real erotic art as opposed to yet more pr0n.

Nice rendering; hard to believe it's Firefly (I suspect it's not).  However, I'm trying to figure out what is being 'reflected' in the camera lens, and where the shadows from the lamps on each end of the couch are...

Couldn't you just ask him on DA?

His renders motivated me to get this far, which isn't enough, not even close. I don't understand how he achieved that level of realism while preserving immersion.

I think i'm going to leave this on an overnight render then do more research tomorrow.

Please, critical comments are welcome you won't hurt my feelings. I'm trying to make a new character and get her face looking UNIQUE & interesting.

Very nice legs. 

Her Face is nice, but when look at it I think "Illusions Designs" (most of their characters look like they are related)...

***Quote - Very nice legs.  ***Her Face is nice, but when look at it I think "Illusions Designs" (most of their characters look like they are related)...

By no means did I make the face from scratch, I use an existing character and then modify on top of it. But thanks, yea I wanted to get some good leg action in there but it's hard.  The artist up above NAILED the legs.

So the face is still "common" to a certain degree, I'll keep that in mind and make more changes tomorrow, thx.

The image in the original post, looks to me like a composite image, with the faces stuck on to bodies that don't belong to the faces, quite a good job, but noticeable.

Anyone know what day it is today?

Wel

l, the realism (lighting etc), is probably due to an understanding of Vray. Looking at his history 3DSMax/Vray seems to be one of his reular tools. I would be quite confident that the figures are V4 - you usually can tell from the shape of the lower legs/knee area. lesbentley, brings up a good point though - the faces could be composite - the more I look at them...hmmm, tough call.

In all honesty, it would be tough to get that level of realism from Firefly.

BTW... I checked with management...

No copyright violation with the OP image. He cited the source and linked to it.

It's all good.

The boob-holders are 3D, as is the blurred Nikon in the foreground.

That artist is knows for composing.
The legs in all his renders are from pictures and have no 3D rendering at all.

So start finding out what is 3D and what is 2D = photo manipulation.

At first I thought he had done quite a bit of enhancement of the base figures/texture in zbrush. But after looking through his gallery here, I've got to agree with vilters, I'm pretty sure the skin detail is enhanced via photoshop, and possibly the joint bends as well.

Postwork is the friend of many 3D atrists.

probably a lot of diffrent ways to get Artdude41 look.
I would paint out the flaws.
make a copy for 2nd layer,blurr the copy on the second layer,make second layer around 70 percent transparent.flatten.

I really like messen with layers.

make a render ,copy 100 times.
in a 2D app run defrent fillters on each copy ,ya can learn a lot that way.
I really like messen with topaz.

In fact I think the whole picture is 3D: Look at the couch: no pushed cushions. The knees are not realistic. The paper on the table is just too flat. I almost certainly know I've seen the skintexture somewhere. There is some postwork because I haven't seen any hair that looks so realistic as this, and the lensflare certainly is.

You all have very good eyes.  You were 100% correct. I read through alot of his deviant art comments. He not only does great 3D renders but he knows how to draw very well. So he mixes 2D & 3D.

2D can do anything.
but humans are not that great at ratios and all.
comic are a very good exsample.
3D is great at ratios and all.
but 3D has limmits.even the high end app's take a lot of time.
For still's,It's fast to use 3D for correct ratio's n paint over top of them.

After studing works of Art and making Art.
After a while ya just know how they done that.

Some times I'll see something new.
then I surff the web n fourms till I know how it was done.
most times it's a fillter.

humans are not that great at ratios and all.

*What do you mean by ratios?

My thoughts on the image posted is that the hair is entirely too realistic. That is the best giveaway that a photo has been pasted on. There are other signs as well. The shadows on both sides of the noses indicate mutiple light sources. There should be similar shading on the sides of the bodies, but there isn't.

Quote - humans are not that great at ratios and all.

*What do you mean by ratios?

when human artist free hand draw characters.
the characters ratios tent to be a bit off.
the odder the pose ,worse it can get.
If you paint over top a photo or 3D ratio's are better.

comics speed draw free hand that's why comics characters ratio's can get so wiered.

Quote - In fact I think the whole picture is 3D: Look at the couch: no pushed cushions. The knees are not realistic. The paper on the table is just too flat. I almost certainly know I've seen the skintexture somewhere. There is some postwork because I haven't seen any hair that looks so realistic as this, and the lensflare certainly is.

Those sure look like V4's knees.  The shoes on the left lady appear to be Grace Pumps from DAZ without the bow...

Also if you look at the hip/glute area of the lady on the right, there is some really weird stuff going on there. When I saw that, I was quite disappointed  that the artist didn't address it, becuase it is a really big flaw.

Quote - > Quote - Zanzo, do you realize that it is impolite to post an artist's work in the forums without getting the artist's permission first?

Is it really? I assumed he'd be fine with it since he watermarked his image and takes commissions.  Since he stamped his brand on the bottom right I think he wants that name to get out there. STUDIO AD.

Quote - It would have been better to give us the link to the image and we could all go there, have a look and therefore add to the artist's page views and perhaps also leave a comment behind for the artist. Then we would come back to this thread and make our comments to you on the points that you were asking about. It would just be nice form to do that. At least you did put a link to the artist's gallery and I thank you for that and I had a browse of the artist's work thru the link.

I still want the photo to be instantly seen, but if I could I would edit the post and add the image gallery for the particular image above as well.  I wonder why we can't edit posts after a certain time?

No problem, his gallery is definitely worth checking out to see what can truly be done with Poser.

slams head on desk

ok I couldnt pass it up....no..simply because and artist watermarks their work, posts it in a gallery etc etc etc...doesnt mean they want people posting it. even in a forum on the gallery site they are participating in.

that whole mentality is the reason so many of us artists have hell when it comes to keeping our works where we want them(like off facebook as they claim rights to pictures posted there).

Please I ask, do not assume an artist wants you to post their work anywhere. They have that right...others dont UNLESS the artist expresses that they do(such as the licenses you can get at DA For just that)

anyway......

Quote - > Quote - The safest course is not to assume anything on the part of the original artist's intent. Better to site mail them or simply create a link directly to the image you have a question about. It would be good site ettiquette.

You know what, I have an obligation to say this. This odd way of thinking has got to go to the trash.

INVISIBLE WATERMARKING OF IMAGES WITH PHOTOSHOP: http://www.psdbox.com/tutorials/create-an-invisible-watermark-in-photoshop/

Once your image is public on the internet it's going to float around and there is NOTHING, not even the artist can do about it. If it gets ripped off he does a DMCA takedown.  HOWEVER, he WATERMARKED AND STAMPED HIS BRAND ON HIS IMAGE. He realizes his image will float around and is prepared for it. The artist is a PROFESSIONAL, not a hobbyist.

ALL OF YOU HOBBYISTS GET THIS STUPID WAY OF THINKING OUT OF YOUR HEAD AND ENTER THE REAL WORLD.  Stamp and watermark your images, don't be naive. Let your image go and let it roam the internet and advertise your name/website.

If your not ready for your image to go public, DON'T UPLOAD IT.

On a side note, I think I figured out what one of his primary methods is. I'm gonna test it.

wow....so many things came to my fingers to type and I am glad I controled it. NO....it is not ok. NO it is not a given. anymore then you walking out of your house with your wallet in your pocket and it gets stolen means it is ok and to be expected.

YOU need to get "over it".

I am going to stop now as this is just.....

yea I am going to stop.

Quote - The safest course is not to assume anything on the part of the original artist's intent. Better to site mail them or simply create a link directly to the image you have a question about. It would be good site ettiquette.

amen.

I believe we are done here. All has been said that needs to be said. Further commentary will simply rehash points already well made including the last posts.