I said this earlier today n another thread, but here it is again... I think photorealism is the Holy grail in CG art, but it has never been my goal. For the most part, I've always shied away from it.

So what is your goal with Poser art? Comics, CG, or photo realistic? And why?

I've never tried to get too comic-like in my art either. It always seemed to be as out of my reach as the Photo-realistic stuff. I originally got into using Poser for storyboarding purposes. That's what my Android and Cricket comics have been about.

It's late, I'm tired, but here we go...I've always felt "realism" is too limited to be, well,  realistic. Realism is the surface. What is beneath the surface is what is important. Too much concentration on surface misses the point

 Think of  quantum mechanics. ..the reality that lies beneath reality..

I tried that out when I first started, gave up when I realized the limitations of the software and my inability coupled with lack of interest in buying something expensive that could achieve it with a lot of work and know how that I didn't then or even now possess..

It impressed me at first, and still does, but personally I prefer the painted and comic styles, preferably a blend of the two. 

What Paul said. 

Depends on what I'm doing tho really. But for the most part if I want realism, I have a pretty nice canon dslr. For this kind of work, I mostly prefer the painterly look. 

I am always impressed when I see a render and have to look hard to see if it is a photo or a render but it is never my aim.  With renders involving people it is very difficult to get realism without it looking somewhat freakish or un-nerving.

I came to 3D from photography, a hobby I still enjoy (although maybe not as much as I no longer finish up in a dark room with trays of smelly chemicals) so perhaps that has a bearing.  In 3D I don't see much point in trying to create and field, building or person that I can capture with my camera.  Much of my 'art' is based in Sci-Fi or fantasy and so the aim is to try and make the image believeable without being scary, unless I am aiming to scare a little. 

I can't see I will ever have time to learn the skills needed, or the inclination to start producing photo realistic renders.

As a visual artist, graphic designer and for a lot of years a freelance illustrator, yes I go for photo realism. Why? Because if I want Tinkerbell fairies at the bottom of the garden type images I can do those with pencil and watercolour much better than I can do it in Poser and Photoshop. Poser can give me images that I cannot do any other way, and comic style is NOT one of those...

No.  Art, whether manual or digital, shouldn't be wasting its effort on photorealism.  Cameras do that job.

Well now, I wouldn't go that far. This girl for example, at only 18 can draw photo real images.

This image is a drawing. And to prove it, here's her time-lapse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U4sANp1-f8#t=20

Many words can describe this kind of talent, but waste definitely is not one of them.

Absolutely amazing. 

Here are some more of her drawings:

http://randommization.com/2011/10/11/young-artist-makes-incredibly-life-like-celebrity-sketches-awesome/

The cool part of CG is you can (theoreticly at least) have "photos" of things you can't take real pictures of. Having a CG "photo" -a photo real render- of a fairy in your garden or a dragon fighting a shaceship is more doable than it is with a camera.

That being said, I don't always strive for that. Sometimes I try but mostly I go for simply fairly realistic. Well, as realistic as elves and dragons and intergalactic spaceships can be.

Quote - ...Well, as realistic as elves and dragons and intergalactic spaceships can be.

And let's not forget my personal favorite: the superhero. Can't fly in real life, but sure can in CG...

Yes, I'd like to be as photoreal as I can get. The renderstyle and the models have to look completly real.

As far as I know myself, once I've reached that goal, I might go for more comic book style renders.

my primary focus is the illusion of z-depth.  

usually, the lighting shadow and camera framing more important than the subject.

the grail, capturing the nuance of expression, human or non-human.  topical for both renders and photography.  

Photography takes as much talent as technical skill.

Lovable characters are all attitude.

"
This image is a drawing. And to prove it, here's her time-lapse:"

To be honest I don't actually need to see the time-lapse
the crown on her head is clearly a drawing
, but she is very talented nevertheless!!

As the the O.P.'s Question: IMHO "photorealism" is only useful for Architectual visualization and Visual effects in Movies.

I tend to prefer the painterly look for my personal renders
but it is nice to have a good ,fast GI engine (Vray etc) when the task Calls for one

When I first got into 3D there didn't really seem to be any sort of race for realism.  Then I started seeing software get Radiosity-equipped renderers, started drooling, and that in turn got me a bit fanatical about wanting to create something so real it would be indistinguishable from reality (what a tit).

I messed around a few years, gained some pretty decent skills at "realism" but gained practically nothing from an artistic point of view (and that annoys me, big-time).  Realism in CG bores me now, but in traditional art it always impresses me.  The girl who drew that image posted above gets way more respect from me than any realism brought about by a renderer.

I think you're only ever in complete control of your art when you can do stuff like that and not have to rely on feature X being made available in your favourite 3D program.  Pretty much like the conversation RorrKonn and I had back in that other thread about statuesque women.  She doesn't have to worry about software upgrades, manipulative OS developers, program and file compatibility or anything else.

The only thing she has to concern herself with is sharpening her pencil now and then.

So in a nutshell, me presonally, I've lost all interest in CG realism because it seems to suck-up my time just to achieve something that is best done with a camera anyway.  It felt like there there was a challenge in the early days, and it was fun to have at it and see what could be dragged out of a renderer, but now, in the days of Octane and it's instant realism, what is there to do?

What is going to seperate the men from the boys in the image stakes?

I think the only thing that remains is true artisticness, because now that anyone can render a realistic image in seconds, there is nothing but artistic flair and individuality that will distinguish one artist from another.

These days I'm more interested in real cameras and cinematics, and to be able to pick up a pencil and do realism when it comes to art.  Things are too difficult for me to pursue any of those things right now, but I look forward to doing so in the future. 

What's absolutely certain is that CG realism couldn't possibly be of any less interest to me than it is right now.  Been there, done that, wasted a lot of my life playing with it and to be honest I regret most of it.  I regret most of it because all the time I spent on it would have been better spent learning to use a real pencil properly.  I can use a pencil but I'd be aheck of a lot better by now if I'd spent those "CG Years" improving my relatively poor pencil craft.

That does not mean I've gone off CG.  CG is every bit as useful as it's always been and always will be, but if I were to use it on a project it would be strictly for artistic purpose or a form of utility, not any attempt at realism.

Surrealism - yes.
Realism - no.

You know this thread subject reminds me of something I was ruminating about to myself a few days ago

This is just my opinion but I think the way human eye sight processes
Data  is in a decidedly analog& 2D Fashion thus the human brain is programmed to receive analog images.

Similar to Pumeco's experience I was once a render engine junkie
but now as incredible as it may sound I think imaging technology in general
is now EXCEEDING the human brains actual needs for image data.

Have you ever seen one of those "cutting edge"
4K TV's playing a big VFX movie like "transformers" in 3D??
perhaps its just me but I found the effect jarring and a distraction
and too "clean"

But getting back to our renderings
one of the things that do not look right in CG is when things are too
Perfect this is why a modeling program has an edge bevel.

I find it ironic that a companies like weta digital , ILM etc, have developed such amazing technology that allows us to by pass film altogether
while seamlessly inserting those digital characters ,

 only to have the guys in post production
"Dirty up" the final shot up by adding Digital "Film Grain" to simulate
Classic Analog film stock to make it look more "real".

"Here's a little test for everyone then. I downloaded the following photo after visiting  both CGI AND real photo websites. I just chose the one. Which site did it come from? Real or Photoreal?"

Not to be dismissive honestly, but in today's world , does it matter??
what if the technician use actual photos of morgan freeman or a similar
skin type and just UV mapped it onto a well modeled head mesh.
and used Mental Ray ,Vray  ,IBL, Maya Blah Blah Blah...

..at which point he should have just contacted Mr Freeman's Publicist
an like gotten a Free headshot of the actual Man.

**
@Clarkie**
Well, I suppose I could visit the link shown on the image and find out the answer by cheating, but I'll play fair.

Hmmm, tricky, there's something about the hair that looks seperate in luminance from the rest of it, so for that reason (and that reason alone) I suspect it might be CG.  That said, I see stuff that are real photographs and it has that same effect, and there's nothing to say that if it's a photo, that the levels weren't tweaked in some way.

This is the hardest one I've come across so I think that by default I'd say it was a photo because that can only be an extremely deserved compliment if it turns out not to be.  I hope I'm wrong because I've never been wrong yet on these things (and I've been waiting years hoping to be wrong).  If that's a render then it's far and away the most convincing CG human I've ever seen, totally incredible!

So my opinion: it's either a photo with tweaked levels or it's absolutley the best I've ever seen in CG

@Wolf
Yup, that perfect, too clean stuff isn't very nice unless it's something specifically suited to it.  Cameras are already way above what I want from resolution.  No matter what camera I've had I always find myself mashing it up, doing my best to give it that analogue feel (I really enjoy doing that though, it's one of my favourite passtimes - lol). 

The Hag movie I'm going to be watching tonight was shot at 15FPS using a resolution of 320x240, and I'm guessing if anything, it'll just add to the enjoyment of it - make it more sort of raw.

Quote - "Here's a little test for everyone then. I downloaded the following photo after visiting  both CGI AND real photo websites. I just chose the one. Which site did it come from? Real or Photoreal?"

Not to be dismissive honestly, but in today's world , does it matter??
what if the technician use actual photos of morgan freeman or a similar
skin type and just UV mapped it onto a well modeled head mesh.
and used Mental Ray ,Vray  ,IBL, Maya Blah Blah Blah...

..at which point he should have just contacted Mr Freeman's Publicist
an like gotten a Free headshot of the actual Man.

Well, as I said earlier, for me the whole point of doing Photorealism is the actual challenge to do it and do it convincingly. Otherwise, as someone else points out, you may as well just use a camera.

Yes I'll just get on the phone and call my buddy Morgan Freeman and tell him to come over here for a beer and let me photograph him.

snort

Also, it shouldn't be that difficult to have a group of people in spacesuits equipped with energy weapons fighting off that cyborg dinosaur stand still just for a moment so I can ge the focus right on the camera.

Clarkie, but there is no challenge now, especially if that image you posted turns out to be a render, because in that case it only goes to prove the point further.  It's as photo-real as it gets so how can there be a challenge left?

There is no challenge for "artistic" licence because it is without limit.  The challenge of photo-realism could have been met, so even if you could click your fingers and magically render something as realistic as that, what did you achieve that has not already been achieved?

Nothing, cause someone already beat you to it with something that was already completely convincing.  You can't get more convinging than 'completely convincing' so people would say wow, well done, but while you created a totally convincing render, so have others already.  I suppose it's a challenge for your skills, but in the end all you'd end up with is photorealism, something we get in an instant using our eyes and cameras.

Render or not, it's a picture of Morgan Freeman so it's "artistic" value is whatever value is put upon a photo of Morgan Freeman.

We know when photorealism has been achieved because we have true reality to campare it to.  That's where artisticness and none photographic stuff differs.  Artistic stuff is entirely a result of an individuals imagination.  If that's a render though, it's not the result of the creators artistic imagination.  It's a demonstration of the skill of the person that recreated it in CG and rendered it.  If Morgan turns out to be a render it is totally incredible, but considering the realm of non-photoreal art is infinite, what is left unturned in the race for photorealism?

Baggins' wisecrack makes at least some sense because to me the only point in this photorealism lark is where the use of a human is needed but not practical.  But your own question is kinda dumb, Clarkie.  If you already know you want it to develop your skills, what's the point of the question?

:-D

If that's what you really want, go develop those skills man, and when you get there, don't forget to cringe when you relise it's "individuality" and "artistic licence" that counts, not skill.  I suppose there needs to be a basic amount of skill to get by in your tool of choice, but no great art, no animation, no movie was ever dismissed on the grounds of it's lack of technical slickness - providing it was good enough where it actually matters.

I greatly prefer photorealism to the other styles. I'm not there yet and like the challenge of it. 

Quote - Clarkie, but there is no challenge now, especially if that image you posted turns out to be a render, because in that case it only goes to prove the point further.  It's as photo-real as it gets so how can there be a challenge left?

There's no rule that says you have to guess, P.  It's just a little guessing game. No harder than the one you play with SM when you find a bug, then demand they read your mind to determine where it is and what it looks like instead of just filing a report like normal people.

But the challenge isn't about whether or not photo realism is attainable. I think it is. The challenge, at least for me, is whether or not I can do it... on purpose. Meaning that it's a repeatable occurrence.

Snapping a portrait shot of Morgan Freeman may not be likely, but it is in the realm of possiblity. Snapping a shot of two spacemen in suits firing ray guns probably isn't going to happen any time this year so I don't know how "realistic" that's gonna be.

I fail to see the analogy between that and how I choose to deal with SM.

I have nothing against filing a bug report with any company that has a fair system in place.  I've done it with DAZ numerous times and have no reason to stop.  I also do it for numerous audio products I'm on alpha and beta teams for.  Like I pointed out before, I'm not SM's dogsbody, you either stand for jumping through loops with systems like theirs or you don't.  I'm just one that doesn't.  I like Poser the product, and I appreciate the effort the developers put in, I just don't like SM the distributor, the way they handle things.

I'm entitled not to like something Clarkie, seriously, just forget about it, I already had!
What an odd thing to bring up :mellow:

You sounded like you posted to get us to guess at whether the image was real or not so I just gave my opinion; that it's either a photo with tweaked levels or it's the best CG human I've ever seen.  I was perfectly polite so I'm buggered if know where the SM comment came from :-D

Anyway, so is it a render?  Has the Holy Grail been met?  ... or can we expect Clarkie to step into those shoes in the not so distant future once he's perfected his skills?

It's surely cool to have that level of skill and I bloody wish I had it, but even so, all I'm saying is that personally, I don't think it's something that would make you as happy as you would be with "super-artistic" talents - sort of like a signature look that can only be attributed to you.  That's what counts these days Clarkie, because as time goes on and technology gets smarter and smarter, those people out there with no talent whatsoever can come along and still make you look like an amateur unless you have your own "thing".

Be honest, if you could bring one one of the famous painters back to life and show them a "painting" you did autoimatically in Corel Painter, wouldn't you feel a fraud if he shook your hand vigerously in appreciation for what you'd done?

Of course you would, and the situation is no different when you compare these masterpieces of realism with a pencil drawing.  No matter how good that photo/render is, the girl with the pencil will always have the most respect because her's is a direct skill, not a passive one where a computer did the math.

The classical artists are famous because they were either good at what they did or they had a signature style that is theirs, so ask yourself, or maybe make yourself aware of how hard it is to use a product like Poser and have a signature style which, if a person looked at the render, they would say, ah yes, that's definitely a Clarkie that is, I can tell by the way he did this and did that and whatever else.

That sort of thing is missing in the vast majority of CG art, and the smarter technology gets, the harder it gets to shake it off.  Photorealism in a render is even worse, because not only are you using identical creation methods, you're also intentionally aiming to 'mimic' something perfectly by using them.

If that image was a render and you were responsible for creating it, you'd rightfully be euphoric about it (and so would I).  But then what?  You can't do better than you already have, you achieved perfection and a massive thumbs up to you for that, but what are you going to do with it?  Did you get any practice in getting "art" to flow from your imagination all those years you were surgically analysing a photo to recreate something that already exists?

Will you sell it as art?  - Photographers already do that.
Bloody hell, I have got to shorten my posts.

I can't stand it anymore. The image is neither a render nor a photo. So whichever side of that position/reaction you were on, you missed.

IMO it is craft (admirable, and beautifully done with great skill), but not art. (I would not hang it on my wall. I would not pay to go see it.)

Nevertheless, I enjoyed seeing it more than just about anything in the gallery here. I enjoyed watching it being made even more.

I'm going to pick up on two things said so far;

it's a challenge. My earlier comment on fairies was that is 'easier for me'. Poser realism is my present challenge.

BB's comment that it is craft, not art. True to a point. Craft is the knowledge base needed to create art. The more you understand your medium, the less you are constrained by it, and the more you can realise your visions. Back to the challenge... I have so much more to learn in this medium. I know paint pretty well.

The art/craft debate is a pretty endless one, but the example I use is to look at the early modernist/abstract painters' work books. They all had good drafting skills, good compositional skills. They could do 'lifelike'. So when they did abstract, it was because they CHOSE to use that approach, rather than because it was all they could do. They knew their craft, and applied it to create their own visions. 

You are right Wolf - I didn't pay a lot of attention to the crown when I posted the image. There are better examples of her work on the site link. I was just drawn to that image as an example as I love the GaGa (and all her ArtPop) and the time-lapse youtube vid matched. 

But the point is there are a handful of artists in the world that can draw and paint photo real, or so close to it that one really has to look for the flaws that give it away. 

It's also interesting that many of these artists with such unique talents are often autistic to some degree. Some to a very severe degree that cripples them from functioning normally in most other ways. But that's a different subject. 

I disagree that craft is not art. Any form of craft that a person has a passion for or drive to develop is art, from cooking to writing to playing a violin. We place different labels on them to help us define the medium, like author or poet or musician or chef or carpenter, but in the end it is all art.

my turn

Who drew it ?

Who collored it ?

dang ,it's who drew it and how did they draw it ?

Attached Link: http://www.kylelambert.co.uk/gallery/morgan-freeman/

"Can't stand it anymore."*

Seriously, Baggins, are you talking/referring to me?

Would you like me to roll out the red carpet for your greatness right now or do you have more pressing business?

"Here's a little test for everyone then. I downloaded the following photo after visiting  both CGI AND real photo websites. I just chose the one. Which site did it come from? Real or Photoreal?"

If it's neither a render or a photo, what is it then?

That's the question I was replying to.  It's not like I'm going to go searching for it when I thought we were supposed to be guessing whether it was a photo or a render.  I guessed that it's a photo and said so, but your comment makes it sound as if that's a dumb conclusion cause you already know what it is.

Good for you, only I don't know what it is, where it exists, haven't checked, and had no intention of checking when we were supposed to be guessing!

Can't stand it anymore?
Poser Dude, believe me, you're ain't the only one!

:-D

**
@Clarkie**
So it's not real either way then, and kinda pointless in asking the way you did :sneaky:

Technically it's still cheating and the artist still doesn't get the respect the girl with the pencil does.  It's still incredible work, but it's not as hard to work with painting apps as it is to work with real media.

The biggest bummer of all is that the masterpiece is totally worthless because no 'original' exists and never will.  That's what you get when you cheat.  Put in the effort and work with real 'tangible' products and you get a real 'tangible' and sellable product out of it.  If that were real media it would be worth quite a bit of money, but being digital, it's absolutely worthless unless you're doing it on comission or stuff like that.

So anyway, as you've jumped from 3D to 2D all of a sudden, I'd say things are looking up for you as an artist - wise choice.  The only thing you need to decide now is whether wasting your time on a digital device would as wise as doing it in real media.

You shouldn't need to ask that one though

Quote - Anyway, for those who are still wondering, the Morgan Freeman pic is not a render, but a digital finger painting done by Kyle Lambert of the UK on his IPad.

By definition it's still a render. Very good work tho. 

seriously ,no one knows who drew the Girl ?
That's just sad ,sniff sniff

The following is taken from Kyle Lambert's Info page at his website about the Morgan Freeman painting...

"The world's most realistic finger-painting.

I recently discovered that it was possible to create incredibly high resolution (4k) paintings using only my iPad, and I wanted to see just how far I could push digital artwork and paint a true photorealistic portrait.

I started with a blank white screen and began capturing Morgan Freeman’s likeness, quickly painting the broad strokes with my finger. I then reduced the brush size to a few pixels, pinched to zoom and carefully painted in the fine detail.

Finger painting in the extreme

The finished painting is made up of around 285,000 brush strokes and took more than 200 hours to complete. The entire process was captured as a time-lapse video by Procreate, allowing you to watch over 200 hours of painting in just 3 minutes.

Inspiration

One of the big reasons I decided to do this painting was to inspire other budding artists to embrace digital art. A friend of mine who is a school teacher explained to me recently that whenever he plays one of my painting videos in class, his students become noticeably more engaged and excited about creating art. The idea that more people are engaging in art because of something that I have created is amazing to me."

Quote - #### Inspiration

One of the big reasons I decided to do this painting was to inspire other budding artists to embrace digital art. A friend of mine who is a school teacher explained to me recently that whenever he plays one of my painting videos in class, his students become noticeably more engaged and excited about creating art. The idea that more people are engaging in art because of something that I have created is amazing to me."

That's a good thing. :)

Hobbit's realistic CGI was helpful to the video.Smaug's killer.
The movie made millions.

Pablo Picasso about as far as ya can get from realism.
Pablo's stuff is extremely expensive.

Most will do what they do to make $$$

I think most would do realistic if they could
but for DAZ Poser Hobbyist.200 hours on one render ,That's a lot of time.
Post 2D app's would be helpful also but not every one uses them.

Even for Pro's realistic is a reach.
200 hours on one face , who has that amount of time ?
And I like the black and white drawings but realistic is a lot harder to do in color.

In the end with any medium realistic is a matter of time.
but
Time is $$$.

**
@RorrKonn**
Don't know who drew the girl but she's a babe, she looks great!

I don't agree that inspiring people to use digital art is good thing, though.  I think people need to be brought back down to earth and realise that 'tangible' is the way to go.  Create in digital and there will never be an original, but create in traditional media and you automatically have an original, and from that original, you can have as many digital copies and prints as you like.

But anyway, that's sort of OT.

Great artist, but if it's one of those 'praise for the digital age' things - I won't be listening.

"Also, it shouldn't be that difficult to have a group of people in spacesuits equipped with energy weapons fighting off that cyborg dinosaur stand still just for a moment so I can ge the focus right on the camera."

Point taken but as I said earlier in the thread, photorealism or photographic simulation has very valid purposes.
such a visualization of a 90 million dollar
office complex that has yet to be built
or when need you an older gentleman like morgan freeman's head tracked onto a stunt players body like the Ian McDiarmid's was in revenge of the sith
or an amazing film like Benjamin Button
or  even( finally!!) a proper big screen realization of a comic book character like the "Hulk"

But I can tell you as a person who has
in his tool set:
Maxwell Render from Nextlimit
Vray for C4D by Chaos group
Kray For Lightwave
as well as the native renderers for both Lightwave and C4D,

that Photorealism for its own sake gets very boring very quickly IMHO,
unless you have an artistic reason to emulate actual photography,

And no offense to poser merchants
as they produce content made for posers firefly
and standard poser lighting
but truth of the matter is ,that by my estimate,
90% of the content released for poser today
doe NOT even come close to looking  "photorealistic" when placed in the unforgiving clarity of a modern GI engine Like Vray or maxwell...especially skin textures.
 

"Quote - "Anyway, for those who are still wondering, the Morgan Freeman pic is not a render, but a digital finger painting done by Kyle Lambert of the UK on his IPad."

Excellent work indeed!!!

but waaay off the topic of : "Is Photorealism your goal in Poser?"

Luis Royo drew the girl.

Luis Royo & Boris Vallejo are worth a google .

don't know if there photo realistic but I know they're cool

Quote - it's a photo of Morgan Freeman tweaked in a photoshop .

my turn

Who drew it ?

Who collored it ?

luis royo

late again

(my 1st tat was one of his works, my 2nd will be one of myne)

It's a Royo's drawing but I converted it to black and white and repainted it.

The one on the left is 100% Royo's

I wouldn't have known it was one of his anyway, so for me, the sneakiness didn't exist.

Ya average Artist Art looks like average Artist Art because theres no certain style to them.
10 diffrent Artist Art will look a like.
You wount be able to tell who made the Art with out looking at the name.
but
The best Artist will always have a undeniable style to them.
So ya never half to look at the name ,ya know whos Art it is buy just looking at the Art.

Absolutely true and I agree, but I'm kinda weird like that.

It's surely the holy grail for an artist to have a stlye identity, and Royo does I suppose, but to me I saw a nice drawing of a girl, not a nice peice of work by Royo.  In other words, I see 'girl' not 'Royo'.  Like if I had to decide between an art book of Girls and an art book or Royo, I'd choose the art book of Girls even though girls is what Royo does.

Just as with music, I tend to latch onto something I like, but not the creator of it.  I can listen to to Blues, Jazz, whatever, yet recently I've even found myself listening to some Brutal Death Metal!

Other than almost blowing the cones from my speakers, the contrast was surprisingly likeable :biggrin:

Before the invention of photography, artists had a whole bag of tricks to make objects and materials look realistic. With the invention of photography in the 19th century that whole bag became obsolete because there was a easier way to achieve realism. So realism wasn't any longer a goal for artists. 

It's no surprise that around the same time when the first photo's appeared, impressionisme as a painting style occured, which was a predecessor for all the modern styles like cubism, abstract and so on. Artists had to find other goals to impress people (and their customers.) Still there were painters who tried to achieve realism, but that became a style on it's own, together with it's branches like magic realism and surrealism (salvador dali).

The urge for (photo) realism in CGI isn't probably caused by artistic reasons, but commercial ones: advertising and to cut the costs of special effects. In advertising you can show a product before it's made or built. And the results in movies today are astonishing. (when was the last time disney made a hand-drawn movie?)

But to stay on topic, the question was: is my goal photorealism in poser? My answer is no, I want to tell a story with my pictures and it does't have to look absolutely perfect as long the story is clear. But I will always try to make it as realistic as possible.

best regards,

Bopper.

I'll offer my two cents. My goal in Poser is not photorealism. It's believability.

However, I believe the goal of producing photorealistic images in Poser specifically is still an important goal because it challenges us and the software creators in a way that improves the software's (and our own) ability to produce that very "believability" that I (and most of us, from the looks of it) are after.

As an example, if people such as Bagginsbill were not constantly pushing the realism envelope, we'd still be using P4 materials. And, great as P4 was when it first appeared, our standards have changed to the benefit of everyone who uses the software, whether for toons, painterly illustration, or photorealism.

Edit: I find that the more photorealistic my test renders become, the easier it is for me to create illustration styled renders because my options have been widened.

Looking at drawings Picaso did as an adolescent, you can see that he was wholly capable of creating very realistic images, if he chose to. But in the age of color photography, he didn't see the point beyond honing his own skills. I agree. For users, it's a very good exercise to strive for photorealism. It sharpens your skills. But it doesn't have to be an overriding goal. However, I'm thankful that it is the main point for some people, as they are the driving force behind continued technological improvement.

If I like a song then I like it what ever genre it is :)

Luis Royo ,Boris Vallejo ,Paolo Eleuteri Serpieri ,Olivia De Berardinis ,Victoria Frances.

All have girls and all have a certain style.
All have some kind of book ,calanders ,cards ,something.
Paolo has comics think ya would like.

Still Art I tend to like most is.
1 Has to reach me somehow ,Has to provoke an emotion.
2 Is 100% awesome.
3 Undeniable Style.
4 I want more then just a photo or picture.I want Killer.

Boris Vallejo.
Ya could never copy He's Art with a photo.
He goes beyond realistic.

I enjoy stylized art and surrealism.  Like toons too - suppose that might be obvious.  Photorealism is not my personal goal but I think it's a fine one to go after, if that's what you are looking for.