The other issue, which I keep harping on, is what are you going for: is it "photorealism" as a camera would see it, as your eye would see it, or as your brain interprets what your eye sees?

We all (okay, those of us without vision problems or brain issues) have a photoprocessing and interpretation system running full time which is constantly adjusting on the fly, changing focal distance, changing aperture size, adjusting light levels and colour saturation and so on.

Indeed. The popularity of HDR photography has changed the terminology a bit. When I first got into shooting HDRIs, people said my photos looked "like paintings". I assume that's because painters have the option of capturing a higher dynamic range and then painting it with a sort of tone compression because their eyes adjust to compensate for dark shadows and bright highlights to see details that a camera, taking a single shot, would normally lose. OP mentioned bokeh and depth of field, I think. No bokeh in Poser and DOF is quite slow at the best of times. I also do agree that being able to adjust exposure through shutter speed and aperture plus ISO ratings would be fantastic for photographers trying to light a scene, but would it be incomprehensible to many users.

But in any case, we really don't have anything that compares with 3D digital output because it's not really much like traditional photography at all except inasmuch as it's kinda real looking and 2D. But if there's a human in the scene, with rare exceptions, no one who looks closely at a CGI is going to mistake it for a photo. A great many landscapes that spent a week rendering in Vue might well pass though. 

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.