Did you ever arrive at highschool and someone told you something about YOU didn't fit the expectations of the group?

There is this group think in the Poser/DAZ world that says 'only the newest brightest thing' is acceptable.

You must use gamma correction because the scientists say so. You must upgrade to the newest version of Poser or Vicki... because everyone else is. You must use this lighting and these shaders and weight maps and this newest thing. You MUST!

With that in mind... what really bugs me in the latest crowd pressure push is photo-realism. Everyone in 3d assumes everyone else wants their renders to be photo-realistic. Here... even I am including YOU in on this conspiracy. That's how widespread it is.

Is Poser for hobbyists anymore? Does every hobbyist want a photo-realistic render? Can every hobbyist afford it? Maybe ( curse the stars that made me say this ) is there a free app out there that can allow for more photo-realism than Poser or DAZ can ever offer on their platforms?

Do most artists realize that the art in the galleries that really kicks ass are mostly heavily postworked non-photorealistic rendered works? Sometimes even ( dare I mention ) rendered with shadow casting OFF!!!! And shadows added in total control in postwork.

Has anyone considered that photo-realism means that not only the shadows and lights have to seem real... the characters and props in the scene have to seem real?

How are we going to make the 3d doll's face and body asymmetrical? With morph packs sold in the stores? Doesn't the skin texture play a big part in the unique look of each 3d character? Symmetrical morphs and skins don't lead to photo-realism... they do though sell units in stores.

How about this... if we're going to be knocked in the head constantly with the sell of 'You must jump on the photo-realism bandwagon' that they actually sell what they are promising.

I have yet to see an actual photo-real 3d character sold for DAZ or Poser. They are all mass-market, generic, completely symmetrical models with generic re-useable skins.

Maybe they're secretly telling us it can't be done. Like the captain trying to catch Moby Dick... the dream will consume them...they're warning us in some weird way?

Maybe I'm in the minority ( if so thank god!! ) and photo-realism is a want of most folks using Poser and they think falsely that a photo-realistically render engine will solve all their problems. And all that I've said seems like musings of a crazed prehistoric.

Am I the only one who feels pressured to jump on the photo real bandwagon?

"Conspiracy"? Really? How is anyone pressuring you to do anything? The tools for making images are getting better, that's all. One of the benefits of that progress is that realistic scenes, characters, lighting etc are more easily achieved now than ever before. But why should that stop you doing toon or fantasy stuff if you like toon or fantasy stuff? Why should that stop you postworking you images if you want to or using non-photoreal lighting or shaders or effects?

V3 had funny shoulders. V4 had better shoulders but funny armpits and toes. V4 weightmaped has better shoulders and armpits but ugly roundy elbows. V4 "Perfect" (the morph set) has better armpits and toes and nice pointy elbows. From what I can tell, Genesis3/V7 has even better shoulders, armpits and toes without the need for fixes. Use whichever you want in your images, if you like the way a figure looks, use it, where's the pressure or the conspiracy?

Photorealism was, is, and always will be the wholy grail of CGI.

Simply because it is (was) way harder to achieve than anything else.

And don't confuse intentional "non-realism" with ineptitude or simple technical limitations.

I worked very hard to turn the technically limited/stylized virtual Barbie dollls that DAZ/SM handed to us in the past into something more lifelike.

No, so far no Poser/DAZ doll (Except MIKI I, perhaps) was out of the box photorealistic in a sense of being "non idealized".

Sadly, most people want the glamorus photoshopped "reality" of high gloss fashion magazines in their renders, too.

The fact is that between photogrammetry, weightmapping and unbiased render engines, achieving photorealism has become easier than ever, even for the hobbyists. And no player in the CGI world can afford to ignore it.

But its up to you how far you're going down the rabbit hole of photorealism.

I found my "happy spot" with realistic looking/bending figures with a slightly stylized (but pretty fast) render/shader style.

Although that's an old render and my new light/render setup has improved in the meantime. I now use higher GC settings and compensate with less light.

But as I said, it's up to you what you use and how you use your tools.

But yes, the movement is clearly towards more realism.

And personally I think it was about time.  :-)

You don't want to step on the train? we are not forcing you, you are free to remain on the platform. We will be too busy playing with the current round of new wonderful toys to miss you.

Coleman Wrote:
"Did you ever arrive at highschool and someone told you something about YOU didn't fit the expectations of the group?"

Yup, once, when I was in the school band.  The drummer complained cause I hit the wrong notes during a live performance.  I never developed the ability to see the keys in almost pitch black when some clown started playing with the lighting-rig mid-performance.  Anyway, I got my revenge by drawing a giant ACID smiley face on the skin of his snare drum, and it was extra cool cause it was his own kit that he brought in from home.

To this day, he still doesn't know who did it, but he's lucky cause I was tempted to torture him at the time!

I have some sympathy with where you are coming from but it is down to the individual user to decide how far and where they want to go with their art. I am not after 'photo realism' and never have been in the 15 years I have been doing Poser but I do use gamma correction, not because any scientist said so, but because it provides a workflow that give me the renders I want.  I also use Sub Surface Scattering and the improvements in lighting that the latest versions of Poser provides but I have never used Genesis and still use V4WM.  Most of my work is sci-fi work and my aim is for my renders to be 'believable' not photo realistic and 'say' something. I am not trying to have people viewing wondering if the render is a photograph or not, pretty pointless with most my sci-fi renders, but the same can be said for my portraits as well.  For what I need I am fairly happy with V4WM and for me the biggest limitation for me is expressions.  Now it could be that Genesis 3 has the answer to this, or project E, but for me at least, Genesis 1 and 2 were not the answer.  

I do understand that better bending and photo realistic is the goal for some users, why not.  What I do find surprising is the massive drive to get better bending when, for me, there also needs to be a great deal more work also done on realistic hair if you aim is photo realism and a see little progress there.

It is for each artist to use the software the way they want, my decision not to invest in Genesis and stick with V4 allowed me to invest some of my limited funds in purchasing Vue Studio so that I could use my figures in more believable landscapes.  That was my choice and I did not feel at all pressured into going down the new figure route, despite all the hype but then I also tend not to believe that the newest is any better and that all new tech is good tech, not without some proof and that goes for life in general not just 3D art. 

IMO Photoreal is just an artform, somewhat popular especially in the professional advertising, moviemaking and gaming business. Some hobbyist have some preferences there too, for various personal reasons. I happen to be one of them, sometimes. Unfortunately, Poser is not very good at it, and not meant for it as well. That can be frustrating, especially for those who think they can turn Poser into a virtual physics lab. Whether that's either bad luck or an extra opportunity, who knows?

The most serious statement on this comes from JoePublic in his post above: " I've found my happy spot ...". That's what counts. 

And you can take a peek in the gallery, especially the image-top 20. No photorealism at all (this week at least). Top 1 and 2 are from C'yve, not even in 3D. 

Above all, a real artist wants to be unique and doesn''t group think, and preferrably avoids groups at all.  

And oh, IOM the movement is not towards more realism, but towards better story-telling.
An image can tell a thousand words, but one needs to have something to tell first. C'yve is my hero. Paul Francis, Roland58, etc

and No, phorealism is not the hardest to achieve, given the amount of images floating around. With the proper tools, anyone can.
C'ves 2D drawings are the hardest to achive. Like the drawings (and little poems) by Dick Bruna.  

have fun 

I have a degree in fine art. I have taught art. I have little time for students who splash colour around and call it 'abstract'. Look at any of the genuine abstract artists in history and look at their work books. They could all draw, they could all paint 'realistically', then they chose a different form of expression. Impressionist painting originated because of photography... painters needed a new way of seeing so they moved to impressionism then abstraction.

Do not denigrate people for being excited about a new capacity in their chosen tool set. Nor should anyone denigrate you for achieving what you seek to achieve. Know your tool well, produce magic. The work should speak for itself. There is no conspiracy.

I agree with Hornet. The hair is a dead giveaway.  I am not striving for photo-realism but my images are becoming more realistic with the changes in the technology.  No pressure though. Create what you want to create.

No one is forcing anyone to use the latest version of Poser, the latest version of Vicki, to change their rendering techniques, their workflow or anything else.  If a user doesn't think gamma correction is needed, they have the option to turn it off.  If they want to render a figure without shadows or even clothing and hair, they have the option.  If a user's can post work whatever they need into a render, then they should.  That's why there are apps like Gimp, PS and Painter. 

You don't even have to own any version of Poser over P7 to use the majority of content available here and at RDNA.  Yes, there are some products that make use of P9 and up features or other apps features but no one is forced to buy or use them.  I keep older version of Poser on my system so that I can continue to use certain scripts that don't have equivalents or work on newer versions.

I have Pro 2014 because I wanted the fitting room and some of the other features.  If you are happy with the tool set for an older version of Poser then stick with it. 

Skip worrying about what other users are doing and saying.  The only thing that matters is that the person doing the render is happy with the results.  No matter what someone does, someone will have a negative comment.

Just pay a visit to CG Society and tell them you use Poser.  They can be a truly condescending lot.

Unless, for some reason, photo realism is needed for a job, stop letting others dictate.  Life is way too short to spend it trying to make everyone else happy. 

"don't confuse intentional "non-realism" with ineptitude or simple technical limitations."

True. On the other hand, don't confuse inteptitude with art.

I prefer photorealism in CGI renders, but I'm way deep on the amateur/hobbyist end of the spectrum. I pretty much settle for what I can get with my limited skillset. I can respect and admire good stylized stuff as well, though.

I suppose we've all come a long way from NVIATWAS and..... wait a minute... no we haven't. 

Once the whole group think was to do a NVIATWAS like Frazetta did it, but now, sadly, it's come to doing a NVIATWAS like it's photo-real.  

daz poser photo realistic renders ? don't know I've ever seen one.
Seen a lot of cool renders thou.

if you do fined a photo realistic render with humans in it,in any of the app's.
odd's are the characters will be asymmetrical and not have real humans ratio's.
but good luck finding any in any app thou.

you can make average renders look a lot cooler with topaz labs or gimp.
blender can = any render engine. if you take the time to set lights, shaders, textures, vectors, etc etc up.

even thought your current car gets you from point A to point B.
car salesmen job is to sale you that bright n pretty new car.
that's what salesmen do.and who don't love a new car to get the girls with ;)

as you can tell from the very few comments in my gallery.I do what I want .
the only one I half to impress is my self.

I personally feel that Photo-Realism in CG has become an egotistical thing now, in fact it's got to the point where it's just plain annoying.  Only the other week I posted an image in another thread here, and two members suspected it was a render I'd done.  If it was a render then it's the best render I've ever seen, so I requested in that thread that if it doesn't look real, show me a better one - and I'm still waiting to see one.

My point is that if you're into Photo-Realism, that's great, but you'd better be in it for the right reasons, because fact is, I've seen proof time and time and time again that even if you were to achieve what you're striving for (perfect photo-realism), you'll likely get less respect for it than anything else you ever posted.  I never see this sort of thing in traditional art, and I think it's because there is no sense of 'you did better than me using the same program I'm using'.  If the program does that for them then why not for me?  That sort of thing.  The only good thing about it, is that if you ever post something worthy enough to put people into an egotistical paranoia (like I did), some very careful wording can get you hours and hours of fun, and it's funny cause in effect, they're a victim of their own egos :-D

So me personally, I love Photo-Realism (always have) but got bored of it a long time ago.  And although I've never done so, I can create anything I want to a standard no viewer would ever suspect it was a render no matter how closely they studied it.  I think the trick to Photo-Realism is feasibility, not just the technical aspects like surfaces etc.  But I don't bother with this stuff anymore cause the competitive edge seems to have gotten too easy even for the amateurs.  Why would a person spend days or weeks carefully positioning the strands of hair on a figure, if a simulator comes along that allows a noob to do a similar thing in, say, ten minutes?  Why would a person aim to create a completely convincing room, when a noob can throw a few model and lighting presets together, and hit render?

The challenge just isn't there anymore, or if it is, I think it must be hanging on by it's teeth these days.  It's a vicious circle cause in order to do what we do with these renderers, the base specs need to be there.  A renderer does exactly what you tell it (if it works right), so as long as you understand those things, you know you can do whatever you want before you even do it - that's how predictable Photo-Realism is these days.  Once you learn the rendering and surfacing tech of your chosen program, it's just a matter of placement and patience in order to build a "photo" as opposed to a render.

A scruffy pencil doodle is more visually interesting to me, always has been, even when I was obsessed with Photo-Realism.

Photo-realistic?

How many photo's are realistic?

Can anyone show a celebrity photo that has NOT been photoshopped?
Most celebrity's even have it in their contracts.

 I try for a certain level of photorealism and then often post-work the heck out of my render. My thought is that getting 90% of the way to photorealism gives me the scene, and then using filters, and sometimes overpainting, gives me the look I want. So I use ray-tracing, SSS, and either AO or full-fledged IBL. (I use AO when I'm doing portraits a lot.) But I often add unrealistic lights to highlight something, or composite elements, and I usually use linear fall-off on my lights, because it feels closer to what we perceive.

I almost never use depth-of-field, since I find DOF makes it actually look like a photo, instead of what we actually perceive. (So I use DOF when I want it to explicitly look like it is a photo.) I almost always Gamma-Correct, because it makes the lighting a lot simpler, but I've sometimes turned it off if I want really sharp contrasts.

I do always move to the newest version of Poser, but primarily because they're always adding the features that I really want. 

"Am I the only one who feels pressured to jump on the photo real bandwagon?"

Yes....you are

Examine yourself honestly

Self assess why why you feel the advancements and subsequent mass proliferation of a certain computer imaging technology is causing you to feel personally "oppressed" in some bizarre fashion.

Good thread, guys. For me ... It is whatever style the individual piece calls for. Frazzetta style, comic book, Vermeer. Movie poster ... the choices are endless and the list is as individual as the artist. Don't mistake marketing for trending for personal style. IMHO, the last is the only one that matters. Render on!

Boni

Well I agree with everyone else here that "photo-realism" (whatever that is) is a personal choice. It is also something that I am currently working towards. That choice for me is about learning how materials and Poser work better. I am trying to see just how real I can make a render appear without using iRay or LuxRender. Again, that's just a learning adventure for me. That's the path I'm walking to discover my style.

You should choose your own path/style as well, and I (for one) will respect whatever path you choose. :)

Photorealism isn't everything, however photorealistic lighting might be. Even the latest CGI animated movies (as toony as they are) have great lighting.

Were I looking for photorealism, I'd get my 4 X 5 view camera and Ektachrome out.  Easier, cheaper, better than any computer generated image can be.  But I'm not, so Poser and FF render engine do me just nicely.

Doric.

I'd whip out my camera as well, but finding a model that looks like a figure I want to render might be expensive:)

I'd whip out my camera as well, but finding a model that looks like a figure I want to render might be expensive:)

True,  But no worries about how she bends. Doric

I'd whip out my camera as well, but finding a model that looks like a figure I want to render might be expensive:)

True,  But no worries about how she bends. Doric

I have seen a few photographic models where you might worry how she would bend :-). As a photographer who has come to the 3D world much later in life, I do understand where you are coming from but as my 3D interest is mainly in sci-fi, my camera is of limited use.  It does however get used and an equally regular basis.

Doric Wrote:
"Were I looking for photorealism, I'd get my 4 X 5 view camera and Ektachrome out."

Sometimes I really like Doric - Nice!

Biggest I ever had was a Mamiya 645S, and the dumbest thing I ever did was part-exchange it for my first digital camera.
Yeah I know, and I feel sick every time I think about it, I absolutely adored that camera and system.

BTW, I don't mind being called a pumice, pommel-head or whatever on this occasion - so let rip dude ;-)
Actually, don't do that, spare the thread (and my embarrassment).

pumeco, I have had my tablet  correct your name as pumice on several occasions, I'm sure this has happened to others as well. Glad you have a sense of humor about it. 

Boni

Bloody hell, well I'm glad you spotted it before posting :-D

Does every hobbyist want a photo-realistic render?

Am I the only one who feels pressured to jump on the photo real bandwagon?

I want good looking stuff. For what it's worth, the art I enjoy seeing least in my twitter feed is photorealistic renders of distorted or cartoonish figures. 

Doric Wrote:
"Were I looking for photorealism, I'd get my 4 X 5 view camera and Ektachrome out."

Sometimes I really like Doric - Nice!

Biggest I ever had was a Mamiya 645S, and the dumbest thing I ever did was part-exchange it for my first digital camera.
Yeah I know, and I feel sick every time I think about it, I absolutely adored that camera and system.

Hmm, Rolleiflex, Rolleicord, Kowa 6, Fothflex, Crown graphics from 2 1/4 X3 1/4 to 4 X 5, Deardorf 5X7, Kodak 8 X 10, one old weird 10 X14 that I never did figure out who made it.  None left, all I have now is a Speed Graphic 4 X 5 and roughly 12 assorted 35mm that haven't been used in years.  Worked as a repairman in a camera shop for about ten years.  Part time.  Not enough work to make it full time.  Favorite setup, American Optical trinocular microscope, still in attic.  Polarized.  Really a fun thing to use. Doric

I'd whip out my camera as well, but finding a model that looks like a figure I want to render might be expensive:)

Craigslist. Plenty of models, male and female, of all different races and body shapes, willing to do photoshoots for free in exchange for their ability to put your work in their portfolios. Just post an ad and see how many responses you get. I've gotten no less than a dozen every time I've posted an ad. When I lived in FL I got hundreds of responses each time. Offer $50 or $100 for a few hours and you'll get even more responses. I think photo-realism is a great goal, but by no means does it diminish the quality of 3D work when it's not photo-real. The whole image should be considered when looking for the value of a rendered piece. What message or story is the image trying to tell? Things like that.There are lots of things that can be achieved in CG that could never be done with just a camera and some props.

 For me, photorealism is just about seeing if I can do it and do it consistently. That done, I'll move on to the next challenge... seeing if I can put my elbow in my ear. Why? Just to see if I can do it. Although, I might need to be weight mapped first, and have my limits turned off.

@Doric
Sounds great, I like how they take their time with those large format cameras, I watched a student play around with one for some time!
Boring subject he was shooting, but it was still good to watch.

Shane Wrote:
"Craigslist. Plenty of models, male and female, of all different races and body shapes, willing to do photoshoots for free in exchange for their ability to put your work in their portfolios. Just post an ad and see how many responses you get. I've gotten no less than a dozen every time I've posted an ad."

Now I have a reason to buy another Mamiya. I'll have plenty of self-owned landscape and sets to photograph the girls against after the relocation!
Luckily I held on to my enlarger, a full-colour Dunco enlarger - pretty cool and built like a tank, although I never actually got to developing in colour, only B&W.

Mamiya 645S + Ilford high-speed B&W Roll Film = Artistic Awesomeness.