Wed, Jan 8, 8:49 AM CST

Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL



Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum

Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom

Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Jan 07 11:07 am)



Subject: Realism required?


Movitz ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 3:14 PM · edited Sat, 14 December 2024 at 4:28 AM

In art school it was pounded into me that the idea was the point, not the amount of nostrils of the nose. You had to convey your idea as clearly as possible, and not bother so much with detail. When I got into this group, the backbone established by this constant nagging rose, and I was left wondering if the idea of realism in a picture is really that necessary as long as the mood, the pose, and the idea was clearly communicated. What is your views on this? Does Vicky 3 need to have every glistening bead of sweat positioned perfectly on her body? Or is the message the most important to you? I guess what I'm asking, and perhaps it sounds horrible, whether you want the perfect romantic holiday shot, or if you want art? And where's the old ugly fat men or women by the way? :-)


FyreSpiryt ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 3:16 PM

I don't care that much about realism. In fact, I find it amusing that 3D artists try to put in every detail and flaw, and photographers try to take those OUT. :)


insomniaworks ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 3:23 PM

Hey Movitz, realism sells, it is a measure of quality I feel. Realism is also the measure of how far 3DModeling has evolved. Also, 3dModeling has so many applications, only one being souly for art. How about gaming and virtual reality for instance. I can make ugly fat men and woman easy with the basic packages sold for Victoria 3.0. (I aleady have) marty-Insomniaworks


Movitz ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 3:30 PM

I have to respectfully disagree about the quality aspect of realism. Some of the best images I've seen have nothing to do with realism, but rather about the mastery of the craft. So, I can be utterly blown away by an image made with layers of paintbrushes, warpers, distortions. I saw a couple of examples in this forums gallery of what I call high quality images -- the person who made the Giger inspired art. That's mastery of craft, that's quality. With poser, anyone can make real looking figures.


insomniaworks ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 3:47 PM

file_68763.jpg

I am very proud of my realism. marty-insomniaworks


ladynimue ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 4:40 PM

I also hold an Art degree; college taught me, that for every Art Movement there are followers as well as critics! It does not matter if the artistic style is Realism or Abstract, there will always be someone who will either love it or hate it. Isnt that what draws us all to art? The variety in art! Because after all, arts beauty is in the eye of the beholder! [As if you could not tell by my nick and my gallery] I am a romantic by heart, and thus, I am enchanted by the works of the Pre-Raphaelite Movement. Artwork by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Sir John Everett Millais, and William Holman Hunt, are truly amazing in realistic detail, yet with mythical themes. Also, realistic artwork by 18th century artists such as Thomas Hudson and John Russell, have wonderful flowing gowns that resemble many post-worked Poser images! Another important thing I learned from my art classes was the appreciation for all artistic styles. Just because I have a preference for realism does not mean that I do not enjoy such artists as Vincent van Gogh, Paul Cezanne, or Salvador Dali. How can an art major not acknowledge the genius and talent that goes into these images? As to Poser, its beauty derives from the degree of versatility it provides the artist. The Poser Gallery has many amazing images that range from realism to abstract and everything in between! So, please, create Poser images that please you, no need to change your art style because you see the majority of members posting in that style. Be unique! On the other hand, please be respectful to all Poser artists and their artistic preferences be it realism or not :) ladynimue


Movitz ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 5:01 PM

I hope I didn't come across as disrespectful. Had no intention of being so. Of course I appreciate all genres, but it just struck me to be quite one-sided, this and other forums. There are very many voluptuous women with big breasts and sweat-beads in strategic places. Not so many wrinkled 70 year old women with chicken-pox marks all over the face. :-) But that's just an observation, not a judgement. I had no intention what so ever to pass judgement, otherwise I would have to go to the docket myself first of all. I just reacted a bit to insomniaworks assertion that realism was the key to quality, and that I -- respectfully! -- disagree with. There are examples of excellent works of art that's not a bit realistic. So realism isn't the key to quality. Mastery of the craft, and the tools, is -- and his images above are excellent!


maclean ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 5:23 PM

The search for realism in 3D has been, up to now anyway, partly a self-defensive mechanism designed to blow away the critics who say virtual imagery is a poor cousin of photography because it isn't realistic enough. If you think back a century, the critics of photography said it was a poor relation of painting because you didn't need any talent to make an image of whatever was in front of you. And so it goes. On and on and on. No doubt in the next century, when people are making images by telepathy or something, there will be the same arguments all over again. I don't think realism should be the Holy Grail of 3D. I'm a photographer and I can create realism or total fantasy, depending on the tools I choose. For now, 3D trealism is sought after because it's difficult. Once it's easily achieved, it'll become boring and people will be trying to get rid of it. If you have something original to say, you'll find a way to say it, no matter what the current fad happens to be. mac


geoegress ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 5:41 PM

"For now, 3D realism is sought after because it's difficult." yup- but I'll toss in a side connection too. The skills to make photo realism makes the other types of CG art better also. The people I know who can do good photorealism also make better non-realistic pictures, be they dragons , faries or scenes,lol, or whales in space :)


maclean ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 6:48 PM

Well, when I think of realism, it doesn't neccessarily conjure up a scene from real life. I would consider a render of a dragon biting the head off Ridley Scott's Alien Queen realistic, if it were done in a certain way. And a render of vicki brushing her Millenium Teeth (or whatever they are), could be total fantasy depending on the style. Renoir and the impressionists created non-realistic paintings by looking at reality and giving it a new twist. Giger created highly realistic artwork of alien creatures and Vargas created fantasy-like Playboy pinups. But I agree that realism improves other skills too. Although that applies to any aspect of 3D. No matter what you learn, it helps with something else somewhere down the line. mac


Veritas777 ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 7:02 PM

Attached Link: http://www.msnbc.com/news/943726.asp

Now that the bar on special effects has been raised so high, is it impossible to clear? This is the theme of the article and it makes some interesting points to consider reguarding realism effects in Movies today.


Spit ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 7:17 PM

Realism is really about who has the best hardware. ;-) Not totally facetious. My art improved a lot with each new, more powerful, pc I got. Of course I don't really DO realism, but realistic lighting, photographic textures, and ray-tracing take a lot of memory and horsepower if you want to finish a render in your lifetime.


Spit ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 7:49 PM

Oh, btw, thanks for the link. Interesting. I think the problem is a bit more subtle than that though...more than just the bar being raised. If we perceive that something is just an effect we don't always diss it. What's important is the essence of what WAS done right. We can easily accept realistic and moving CG expressions on something that is obviously CG. A subtle, realistic, movement to carry the story along is much more important than the overall sum of textures/lighting/form. And that's where the 'artist' becomes more important than the technician...knowing where to put the special effort. I think the Hulk failed because it tried to do all equally realistically and therefore left nothing for contrast or to jar us, and in the end it was simply boring.


LaurieA ( ) posted Sat, 26 July 2003 at 9:19 PM

For myself, I like realism, but it's not a requirement. I like a painterly look more. Kinda why I like Vue so much, I guess. Laurie



elizabyte ( ) posted Sun, 27 July 2003 at 3:34 AM

Personally, I don't think Poser does "real" all that well. Yes, I know, with good textures and a good model, etc., but Poser's "real" leaves a lot to be desired, so I don't even bother to try for it. When you're trying for "real", the littlest thing will throw off the illusion. Something else to think about is that two 3D animated movies came out around the same time, Pixar's "A Bug's Life," and PDI's "Antz". Which is more "realistic"? One could argue that it's "Antz," since those ants are brown and have six legs, rather than being pink and/or blue with four legs, but when you think about it, they're talking ants. How realistic do they HAVE to be? I do a lot of fantasy type pictures. Fairies, angels, demonic types, stuff like that. How "real" do fairies have to be? What about angels? shrug I suppose it all depends on what you're doing and why. "Realism" might be a goal if you're trying to do, say, high quality print ads for something, but most of the time and for most people, "realism" is very much a subjective thing. My husband, who has worked for professionally for some years with 3D rendering software (as a programmer, not an artist), is of the opinion that "South Park" is actually the most realistic of all current 3D/computer graphic productions. Why? Because it looks exactly like they want to look: like torn paper, with shadows, depth, edges, etc. The illusion is so good that people tend to forget that it's 3D graphic (they model and render it in Maya, in case you wondered). As for Poser, I tend to prefer a painterly or particle-speckled or illustrated look (not that I can achieve it successfully all the time; still working on it). I think for that purpose, Poser does a very GOOD job and provides a good base from which to work. Just my own general reflections. Take it for what it's worth. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis


Privacy Notice

This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.