hmm your first rendering looks awesome to me, I am seeing things like reflections and indirect light along edges of your models, looks like  a mya rending it's so good, not real crasy about the shadowing at the bottem of the blanket but that may be due to a miner problem in your setup.

Quote - do you know of a tutorial or a thread somewhere that explains how to get a poser scene into Lightwave?

There is a SM plug-in for Lightwave.  I know when I purchased Poser Pro it was FREE.  There is another one but it isn't FREE.

Poser to Lightwave 3D Kit

I'd try the SM free version first.  And of course there is Greenbriar Studio's plug-ins.

InfoCentral,
I've heard that PLK plugin is far better than the SM crap, and I've read that people say the Greenbriar one barely works at all...

But it's worth mentioning that the PLK and the Greenbriar are both available only for 32 bit LW, and may be license-locked to the LW dongle. That I don't know, just speculating.

But the reason I didn't mention those is because he said he's using the demo of LW, and I figured wouldn't be interested in buying plugins for it. ;-)

Of course I hope he actually buys LW. It is a fantastic program, and buying now also gets one in on Core...

I Love Vue, but I'm NOT into "realism", as I  go for a stylistic look I want :)

You want a super renderer, try Maxwell, but importing Poser stuff and properly materialing is a right tricky business

Maxwell render of a sword I modelled
 

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1905771

Vue render of poser character in my style
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1951108

:)

A workflow that works with a few asterisks is DS -> collada -> C4D demo (don't have to activate the time trial) -> Maxwell plugin.

There are a couple things about the way Poser saves .dae files that make it less ideal

And Maxwell doesn't work with the very latest C4D I don't think. Not yet.

Quote - I couldn't agree with you more on all that, Nyghtfall.  I don't equate "art" with photoreal anyway.

Nor do I.

Quote - I mean, look at some of the greatest paintings of all time. Nothing particularly photoreal about any that I've seen, although some have come pretty close, but the art was the intention, not necessarily the accuracy.

Exactly.  Art, to me, is about interpretation, and, as I wrote before, evoking emotion.  IMHO, that's not possible with photorealism.

Are you like me in wishing photography could be filtered out when viewing the gallery?

Photorealism is good for model testing etc, which Is why I got maxwell :)
lets you see exactly what the item is like.

Artistic style though is entirely different kettle of fish. I have ot kepe pointing out my work isn't meant to be realism to some folks. I lvoe the style of fantay and scifi novels from late 60s and 70s, Vallejo, Caldwell, Easley etc :)

A nice thing about photorealism is it can shore up a model that doesn't have amazing textures.

Why would photorealism be excluded from interpretation and invoking emotions? A photograph, even a landscape photograph can invoke emotion.

Maybe because to evoke emotion you need to screw around with the laws of physics? Dream lighting

Does Ansel Adams ring a bell?

Quote - Why would photorealism be excluded from interpretation and invoking emotions? A photograph, even a landscape photograph can invoke emotion.

To be clear, I typically equate photorealism with renders of portraits, architexture, and inatimate objects, like automobiles and other things.

Please understand, I'm not trying to define art, but, personally, those types of renders do nothing for me on an emotional leve.  I enjoy looking at them, and I greatly admire the technical skill that went into creating them, but that's all the effect they have on me.

Well there's actually a HUGE call for photorealism in CG these days, particularly in arch-viz and advertising.
There is so much you see in ads in magazines, on TV and elsewhere that is CG, because in a whole lot of cases it's cheaper to make a CG ad for a client than it is to set up a studio to photograph the real deal.
And in the case of things like car ads on TV, far more practical, since you can do animations with wild stunts and not risk damaging the vehicle or injuring a stunt driver, not to mention the cost of setting up an actual shoot, plus the insurance costs.

And then of course there also is product visualization of all sorts. It's cheaper and easier to make a 3D model and a good render of something than it is to build an actual prototype to show a client.

So while in a lot of cases, photorealism may not be art, it IS a highly sought-after ability.

Quote - So while in a lot of cases, photorealism may not be art, it IS a highly sought-after ability.

I love CG, and am constantly blown away by what can be achieved with it.  I'm also not trying to refute its legitimacy as an art form.  There are just certain styles of 3D art that have more of a personal effect on me than others, and experiments in photorealism aren't one of them.

Quote -
I love CG, and am constantly blown away by what can be achieved with it.  I'm also not trying to refute its legitimacy as an art form.  There are just certain styles of 3D art that have more of a personal effect on me than others, and experiments in photorealism aren't one of them.

Well OK, that's fine.
But then again, you did stumble into a discussion here about how to achieve realism in a render. ;-)

Quote - Well OK, that's fine.  But then again, you did stumble into a discussion here about how to achieve realism in a render. ;-)

Quite true.  So, I'll just leave you all to continue helping the OP.  :-)

Quote - So while in a lot of cases, photorealism may not be art ...

I think it is an art.  Just not with the same emotional impact that other art types might have.

As for Poser photorealism, that's not going to happen in any version out now but I still think that you can get fairly acceptable results if a little bit of care is taken.
Here are two images I did recently in Poser Pro. And while they hardly compare to a professional renderer and I can see things that I still need to improve, I wouldn't say they're bad enough for me to give up entirely.

www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php
www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php

Quote - Please understand, I'm not trying to define art, but, personally, those types of renders do nothing for me on an emotional leve.  I enjoy looking at them, and I greatly admire the technical skill that went into creating them, but that's all the effect they have on me.

Ah, okay. On that point I would agree.  While I can admire the that goes into such renders I usually find them boring :)

Quote -
I think it is an art.  Just not with the same emotional impact that other art types might have.

Well yeah, you can incorporate photorealism into a render and still have an artistic effect, but I stil wouldn't call it an art, really. Maybe more like a skill, or an art form.

Most of the really truly photorealistic CG renders I've seen though have not been trying to "make art", but rather for product or architectural visualizations, where "art" was secondary to simply trying to show a product off well.

"3D-fu". 

For anything that gets close to what could be described as realistic lighting then an unbiased render engine combined with a decent machine will give great results with virtually no set up times (a point often overlooked by those that claim unbiased rendering is slower!).

From commercial offerings such as Maxwell Render http://www.maxwellrender.com/ to free unbiased renderers such as Indigo http://www.indigorenderer.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

Quote - (remember it's already SR1 of the 8th version of the software and it still can't render a simple room with Indirect Light. Is it still me who uses wrong settings all the time? Do you get better results with a reasonable render time?

I like to apologize for the first part Stewer. Yes Poser can render a room with IDL. The not so good front of the bed can be done better with more trials for sure. But does it really need to take 4 and a half hours (as for the posted render)? - maybe.
I did not know that inverse square should not be used on a point light in a setting like mine (it was the only setting I did not change during all those trials).

From the SM store site

Quote - Physically correct light attenuation for more accurate light falloff

Maybe they should have added "but should not be used above a night stand" :-)

Should I quit Poser? - no, it anyway was the wrong question. Should I quit Firefly? Not yet, maybe never.
New question: Should I try other apps to see what is possible (at what render times)? - Yes, definitely yes.

Last one: Should I like the render of johnpf (the bathroom) - yes, I do

Very last one: Is the community here one of the most important reasons I like to proceed using 3D software, even though I get so frustrated sometimes? Answer: The ultimate yes!

I have to say madno2, you're doing a much better job with this IDL in Poser than anything else I think I've seen so far from anyone.
So congrats on your perseverance!

As for your question "But does it really need to take 4 and a half hours?"
No, not for that. Lightwave 9.6 with a quad core could crank that out in maybe 3-10 minutes. Only with better quality and no splotchiness. Yes, it really is that much faster. You could also get about the same times with Mental Ray in 3ds Max, Maya or Softimage as well.
Firefly simply isn't up to the task. I don't understand why they're even trying it, except maybe because they don't want to spend the money to license or develop something new.

But considering how far you've come so far with dealing with Poser's render deficiencies and still getting something good out of it, I think you'd master a better render engine quickly and be able to get the results you wanted - and then some - far easier and definitely far quicker.

is it fair to compare Poser $250
with
or Maya $3500 (autodesk.com)
or 3DS MAX $3500 (autodesk.com)
or Lightwave $1000 (newtek.com)
Cinema 4D core $1000 (maxon.com)

i would hope that those give better results then a $200 dollar app
and im sure if people had that kind of disposal money on hand would prefer those apps
but poser shouldn't be put on the same level as those apps it's just not a fair and realistic comparison

Heheh.

My BMW M5 can go 201 MPH. Your cars suck.

well i guess if ford spent more to put a bigger engine in my Pinto it would be different

Quote - is it fair to compare Poser $250
with
or Maya $3500 (autodesk.com)
or 3DS MAX $3500 (autodesk.com)
or Lightwave $1000 (newtek.com)
Cinema 4D core $1000 (maxon.com)

i would hope that those give better results then a $200 dollar app
and im sure if people had that kind of disposal money on hand would prefer those apps
but poser shouldn't be put on the same level as those apps it's just not a fair and realistic comparison

If that's directed at me, I wasn't "comparing".
This has become partially a discussion about 3D GI and IDL and all that, and it's clear that the OP was already interested in other solutions. So yeah, since I'm in it, I'm going to put in my .02 when the subject comes up.

Has asked if it should take 4 hours for that render, and no, it shouldn't. Not in this day and age, and part of my point was that if they were going to try and say Poser has IDL, they ought to at least be able to compete even remotely.

sounds like stallion's opinion is to dump firefly if possible. Just look at the pricetags.

its just the way the statement was it sound like a comparison
but if it was said
yes with poser render times are going to be extended however, to get a better render and shorter render times these apps will give better performance and a better render but it will cost
one thing about the lower end apps is they sacrafice some quality and speed for a lower cost
but to say firefly is not up to the task no one should expect it to be for the price
squeezing both poser and studio til it squeel, to get a good renders is part of the challenge in the programs not to get commercial or hollywood standards but to get the "O gee you did that with those apps" is a better goal
but you are right those apps will give a better result but it will come at a price
so for poser yes for good looking renders you will probably more times then not have longer render times
i didn't say you were wrong it just sounded like a comparison
nothing against offering alternate solutions but also let the OP know that for better quality it come at a price

I think those are some great looking renders
finding ways to shorten render times without sacrificing quality should be the goal

no i didn't imply anywhere to "dump" firefly i just don't think it reasonable to think that a $200 app can compete with a $1000 + pro app
but one should push what they have to the limit to get as close as possible to their ideal render and if they decide that it just can't do it, then they should expect to pay a premium to get those results. i have no problem with firefly, 3delight or what ever my $200 is going to give me