I've never understood the rush to "realism."  In the beginning, realism in CGI was nigh impossible, so people worked with what they had, and it was good.  Take for example the CGI in the Dire Straits video, "Money for Nothing"; it was crude, colourful, and delightful.  Likewise Tron; the limits of the technology defined the entire style of the movie.

Fast forward 20 years, and now everyone is trying to turn their computer into a camera.  Why?  If I wanted a photograph, I could buy a $5 digital camera and achieve more "realism" than anyone here can with a $3000 computer and years of expertise.  It baffles me why anyone would WANT realism in their CGI.  I can understand wanting the ability to do realism, since that kind of software and processing power has other possibilities.  Realism is where art STARTS, not where it ends.  Picasso began by learning how to paint a photorealistic bowl of fruit; once he had mastered that as a basic, then he moved on, to his benefit and ours.

I've started using IDL in Poser, and I'm finding myself diddling around in PhotoShop, unhappy with the result.  When I'm done, I realize that the finished result looks similar to what the old Poser renderer produced natively, a sort of cartoony, posterized, oversaturated, 70s airbrush look.  Rather than playing to CGI's weaknesses and plummeting helplessly iinto the Uncanny Valley, I'd rather use its strengths and produce something which could not be created with any other medium.

Why are so many people around here treating photorealism as the Holy Grail of Poser?

bookmarked :)

Because art imitates life?

I can't really answer that question since I prefer a more dark and saturated, somewhat painterly look to my stuff. Since I know I can't achieve ultra-realism, I don't try to ;o).

Laurie

I would say it's because the alternative to photorealism is usually just crap. Key word "usually." If you have photorealism, at least you have that. Something that can be appreciated objectively.

If renders aren't going to be photorealistic then I want something at least as good, and I think that's a tall order a lot of the time.

edit
Let me hasten to clarify that I'm not saying non-photorealistic renders tend to be crap. I'm saying you don't get anything by sacrificing photorealism, most of the time. So if you can have photorealism, it's usually a good idea.

It's not the tool used, it's the tool using it

Quote - Why are so many people around here treating photorealism as the Holy Grail of Poser?

Because they can.  Because they want to.  Because it is a challenge.

And then there's people like me to which anything would be an improvement.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

Wanting to get away from the basic Poser look: plastic people who don't cast shadows with ridiculous features. If that is what you want, go for it. I want to get as far from that as possible. Perhaps not photorealism - there's a huge discussion on here about that already - but certainly not what comes out of the box.
We can do better.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks

Why photoreal??...

When it come to poser Photorealism is a silly pursuit because poser models are not even  close to being realistic.

but in the area of Architectural visualization it nice to see a photo real render of an office building BEFORE committing to million of dollars.

in movies/advertising its nice to do a CG fluid/liquid effects without flooding  your soundstage

PHOTOREAL WATER

And , course there is high end Cg "Cinematography"
YES THIS IS IS ALL CG & NO ITS NOT "AVATAR"

So there are practical uses for "photorealism" that DONT involve
thongs ,boobies and dead eyed V-chicks from Daz3D.

Cheers

My website

YouTube Channel

Because some types of render (thinking specifically of ArchVis) are of things that do not exist but have to be shown as if they did.  Hence the need for photorealistic rendering

My Freebies
Buy stuff on RedBubble

I'm with HeWhoWatches on this matter.
The point of realism in art died with the daguerrotype. Since then artists have sought to create images that touch people in ways the camera cannot. Not necessarily better ways, but different. A Monet can, in some ways, tell you more about a scene than a photograph could while being objectively far less realistic.

But I still strive to create realistic images in Poser.

Why? Because I want control of the medium I'm working in. I want to be able to make choices based on my artistic vision, not constrained by what I can and cannot do technically. When I make an 'unrealistic' image I want it to be because it suits the concept I have in my head, not because it's all I know how to do, and I want control over the ways in which it's unrealistic.

Let's not forget to that the movement and action in those old cgi films and videos is a huge distraction. In a still image, the viewer has time to see the faults. Wooden poses, lifeless chalky skin, blank expressions, inplausible lighting etc. only serve to distract the viewer from the point your image is trying to make.

So I like images that have enough realism to overcome those petty distractions, but not so much that the image's whole concept becomes subordinate to the quest for realism.

But to achieve that balance you need the skills to control the level of realism, and that's what some people are trying to achieve here, I think.

Free stuff @ https://poser.cobrablade.net/

because realistic light and shadow are the most compelling artistic elements i know of.  and because it's easier to take realistic light and shadow and make it into what i want than burn in a style only to find the image going a different direction in post and editing.

personally I want to go for realism for a simple reason.

what I'm creating does not exist, therefore I cannot take a photo of it.

my only other recourse would be to build it, (a fully built, rigged, mapped home brewed TARDIS console room), but that would annoy the Wife...

Most users wouldn't know realism if it it put on a latex glove and probed their tender orificies, as the Realism gallery tends to show.  Perhaps it isn't very nice of one to point this out, but the basic fact isn't all that nice either.

My Freebies

From my point of view it's not so much that (photo)realism is a 'holy grail' as such, rather it's a means to comprehensively understanding the visual world and representations of it (be it observed or imagined).
I've persued this in various media (drawing, painting, CGI etc) to empower myself with choice about how I represent ideas visually, rather than accepting the limitations of my skills at any given time. Sometimes, of course, the tools do have limitations - Poser is still limited in terms of the persuit of photo realism in many ways, but it has gotten a lot more capable and it is still a very cheap app. Perhaps pushing these limitations will have its own reward in terms of grasping CGI.

While I don't feel I 've mastered CGI as comprehensively as the other more tactile media I've used over the years (I consider most of the renders I've done to be tests rather than accomplished artworks), I do hope to be able to use it more freely as time goes on.

So perversely the point for me in studying realism is so that I can knowingly choose to make my imagery realistic or unrealistic as an idea demands, rather than being forced into a certain look.

In fact I'm quite intrigued by the 'almost photo-real' as a stylistic choice for representations, but this is only appropriate in my mind for certain subject matter. I usually try to use media and styles that I feel are appropriate for the subject matter I'm dealing with, and this has led me to use forms as diverse as crudely painted canvases in oils to highly polished sculpural reliefs made with modern polymers - whatever is appropriate for the idea.

3d is just another tool that I felt compelled to learn to open up my creative avenues and choices.

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com

I do see the point of people wanting to achieve realism in 3D, not everything can be captured with a photo camera. Kaibach raises a good point, there are quite a number of settings I can think of that will be hard to capture with a photo or film camera when it comes to the future of the past.

I can also see for example the advertising world using realism in 3D..... imagine the cost saved when you can use digital figures that do exactly what you want or need without having to pay them an hourly rate. Without the need of using all kinds of sets or locations.

But when it comes to Poser, I agree with pjz99, the majority has no clue what realism is all about and even when using IDL and other tools, they still produce barbie dolls and very recognizable 3D scenes, not even close to being real.

Personally, I'm not into realism at all. Even when I do create scenes that portray real life situations, I still do my best to make sure the render isn't realistic at all, but always has a toon look or distinguished 3d look. I've found that trying to achieve realism in 3D only takes away from the image and the message or idea you try to get accross. If I make something toony or recognizable 3D, people will focus on what the image is all about. If I try to achieve realism, people tend to look at the faults there are in trying to achieve the realism and forget about what the image is really trying to portray.

I do find realism in poser very distracting and personally it takes away the fun that are in poser rendered images. When browsing through the galleries I do find that the new IDL isn't an improvement at all, it takes away that particular look that poser always had and now it has (almost) become one of the rest. Most Poser 8 renders do not stand out anymore. The images could have just as well been rendered in Vue, Carrara, D/S or whatever. For most people that may be good, I don't know, but I think it's a pitty. What made Poser stand out from the rest is slowly going away.

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

Quote - Most users wouldn't know realism if it it put on a latex glove and probed their tender orificies, as the Realism gallery tends to show.  Perhaps it isn't very nice of one to point this out, but the basic fact isn't all that nice either.

Most users also haven't spent as much time as BB has trying to understand how everything works, much less make it real.  I still don't think he's come up with a human shader/light combo that he's happy with yet.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

Quote - > Quote - Most users wouldn't know realism if it it put on a latex glove and probed their tender orificies, as the Realism gallery tends to show.  Perhaps it isn't very nice of one to point this out, but the basic fact isn't all that nice either.

Most users also haven't spent as much time as BB has trying to understand how everything works, much less make it real.  I still don't think he's come up with a human shader/light combo that he's happy with yet.

You must have seen other works then shown here then..... I haven't seen a realistic render that's any better then other peoples images from him in his rendo gallery at all, at love to see his real work......

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

I dont know about Holly grail but I do lean towards a touch of realism in my work--its more effort but worth the final result.

I have one image with a touch of realism in my gallery(Prisoner in the Tower),it was difficult and could be better but I reach a point and say ,"well after all its CGI"

I mean something much more blatant than subtle things like "is the skin shader perfect".  Is the lighting wonky, do any reflections show nonsense given what is visible in the scene, do the people look seriously freakish, do objects seem to be immune to gravity and physics, things like that.

My Freebies

As an example, many people think that simply plugging a cool HDR image into a reflective material is a good realism technique, or using a neato HDR image as an Image Based Light.  These will almost certainly be very different from objects that are actually in the scene, and actually take away from realism rather than improve it.

Many people think cranking up a lot of Ambient Occlusion improves realism.  Again, it produces the opposite effect - it simply looks like a lot of AO and has little to do with how stuff behaves in reality since AO isn't especially based on how light is reflected.

People with hare lips and noses like Michael Jackson towards the end of his life are not a great element of realism either, nor are impossible proportions or fleshy masses that ignore gravity.

People standing on the tips of their toes while barefoot, or whose feet are levitating 1/2 inch off the ground, or who have something enclosed within their hands but clearly aren't actually touching it, or who have a crisp reflection of a room interior reflected in their eyes when they're apparently standing outdoors - I think you see what I mean.

My Freebies

About a year ago,  one of the""Leading Gallery Artists ""  contacted Me to ask about getting "those amazing shadows" ..   I replied with  light files and settings,  also pointing the way to various tutorials.

After a few days I contacted her again to ask if the information was useful to her.
The response was She did not have the time to learn these things as She was so busy creating...

Her current work,  although improved IMO,  still does not have shadows..

I still try for My idea of realism in Poser without attempting post work. Far from perfect I know,  but then so am I..

I dunno...

Someone kindly pointed out that it's hard to take a photograph of something that does not exist in real life (e.g. a dragon.)

I would like to submit that, in some areas, it would be a lot less expensive, less morally complex, and far less of a communications hassle to do it in photo-realistic CG than in real-life. Some things that come to mind: pornography, historical re-creations, medical images, things like that.

All that said, I don't consider photo-realism to be an end-all be-all of art. Quite the opposite in fact. There's room for all types of art in the house, yanno?

Quote - There's room for all types of art in the house, yanno?

Quoted for agreement.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

 One of my projects requires an exploding helicopter. Since I can't afford to do it in real life, CG is the next best thing. BTW I will be shooting for realism.

Quote -  One of my projects requires an exploding helicopter. Since I can't afford to do it in real life, CG is the next best thing. BTW I will be shooting for realism.

Did you ever watch the recent Zatoichi movie?  They used a highly stylized CGI splash for blood which was clearly not realistic, nor intended to be realistic.  It was a very cool touch.  They could easily have used paint squibs, but someone clearly decided that this was a much more interesting effect.  THIS is what's awesome about CGI.  It frees us from the constraints of a physical medium, allowing us to more accurately reflect the images of our imagination -- which are rarely consistent with physics.  Just check out the breasts on any of the multitude of bikinied Vickies in the galleries...

Are you trying to convince people that trying for realism is bad?  What on earth for?

My Freebies

I don't think he's really saying that. Maybe he just thinks that going for something that is glaringly real looking is a lost cause, at least where Poser is concerned ;o). Not that you can't get close. And maybe too, he thinks that realism isn't the only cool thing you can do with cg - it's a medium just like paints and pastels.

Laurie

Quote - I don't think he's really saying that. Maybe he just thinks that going for something that is glaringly real looking is a lost cause, at least where Poser is concerned ;o).
Laurie

Thank You!!
"realism"
3DMAX- ZBRUSH- MENTAL RAY

poser-$130-$200??
realism is quite easy these days
but not at this price.

My website

YouTube Channel

Quote - I don't think he's really saying that. Maybe he just thinks that going for something that is glaringly real looking is a lost cause, at least where Poser is concerned ;o). Not that you can't get close. And maybe too, he thinks that realism isn't the only cool thing you can do with cg - it's a medium just like paints and pastels.

Laurie

That is My point...  Trying to create a worthwhile image.  Whether or not it looks real.

I suppose there is a difference in "striving for realism" and "bringing something to life".

Like the old Disney animations, clearly not realistic, but almost living with their expression and flow.

A lot of good points and feedback here. I have used Poser 4 ProPack  for seven years and push it to its limits in my images. My goal with Poser is to make characters look like the ones I once used to draw and bring them to life, so true "realism" isn't  required  for me...  I still use modified P4 females as opposed to any Vicky's and that's as far away from "realism" as one can get. :) As far as plastic looking people who don't cast shadows, that's the fault of the person using the software for not being able to find good textures or master one of Poser's features.

I like CG that portrays fantastic things realistically. I don't see the point of creating computer generated photo realistic scenes of mundane subjects that a camera could handle quicker and better (unless it's just an exercise to hone your skills.) The possibility of creating a convincing alternate-reality is what excites me about CG, but to each his own. 

Download my free stuff here: http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php?page=2&userid=323368

First of all, people like Picasso did something different, not because they couldn't achieve something close to realism, but because they had something different they wanted to do. But the truly great artists have generally had a very good sense of how to depict things realistically. And that sensibility probably lends itself more to their greatness than the casual observer remotely suspects.

Second, so what if certain artists and genres don't aim for realism? Realism has been the aim of many great artists throughout history. Personally, I prefer their work to the abstract stuff.

Third, as pointed out earlier, there is realism and then there is realism. Depicting what doesn't actually exist in a way that is convincing is very powerful.

Fourth, saying that realism is not art is bunk. Many photographers are genuinely artists, not simply technicians. Much more so those who can create something that looks real but as a way of realizing their own artistic concepts.

______________

Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM

Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3

and finally, this is a discussion thats gonna start going round in circles very quickly.

Because we can not go back in time, or into the future to capture photographs, furthermore, when animating (going for realism), we will not be able to hire an actress/actor. Scenes/characters/props must be realistic as possible.

Because I want to, and thats all that matters to me. :)

. 

A HOMELAND FOR POSER FINALLY

I may be wrong but I dont think most people are very serious about Poser or 3D. It's a mildly amusing hobby with a bit of a challenge to it. Some entertainment, with the attraction of feeling like you created something. Realistic is a challenge and a way of measuring self progress. This is a perfectly reasonable use IMO. After all I spent my hard earned cash on the app and various tools, and believe I have the perfect right to do as I please with my free time and the Poser I paid for. I think this may hold true for most.

You do not need to be very good at CG, you are not required to please someone elses sense of worth. You spent the money on Poser, it's your project you work on. Do as you please, and generally ignore others who want you to "do things their way" unless it apeals to you. Unless you are a professional working for someone else, it's your money, use it when you need it. I have an anuity but I need cash now, J.G. Wentworth 877 ....................

Oops got side tracked there. Anyway, people should do whatever tickles their fancy regardless.

. 

A HOMELAND FOR POSER FINALLY

I love the challenge. I love the million-and-one directions one can go with it. For me, Poser at its base - a figure standing in the middle of the workspace - is a starting point for a million adventures. It's not about photorealism - sure, some people see that as their goal - but that's not my main focus. In my case at least, I want my artwork to convey a message, a story. The last thing I want is for that message or story to get lost in the dismissive "yep, Poser art" flick so many pro CG artists give our efforts. What that atitude? Because they spend heaps of time and talent and skills on their work and what, we don't? No one can accuse me of that!

With Poser, you can do toon, you can do hi-res renders with impact lighting and brilliantly shadered materials, or you can just render what you need however you need and photoshop (or GIMP) the rest.

It's the beginning of creativity on quite a few levels for me: modeling, shader-writing, lighting, morphing, character development, setting scenes and oooooooooo shopping! Well, retail therapy works for me.

[EDIT] oooooo just noticed: that was my 1000th post. Time to party! V, anyone?

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks

Quote   "[EDIT] oooooo just noticed: that was my 1000th post. Time to party! V, anyone?"
quote.

Yay...   Congrat's on 1000..
Party?   Where?  Too hot here,   45degC atm...

Poser,  Painter, Bryce..  These have been in My HD since Fractal Designs was the proud creator..
What a pity that these programs were cast to the winds.   If they had stayed together,  or even merged into one another..  What a software package that would have been...!!

*"Why are so many people around here treating photorealism as the Holy Grail of Poser?" *

IMO, because while it may be unobtainable, it's much closer than it has been in the past. Most Poser users (present company excluded) are probably just now learning about things like global illumination. It's a new revelation and of course they're going to be excited and enthusiastic about utilizing it. 

Higher quality rendering of Poser scenes has long been available, going back to at least Poser 4 when you could export a scene as a .rib file and render in BMRT or export an .obj file into one of the free renderers. Vue has also been an option for quite a while. The vast majority of people were never going to jump through the hoops to use those alternatives though. Now that Poser has the capability, it's opened the floodgates and "realism," implemented with varying degrees of success is what you're going to see a lot of. 

Everyone will find their own level of comfort/creativity with the new tools. Some will continue to look for the last scintilla of realism while others will use it to create a variety of individual looks that reflect their own vision. Give things time to settle down before sounding the death knell.

To some extent, you can "blame" Hollywood for driving the push of 3d realism. As others have stated, that is to a good degree motivated by economics of 3D vs. practical effects. It's cheaper, easier, not to mention often safer to do it virtual. Even there, films like Up! and the new Disney Princess are wonderful examples of traditional or non-realistic looks that still incorporate cutting edge technology in the production process.. There will always (hopefully) be room for a whole variety things and Poser is no exception. Also, the select group of power users (myself excluded) who are the forum regulars don't necessarily represent the entire 'Poserverse.' A good 80% of of the total user base probably thinks IDL is the Israeli army. 

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Quote - I do see the point of people wanting to achieve realism in 3D, not everything can be captured with a photo camera.

And actually photo's don't produce totally realistic images.
(Effects of light inside the lens vs. inside the eye, depth-of-field in a photo vs. the active focusing of the eye.)

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - Most users wouldn't know realism if it it put on a latex glove and probed their tender orificies, as the Realism gallery tends to show.  Perhaps it isn't very nice of one to point this out, but the basic fact isn't all that nice either.

Most users also haven't spent as much time as BB has trying to understand how everything works, much less make it real.  I still don't think he's come up with a human shader/light combo that he's happy with yet.

You must have seen other works then shown here then..... I haven't seen a realistic render that's any better then other peoples images from him in his rendo gallery at all, at love to see his real work......

You are confusing me with some artist. I've said dozens of times, I'm not an artist, and have nothing to say with art. I am a musician and composer and I do strive to communicate things with music and to evoke an emotional response in my listener. But with CG? It's just an amusing way to engage my brain - something similar to sudoku. Nobody does sudoku to communicate anything, yet it gives them a sense of accomplishment - of having met a mental challenge and overcome it. To me, finding a slime shader or rust shader or snow shader in those nodes is a sudoku puzzle, nothing more. Finding a way to light a scene well using only one light is also an interesting challenge that I enjoy.

I also enjoy teaching people how to enjoy their hobby more, even if I do not share their motivation for the hobby.

As for the value of realism, I think that it's fine to draw like Vargas, with paint or with Poser, but it was an easier puzzle to make a Vargas shader than to make a realism shader. (I published the Vargas shader quite early in my Poser "career". I still don't have a satisfactory realism skin shader.)

Similarly, I can draw stick figures about as well as any child. And maybe if I had an interesting story to tell, I might choose to do that. But I doubt people would pay $1 billion dollars to see a 2 hour stick figure movie, no matter how good a story it is. Avatar, on the other hand... - well you see the point I hope.

Even when a movie is clearly presented in a stylized way for the purpose of creating mood, the importance of realism cannot be dismissed. In this sense, realism refers to shadows and highlights being present when they should be, not missing or presented in incosistent ways. Consider the movie Ratatouille. The Pixar artists wrote of their study of wet cloth - how they wanted to understand what wet cloth looks like, so that when they CG character comes out of the river, we understand him to be wet. The scene was intentionally not photorealistic, but realism was an enormous part of its construction. Go read about it - it's fascinating.

And even in a stylized context, if you can't tell that a stick is made of bamboo versus metal, then you do the viewer a disservice. What would Kung Fu Panda have been like if his pants did not look like burlap, if his fur was no different looking than plastic? Shaders matter, and they are supposed to look like real things, even if you do not exactly implement photo realism. They need to differ in ways that are consistent with how real things differ. Shiny things should be shinier than dull things. If you don't understand speculars, you tell an ugly, childish, disconcerting story, even in a pure animation that has nothing to do with photorealism.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Its treated as the holy grail because it takes more effort, more correction renders, more attention to detail, precise setting for bump spec. and displacement, and knowlede of realistic lighting setups. Point is it's harder to achieve when its done correctly.

Quote - Similarly, I can draw stick figures about as well as any child. And maybe if I had an interesting story to tell, I might choose to do that. But I doubt people would pay $1 billion dollars to see a 2 hour stick figure movie, no matter how good a story it is. Avatar, on the other hand... - well you see the point I hope.

The most moving piece of art I've ever seen hung in the National Art Gallery in Ottawa.  It was a massive canvas that covered an entire wall.  From a distance it looked like a single simple rectangle of red.  Standing in front of it, it was so large that the eye could not encompass it all; it was a sea of red to the edge of vision.  And all that red was composed of uncounted millions of tiny, individual, painstaking brushstrokes.  And off in the lower left-hand corner, almost invisible to the naked eye, was a single small area of red just slightly different in hue than the rest.  

The painting had taken years to paint, and it was painted by an artist in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, under Stalin.

Despite the best efforts of Soviet censors, this artist had successfully managed to convey the stultifying oppression with which he lived.  Standing before that canvas, I felt nearly smothered and claustrophobic.  It was an awesome piece of art -- and I have no doubt that many of the folks enamoured of "photorealism" would take one look at a huge red canvas and scoff audibly.

My argument is not that photorealism is not useful, but that it shouldn't be the goal in and of itself.  It is where art starts, not where it finishes.  And I might well watch a two hour stick figure movie; I certainly have no interest in seeing Avatar.  "The Spirits Within" taught me all I need to know about the value of CGI spectacle for spectacle's sake.

Quote - Its treated as the holy grail because it takes more effort, more correction renders, more attention to detail, precise setting for bump spec. and displacement, and knowlede of realistic lighting setups. Point is it's harder to achieve when its done correctly.

I disagree.  I spent a long time arguing with someone about this recently.  He showed me a render of Barack Obama's face which came very close to photorealism, expressing admiration for its "realism."  I tried to explain to him that while this portrait no doubt took a lot of time to make, it wasn't art.  Making photorealistic renders of people's faces doesn't take any artistic insight or talent, just time and patience.  Not that there isn't value to this; after all, a bricklayer or stonemason who has spent a lifetime learning the trade can do wonderful work which delights and inspires -- but it isn't art.  There is a difference between an artist and an artisan.

I'm not trying to be some kind of effete art snob.  I recognize and appreciate the skill required to create a photorealistic render.  I just don't believe it to be (necessarily) art.

do realism or do not.

in the end. matter does it not, if happy you are.

Quote - I tried to explain to him that while this portrait no doubt took a lot of time to make, it wasn't art. 

You just invalidated all your arguments with that one single remark.  Nobody - but nobody - has the ability to define what is and what is not art, unless they are talking about their own works.  You would need to be telepathic and have a complete and exact understanding of the creator's motivations in order to do so.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Whatever happened to "do what you like", 'what makes ya happy" or "whatever trips your trigger"?

Kai's right. We can go round and round forever with this one. Do what you like or what makes you happy. End of argument ;o).

Laurie

I think some people are confusing artistic merit - which is very hard to quantify - with realism, which is not hard to quantify, and does not have very much to do with artistic merit.  You would do just as well telling a bunch of sculptors to stop wasting their time studying anatomy, and would get similar responses.

My Freebies

Quote - > Quote -

**My argument is not that photorealism is not useful, but that it shouldn't be the goal in and of itself.
**

....according too????

I agree that this thread is pointless as the OP is clearly trying to argue a subjective personal opinion that can not be proven
but only repeated.... endlessly

>>>unsubscribed<<<<

My website

YouTube Channel

All I know about art is:

1.  It often involves naked women for some reason.
2.  I know what I like but that's about it.

And about the BB comment I made earlier, my opinion was that unless you get lucky and manage to stumble upon the magic shader combination to make realist skin/whatever, unless you know exactly what each shader does and how to manipulate it to get a very precise result you are just going to be going at it blind.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

http://www.denispeterson.com/Rwanda.html

"I recognize and appreciate the skill required to create a photorealistic render.  I just don't believe it to be (necessarily) art."

Does anyone have the right to tell this guy he doesnt create art?

http://www.denispeterson.com/Imagine.html
http://www.denispeterson.com/Madonna.html

Im in awe at the attention to detail...as an artist our eyes are our primary tools, this guy uses them to the extreme.

Quote - It is where art starts, not where it finishes.

what? Realism is where art STARTS? So basically you need it?

Don't you want to say something like: "Realism is where art goes to die"

It's not the tool used, it's the tool using it

Sounded more like "I don't like realism, so nobody else should either".

My Freebies

I was at the MOMA musium in San Francisco one day... i was looking at a beautiful photoreal oil portrait of a young lady, a few feet from it was a giant canvas with a orange square and a blue square on it....everyone was talking about how complex the color contrast and how sophisticated the minimilsm is and they didnt have much to say about the photoreal portriate other than, wow, very talented artist.........are you kidding me!

personal taste is everything in art.

Well, if someone, someday does manage to make a true photorealistic render,
it will most likely be some form of  Victoria and very likely to be a nude image.
Someone please PM or email me when this happens because I will miss it.
Why ?
I gave up looking at "photorealistic", naked Vickies in the last decade, 2002 to be exact. :)

As far as I can see reading this, most people here confuse photo realism with realistic and beautiful details, a painting can be very beautiful, full of details and realistic but never photorealistic :-)

As far as I can see by now true photorealism can be achieved in most CG with no human figures, I've seen very realistic CG humans a lot of beautiful humans, but I'm not shure absolute and real photorealism can be achieved by now, and I'm quite shure not in poser.

Painting can never be Photorealistic isnt entirely accurate. and for poser8 http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1981674&user_id=223738&favorite&np

this could change your mind.

Ahh yet another example of my rant in the forums..never mind that link as it may have been rendered in carrera - only for him to say "I just got poser 8, played with it for a few hours and this is what came out" , then later on in comments he says , I usually load everything in Poser and render in carrera. ...AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH. so irritating.

That pic a) could very well have been rendered in Poser, it's well within Poser's capabilities since it's pretty much just a photo projected onto the mesh and almost all the lighting effect is coming from the photograph; and b) is not particularly realistic anyway, note how the mouth wrinkles obtrude into the neck straight over the jaw bone, and the shadows of the photo texture do not match shadows cast on the mesh from 3D lights.

My Freebies

Quote - Ahh yet another example of my rant in the forums..never mind that link as it may have been rendered in carrera - only for him to say "I just got poser 8, played with it for a few hours and this is what came out" , then later on in comments he says , I usually load everything in Poser and render in carrera. ...AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH. so irritating.

Well, that's a very realistic picture, poser or carrara, I specially like those realistic, plastic, very Michael 4 ears, and all pjz99 say. I've seen a lot of very beautiful (not this) very realistic (this one) renders but always there is something that tell me it's CG, Don't misunderstand me, don't confuse realistic with photo realism, I like a lot realistic renders I envy the atention to details that some people can achieve.

 sigh  I don't think HeWhoWatches was saying that photorealism isn't art.  Just that technical skill isn't always everything you need to make art.  

Then again, there are things I've seen in art museums that I wouldn't consider art, but it's not up to me.  (I wouldn't hang my work in a museum, either.  It's pretty, but maybe not what the "pros" would consider art.)

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Agree with you JenX, my bad english don't let me say it the way you do :-) 

Good obsevation on the shadows, I over looked that...however if the texture was nutral in shadows and relied on ambience from IDL and IBL , a proper morph to smooth out inconsistancies I'd say it would be really damn close.

Jen X:
Well I guess I took this :
"He showed me a render of Barack Obama's face which came very close to photorealism, expressing admiration for its "realism."  I tried to explain to him that while this portrait no doubt took a lot of time to make, it wasn't art.  Making photorealistic renders of people's faces doesn't take any artistic insight or talent, just time and patience.  Not that there isn't value to this; after all, a bricklayer or stonemason who has spent a lifetime learning the trade can do wonderful work which delights and inspires -- but it isn't art.  There is a difference between an artist and an artisan.

I'm not trying to be some kind of effete art snob.  I recognize and appreciate the skill required to create a photorealistic render.  I just don't believe it to be (necessarily) art."

Litorally , as though he was expressing his disike for photorealism and at the same time saying it wasnt art . I guess I just didnt metaphoricaly interpret this enough. as him saying its not the only form of art there is.

 Could he have worded it better?  Probably.
Does everyone have to assume something that he explicitly didn't say?  No, and that's how arguments start. 

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

I think the guy can speak for himself, let him.

My Freebies

 That probably would have already happened if people didn't jump down his throat first thing. 
That's not inviting dialogue.  That's attacks.  Something to remember, folks.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote -  That probably would have already happened if people didn't jump down his throat first thing. 
That's not inviting dialogue.  That's attacks.  Something to remember, folks.

Hey!

Kindly keep your calm and reasonable opinions out of our inflamed and uninformed internet debate!  ;)

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

I like Smurfs.

Err, I went back and read over the entire thread, and I don't see anything that remotely resembles an attack.  The whole conversation has been (surprisingly) quite reasonable and calm.  At any rate, the guy is perfectly able to speak for himself, why not let him do it.

My Freebies

Quote - I like Smurfs.

Me too but I couldn't eat a whole one.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Regardless of how you or I feel about the topic, or whether or not what was said is viewed as attacks, taking one or two sentences of what someone posted and twisting it to mean what wasn't even intended isn't conducive to a healthy discussion.  
In any case, let's get back to the subject at hand, not the semantics of the thread, shall we?

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

passes Jen some Smurf on toast

Jen who are you talking to and what are you talking about?  I'm baffled.

My Freebies

Quote -  sigh  I don't think HeWhoWatches was saying that photorealism isn't art.  Just that technical skill isn't always everything you need to make art.

That's exactly what I meant when I said that "photorealism isn't (necessarily) art."  Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.  There's a difference between technical skill with something and the creation of artwork.  A stonemason CAN make art, but generally doesn't.  She or he doesn't have to do so.  A good, solid, functional, aesthetically-appealing wall is a fine goal without having to be art.  The render I saw of Obama's face clearly took a lot of skill and talent.  The goal of the piece was clearly to create a photorealistic render of Obama's face, not to make a statement or engage the emotions of the viewer.  This is just fine, and there's nothing wrong with it.  As several people here have pointed out, creating photorealism can be just as challenging as assembling oddly-shaped stones into a sturdy wall.  My argument -- my opinion if you will -- is that a great many people here seem to have made photorealism their goal instead of the creation of art.

Photorealism can be art, just as arrangements of stones can be art.  But when the goal itself is technical and not artistic, then it is axiomatically not art.

Quote - > Quote - I like Smurfs.

Me too but I couldn't eat a whole one.

Gawd, I'm so glad I didn't have any coffee in my mouth...

LMAO!!

You crack me up ;o).

Laurie

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - I like Smurfs.

Me too but I couldn't eat a whole one.

Gawd, I'm so glad I didn't have any coffee in my mouth...

LMAO!!

You crack me up ;o).

Laurie

Thanks.  All part of the service.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

I'd like to ask what folk here consider to be 'photo-real'?
This might seem an obvious question but there are examples of quite well known works of art widely accepted as falling into this category (paintings by Chuck Close and Gerhard Richter for example) that I suspect wouldn't be accepted as such by some here. The paintings of these two artists are rarely totally indestinguishable from photos, and yet are obviously referenced from them. Both artists have made insightful works both about and from the use of photographs, but there are certainly examples of which, when seen in isolation from their wider bodies of work, might appear to many as having little meaning beyond being a painting of a photo. I would suggest looking at greater depth (especially at Richter, who I personally consider to be one of the modern masters).

I'm not sure it's always so obvious from any given piece to assert that the goal of the creator wasn't to make a statement or evoke an emotion, or to create a dialogue. There are times when artists just fail to pull off their intended messages, as there are also times when the viewer just fails to get it.

While I understand the concerns the original poster  from a certain perspective, I also think it's wise not to assume too readily what peoples goals and motivations are based on one or two examples of work. I do accept that there may be many artists working in CG and traditional media who get caught up in the persuit of realism (momentarily) as an ends in itself, something I personally feel is lacking in vision, but this isn't always the case. There's a lot that can be learned from the study of realism.

I'm not really sure I see that much of a trend toward photo-realism in the galleries here anyway - a relatively small percentage of the overall postings.

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com

This is pretty photoreal

As is This

This Maybe ?

My Freebies
Buy stuff on RedBubble

Wow! Those are pretty impressive, though I note they all used high-end apps; maybe that's the secret.

Poser's getting there with version 8, but it's beyond my capabilities to produce stuff that good.

---

Windows 10 x64 Pro - Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3.00GHz (x2)

PoserPro 11 - Units: Metres

Adobe CC 2017

Simply using an expensive app is not at all helpful if you start with mesh that is unrealistic, or textures that are unrealistic, or poses or lighting or various other things.  I've seen images come out of Poser or DAZ|Studio that are more realistic than many I've seen come out of Cinema or Max or Maya.

My Freebies

Photo real characters are just too freaky for me. They look ... empty, soulless, vacant.

Now Playing
My Insomnia Presents
Blue Defender

Possible solution...  Increase the purchase price of Poser to $2000.00 for a basic version.   Then add modules for improvement to specific Poser Rooms at perhaps $1000.00 each..

With all of this extra cash going into R&D.   Poser would be the #1 Software package it has the potential to be..

P.S.   I Believe in porcine levitation..!!

The elements in a render need to look consistent or you end up with a crap look. Light has to behave properly. Those are two essential keys to a fine looking render, it can be realistic or any other kind of istic.

> Quote - The elements in a render need to look consistent or you end up with a crap look. Light has to behave properly. Those are two essential keys to a fine looking render, it can be realistic or any other kind of istic.

Exactly. As I said, I'm not an artist, and have nothing much to say. But I support other artists who have trouble with technical aspects. They are not exploring these technical things for the sake of doing so, but rather to express their creativity the way they want, which is to say, usually, to create a fantasy (something that could not be staged and photographed) and present it convincingly.

Pretending to be an artist for a moment, here's a pitiful example from me. Here's the story. Andy is the house bot. He takes care of all the things the family doesn't want to do. But in the early morning, before they wake up, he's free to enjoy the sunrise. Admire his joy.

Now - to me, if I were to ignore the issues of light and shadow here, it would be less good than it is. And, moreover, if I could get Poser to stop making those distracting artifacts in the corners of things, it would be more good. I suppose I could work on the pose a bit more, and probably should add some furniture, but the main problem with my attempt is that the lighting is still not quite right because I've got IDL issues. But if I removed the IDL altogether, it would look even less good. And, intentionally, I left out the window glass reflections, which jump out at me as being a big technical faux pas. If I were of a mind to put this in the gallery, I'd work on those artifacts and put the darn glass in first.

After I get those fixed, will I have a great work of art? No, and I don't really care. But there are people who will do a better job of set design, composition, and posing, and then they will still fall short because the light isn't even close to this good. I will look at that and offer to help. They will like the help. I don't see why this interaction which amuses me, and pleases them, is worthy of argument of any kind.

A potential great work of art can be hindered by any number of failures. Why is concern over all possible failures, including lighting and shaders, something to be scoffed at? I don't get it.

Nobody said that the only thing important is the lighting and shaders. No that isn't art yet. Similarly, a great musician has to be able to emote and convey stuff, and practicing scales for 8 hours isn't going to address all of that. But exclusively being concerned with emotion, while ignoring the technical aspects, like being able to play triplets evenly on the keyboard, is a mistake and will not result in a virtuoso performance. So, too, if you have a great emotional idea for an image, but you have no shadows, or they aren't blurred properly, or they're in the wrong place, then it's a "nice try, keep practicing" and no more.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

By the way, a long time ago I was a child-prodigy concert-pianist-in-training. When I was 12, I spent an entire summer preparing for my application to a music college. I practiced 8 hours a day, 6 days a week. Each day, the entire first two hours was - scales. First, you must master technique - then you may pursue emotion. Otherwise, you're just an amateur.

By the way, squared, that September I was accepted by Peter Serkin to the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia, at age 12. They suggested I wait a year before starting college. Then I found out that, as a rule, concert pianists don't make much money, and I liked math, and I discovered computers, and the rest is history.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - here's a pitiful example from me. Here's the story. Andy is the house bot. He takes care of all the things the family doesn't want to do. But in the early morning, before they wake up, he's free to enjoy the sunrise. Admire his joy.

If you got this render out of Poser you did a nice job. I don't think light behaves very well in Poser at all. There was so much you could have done to screw up this render, a bad setting or texture  on any of the room materials for instance. The 3d pic is an illusion, you do the best you can to make the illusion work the way you want it too, but it is all tricking the viewer's eye and that isn't easy to do, when the eyes are so good they know something is wrong with the render even if the conscious mind hasn't figured it out.

Quote - I've never understood the rush to "realism."

Have you gone through the Gallery lately?  There is no rush.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Quote - Photo real characters are just too freaky for me. They look ... empty, soulless, vacant.

Do you have a link to a character that doesn't look empty, soulless, vacant?

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

 Oddly enough, the better-made toony figures have better "soul" than some of the more realistic ones.  This is rampant throughout 3D, though, not just in the Poser gallery.  The less it has to be realistic, the easier it is to make it look, well, full of life.  Humans are just picky.  :lol:

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - ....when the goal itself is technical and not artistic, then it is axiomatically not art.

I still take issue with that as a generalisation because - to some people, perhaps some with OCD, for example - the pursuit of technical excellence of itself may well be their method of artistic expression.

I do agree with you on a purely personal level, however.  I have been bemoaning my own lack of "art" at the expense of technique.  There are still things which need attention in my technique but from now I'll be spending more time on the substance, rather than the style.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

> Quote - > Quote - I like Smurfs. > > > Me too but I couldn't eat a whole one.

I take my inspiration where I find it.

The eyes aren't looking at the food in question.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - I like Smurfs.

Me too but I couldn't eat a whole one.

I take my inspiration where I find it.

I like it!

I don't always look at what I'm eating, specially if I'm watching telly at the time.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Quote -  Oddly enough, the better-made toony figures have better "soul" than some of the more realistic ones.  This is rampant throughout 3D, though, not just in the Poser gallery.  The less it has to be realistic, the easier it is to make it look, well, full of life.  Humans are just picky.  :lol:

Good point.  I read an interesting article about the psychology regarding humanoid robots and our attraction/revulsion.  It seems the more realistic they become, the more likely we are to find them disturbing and more likely to look at their faults.  It seems to be hard wired, too.  Not even a cultural thing, just the way humans react.

Maybe something similar happens when we see "realistic" Poser figures.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Quote - Maybe something similar happens when we see "realistic" Poser figures.

The uncanny valley shows up when nearly-realistic figures are animated poorly.  I have not seen Avatar.  But I assume the movie effects easily traversed over it.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Quote - > Quote -  Oddly enough, the better-made toony figures have better "soul" than some of the more realistic ones.  This is rampant throughout 3D, though, not just in the Poser gallery.  The less it has to be realistic, the easier it is to make it look, well, full of life.  Humans are just picky.  :lol:

Good point.  I read an interesting article about the psychology regarding humanoid robots and our attraction/revulsion.  It seems the more realistic they become, the more likely we are to find them disturbing and more likely to look at their faults.  It seems to be hard wired, too.  Not even a cultural thing, just the way humans react.

Maybe something similar happens when we see "realistic" Poser figures.

welcome to Robophobia.... (an interesting take on this was in Doctor Who and the Robots of Death when one of the sandminer crew discovers the robot servants are conducting the murders.....)

Quote -
welcome to Robophobia.... (an interesting take on this was in Doctor Who and the Robots of Death when one of the sandminer crew discovers the robot servants are conducting the murders.....)

I remember it vaguely.  Another fine example (or examples) are the Alien movies.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Quote -  Oddly enough, the better-made toony figures have better "soul" than some of the more realistic ones.  This is rampant throughout 3D, though, not just in the Poser gallery.  The less it has to be realistic, the easier it is to make it look, well, full of life.  Humans are just picky.  :lol:

I think that's because when it is obvious you aren't creating something real you are able to put more touches on it, like slightly larger eyes or whatever that give it more personality.  With the realistic stuff you have a smaller margin of error and more difficulty involved in getting it right.  If not it looks like a cheap knockoff where a toony character wouldn't.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

I just checked poser realism gallery here.  whilst almost all are renders of beautiful girls:

• less than half are nudie pix
• only 1 or 2 on the first page had nostril glow
• most are not in empty scenes
• quite a few are not expressionless zombies

so the situation is becoming more sophisticated vs. poser 4, even if they don't render 'em in poser.

There is an amazing amount of exceptional work in the galleries..  I look at the galleries every day,  always trying to leave an encouraging comment..

 Sure you can take a photo with a $5 camera.  But, if you want to trade your Poser hobby for photography I expect you're gonna need about a $500 camera, plus lenses, battery, memory cards, camera straps...  Then you'll probably want a nice lighting kit, another $500.  I don't know how much it would cost to hire a posing model. Expensive i imagine.  And you'll need some backdrops, a make-up artist, hair stylist, costumes...

  Poser offers pretty much all of this out of the box for a few hundred dollars.  Which is very appealing to a lot of people, even with the limited, yet acceptable realism.

Quote -  Sure you can take a photo with a $5 camera.  But, if you want to trade your Poser hobby for photography I expect you're gonna need about a $500 camera, plus lenses, battery, memory cards, camera straps...  Then you'll probably want a nice lighting kit, another $500.  I don't know how much it would cost to hire a posing model. Expensive i imagine.  And you'll need some backdrops, a make-up artist, hair stylist, costumes...

  Poser offers pretty much all of this out of the box for a few hundred dollars.  Which is very appealing to a lot of people, even with the limited, yet acceptable realism.

You can have a lot of fun and create some very cool pics with the 3D. I think as solo hobbyists, we're just seeing the beginning of what will be possible and this will reverberate through the arts, it's that important a development . . . . and that is me being realistic. :O)

Quote -  Oddly enough, the better-made toony figures have better "soul" than some of the more realistic ones.  This is rampant throughout 3D, though, not just in the Poser gallery.  The less it has to be realistic, the easier it is to make it look, well, full of life.  Humans are just picky.  :lol:

This is why I use toon figures almost exclusively for my animations. The closer to real a figure looks, the better and better the rest of the scene has to be to match it. Off by one little detail and people will be put off by it and not be able to really say why it bothers them.

As for Avatar, the scenery was amazing! CCouldn't tell the CG from reality, if there was any reality in it. But the figures were no better than most CGI. Still had that slightly off putting quality that almost real looking figures do, but not as bad since they are not supposed to look human.

Now Playing
My Insomnia Presents
Blue Defender

I really think this is a storm in a teacup. Truly, if you don't want to strive for "realism", don't. Fine. But to query why trying to achieve "realism" (however the artist defines realism, which in itself is a bit of a nebulous term) is important to other artists - many other artists - is a bit presumptuous. It says: "why is everyone so intent on making believable shadows and lighting and textures just because we know more now how to achieve that?"

Quote -
I've never understood the rush to "realism."  In the beginning, realism in CGI was nigh impossible, so people worked with what they had, and it was good.  Take for example the CGI in the Dire Straits video, "Money for Nothing"; it was crude, colourful, and delightful.  Likewise Tron; the limits of the technology defined the entire style of the movie.

In other words: why are we using aeroplanes and vacuum cleaners and computers? We didn't used to have them and we did just fine!

I love the advanced technology that members on this forum have given me: that technology has enabled me to get as far away from the plastic-puppet-suspended-in-space look that one starts with in Poser and has enabled me to create a reasonably realistic water prop that reflects the sky and clouds and doesn't say "I'm actually just a picture of water".
What's not to like?

I'm not about to give up my 320gig HD and 2 gig of RAM and Poser 8 for 128meg HD and 64 meg of RAM and MS Paint. I like where things have gone, and want to take advantage of it. You can still do Tron and "Money for Nothing" if you want but you can also move towards doing stuff like Avatar.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks

RobynsVeil
Round of applause ...way to stay objective while still making inside jokes!!
Well said.

Quote - RobynsVeil
Round of applause ...way to stay objective while still making inside jokes!!
Well said.

Step forward  RobynsVeil and take a bow..

If I didn't try to squeeze as much realism out of Poser as it can offer, then none---note: NONE---of my pictures of giant bipedal frogs would be taken seriously, and they would all be laughed at for being so obviously fake.

This, I'm sure everyone will agree, easily justifies the push for more realism.

Quote - If I didn't try to squeeze as much realism out of Poser as it can offer, then none---note: NONE---of my pictures of giant bipedal frogs would be taken seriously, and they would all be laughed at for being so obviously fake.

This, I'm sure everyone will agree, easily justifies the push for more realism.

This (to Me),   is a funny and very entertaining Image..  Does it need realism?   I don't think so..

Oh I disagree. If it was all cartoon, it wouldn't be the least bit interesting. It is because we see this as a real bipedal frog that it grabs ones attention.

Otherwise, it would just be a screen grab from some lame Saturday morning cartoon.

By the way, nice job, but I'd add Fresnel reflection to the eyes.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - I'd like to ask what folk here consider to be 'photo-real'?
This might seem an obvious question but there are examples of quite well known works of art widely accepted as falling into this category (paintings by Chuck Close and Gerhard Richter for example) that I suspect wouldn't be accepted as such by some here. The paintings of these two artists are rarely totally indestinguishable from photos, and yet are obviously referenced from them. Both artists have made insightful works both about and from the use of photographs, but there are certainly examples of which, when seen in isolation from their wider bodies of work, might appear to many as having little meaning beyond being a painting of a photo. I would suggest looking at greater depth (especially at Richter, who I personally consider to be one of the modern masters).

I think that there is a big difference between photorealism in Poser and photorealism in painting (Richard Estes comes to mind as an early master.) In painting, photorealism is often called superrealism, or hyperrealism. It's true that the artists take a photo as a starting point, and project it on the canvas, but in general the lights, reflections etc. are not quite real, but more of an idealization of what really goes on. Typically, they don't use depth-of-field blur, nor do they introduce lens artifacts.

I dunno, this doesn't look very real... it must be art. or is it the other way around? Now I'm confused. But the Smurf comment..... CLASSIC!

Edit: Thats a Van Gogh sketch BTW, (in case anyone didn't recognize his style)

My Store   My Gallery    Contact

I'm unsubscribing. I've lost interest in this topic.

Cartoon, pen and ink, abstract, pointillist, realist, hyper-realist - these are not puzzles. Others have solved them.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - > Quote - here's a pitiful example from me. Here's the story. Andy is the house bot. He takes care of all the things the family doesn't want to do. But in the early morning, before they wake up, he's free to enjoy the sunrise. Admire his joy.

If you got this render out of Poser you did a nice job. I don't think light behaves very well in Poser at all. There was so much you could have done to screw up this render, a bad setting or texture  on any of the room materials for instance. The 3d pic is an illusion, you do the best you can to make the illusion work the way you want it too, but it is all tricking the viewer's eye and that isn't easy to do, when the eyes are so good they know something is wrong with the render even if the conscious mind hasn't figured it out.

That's actually a very simplistic render and not at all difficult if you have a reasonable understanding of how light actually behaves and an equal understanding of Poser. If you read a few of BagginsBill's threads on lighting, gamma correction, etc, you can produce similar results very quickly. There's little difficulty involved. BagginsBill's example renders are demonstrations of basic principles and involve no special technique or careful setup. I don't know why you believe that realistic renders are so prone to failure in some aspect. Lighting in Poser really isn't too different from lighting in real life that photographers have to deal with. The only problem is that most people don't understand lighting and their renders suck just as much as their real photography does, if not worse because in real life they don't have to set up the lighting when they're outside for example.

Quote - [That's actually a very simplistic render and not at all difficult if you have a reasonable understanding of how light actually behaves and an equal understanding of Poser. If you read a few of BagginsBill's threads on lighting, gamma correction, etc, you can produce similar results very quickly. There's little difficulty involved. BagginsBill's example renders are demonstrations of basic principles and involve no special technique or careful setup. I don't know why you believe that realistic renders are so prone to failure in some aspect. Lighting in Poser really isn't too different from lighting in real life that photographers have to deal with. The only problem is that most people don't understand lighting and their renders suck just as much as their real photography does, if not worse because in real life they don't have to set up the lighting when they're outside for example.

I get the results I'm looking for in another app, so I've never bothered with rendering in Poser for more than the occasional test. Plus I can work in Poser while I'm rendering in another app. Lighting in apps like Povray and Vray aren't too different than real life. Poser is, there's no question about it . . . but it doesn't concern me in the least.

Quote -  Oddly enough, the better-made toony figures have better "soul" than some of the more realistic ones.  This is rampant throughout 3D, though, not just in the Poser gallery.  The less it has to be realistic, the easier it is to make it look, well, full of life.  Humans are just picky.  :lol:

I once watched a lecture by Nigel Holmes, master of infographics, where he talked about using technology for the sake of technology and he used Polar Express as an example.  His point was that the filmmakers tried so hard to attain realism that they should just have used real people because the technology didn't give the characters any kind of emotion.  He then used the film The Incredibles as a good example of 3D and technology.   I think this quote from Nigel says it best: "If it's a cartoon, let's make the people cartoon like."

Technology has however advanced since then and I think they did pretty well with A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey but when I watched it there was always something about the characters that bothered me.

 Vestmann's Gallery

Quote - I really think this is a storm in a teacup. Truly, if you don't want to strive for "realism", don't. Fine. But to query why trying to achieve "realism" (however the artist defines realism, which in itself is a bit of a nebulous term) is important to other artists - many other artists - is a bit presumptuous. It says: "why is everyone so intent on making believable shadows and lighting and textures just because we know more now how to achieve that?"

Quote -
I've never understood the rush to "realism."  In the beginning, realism in CGI was nigh impossible, so people worked with what they had, and it was good.  Take for example the CGI in the Dire Straits video, "Money for Nothing"; it was crude, colourful, and delightful.  Likewise Tron; the limits of the technology defined the entire style of the movie.

In other words: why are we using aeroplanes and vacuum cleaners and computers? We didn't used to have them and we did just fine!

I love the advanced technology that members on this forum have given me: that technology has enabled me to get as far away from the plastic-puppet-suspended-in-space look that one starts with in Poser and has enabled me to create a reasonably realistic water prop that reflects the sky and clouds and doesn't say "I'm actually just a picture of water".
What's not to like?

I'm not about to give up my 320gig HD and 2 gig of RAM and Poser 8 for 128meg HD and 64 meg of RAM and MS Paint. I like where things have gone, and want to take advantage of it. You can still do Tron and "Money for Nothing" if you want but you can also move towards doing stuff like Avatar.

That's a perfect answer to the question IMHO.  Bravo!

 Vestmann's Gallery

Quote - > Quote - I've never understood the rush to "realism."  In the beginning, realism in CGI was nigh impossible, so people worked with what they had, and it was good.  Take for example the CGI in the Dire Straits video, "Money for Nothing"; it was crude, colourful, and delightful.  Likewise Tron; the limits of the technology defined the entire style of the movie.

In other words: why are we using aeroplanes and vacuum cleaners and computers? We didn't used to have them and we did just fine!

I love the advanced technology that members on this forum have given me: that technology has enabled me to get as far away from the plastic-puppet-suspended-in-space look that one starts with in Poser and has enabled me to create a reasonably realistic water prop that reflects the sky and clouds and doesn't say "I'm actually just a picture of water".
What's not to like?

I'm not about to give up my 320gig HD and 2 gig of RAM and Poser 8 for 128meg HD and 64 meg of RAM and MS Paint. I like where things have gone, and want to take advantage of it. You can still do Tron and "Money for Nothing" if you want but you can also move towards doing stuff like Avatar.

As it happens, a fair number of people have begun asking the very questions you consider so ridiculous: why are we using aeroplanes, vacuum cleaners, and computers?  Anthropologists have found that hunter-gatherers require an average of about 14 hours a week to support themselves; the rest of their time is spent learning, teaching, creating art, and making love.  Despite an ever-increasing amount of kitchen gadgetry, statistics show the average homemaker spends just as much time doing housework as sie did 100 years ago.  Sociologists such as Neil Postman are increasingly concerned that mass media and computers are deforming the entire shape of our culture in ugly and psychologically toxic ways (cv Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death," required reading in any mass comm course these days).

I, for one, happen to like the Internet.  I've been using computers for about 30 years now, and I remember dialling in to the university's computers with a bakelite telephone connected through rubber acoustic couplers on a 110 baud teletype machine.  As a diabetic, I also rely on modern medicine to survive.  I don't want to live in a cave and amuse myself by stuffing berries up my nose with a stick.  But I do think we need to question whether breakneck-speed change for the sake of change is of advantage to anyone.

The fact that we can burn megatonnes of aviation fuel to create new vectors for the transfer of disease across entire continents in a matter of hours doesn't mean we should. The fact that we can use genetic material from fish to produce pesticide-resistant tomatoes doesn't mean we should.  And the fact that Poser can produce photorealism doesn't mean we should.

I didn't start this thread to dun people who spend their time striving for photorealistic renders, only to question whether this is art -- and to ponder why so very many people here feel that photorealism is a goal in and of itself rather than a tool which can be used or not used as the creator sees fit to create art.

It is just as valid to question whether a lack of realism can lead to art (and just as productive).

My Freebies