There's a lot you can do to improve your renders. I'm not sure what version of Poser you're using, but Poser 8/Pro has IDL. For P8 and other versions there is Bagginsbill's VSS which will greatly improve the look of skin. Lighting is also always key. You could also try IBL lighting. It can be extremely difficult to get photoreal results in Poser, but some have gotten very, very close :o). But those are a select few and I do not include myself in that group either...lol. Laurie

Hey LaurieA... me neither... Poser I think was not designed for realism

Quote - Hey LaurieA... me neither... Poser I think was not designed for realism

But I will say that your latest submission over at Deviant Art was beautifully done!

Quote - There's a lot you can do to improve your renders. I'm not sure what version of Poser you're using, but Poser 8/Pro has IDL. For P8 and other versions there is Bagginsbill's VSS which will greatly improve the look of skin. Lighting is also always key. You could also try IBL lighting. It can be extremely difficult to get photoreal results in Poser, but some have gotten very, very close :o). But those are a select few and I do not include myself in that group either...lol. Laurie

I am using Poser 8, and I am experimenting with IDL, AO and using indirect lighting. I am getting better results now, but I know I have a long way to go. I am just happy with the results so far, as they are miles ahead of what I was doing just a couple months ago.

Quote - Hey LaurieA... me neither... Poser I think was not designed for realism

I've seen some pretty close renders on here that were done with Poser and looked pretty good. And if you look at the skin textures for Poser 7 and 8 models, their skin is real, so, like Laurie said, lighting and other factors can get me where I want to be: above the cartoon look. My main goal is to animate, so I am working on doing that without using BVH, or other mocap. I get better results without the wierd artifacts if I work frame by frame.

Quote - Hey LaurieA... me neither... Poser I think was not designed for realism

Realism, schmealism. I think it's about an impression, a feeling, an emotional response. You get that from art. Laurie's work gives a lot of feeling, gets that response from me, and so does yours, RGus. To hold up realism as a goal makes the goal seem unattainable: however, if we can get away from that "Poser Look" and make a statement, have an impact with an image, we've reached it, haven't we?

The antidote to "Poser look" isn't realism, it is art. Let's strive for art, not realism. That, at least, is attainable.

Rendering AO takes away from the realism, unfortunately.  Use it sparingly.  The lighting you use is 50% of the realism.  The rest is the polygon model itself and the material you've applied.

I say keep at it though.  Art is easy to do.  Just look at all the 5-star ratings people get here for a couple minutes effort.  Realism is a challenge that is for more rewarding.

I say keep at it though.  Art is easy to do.  Just look at all the 5-star ratings people get here for a couple minutes effort.  Realism is a challenge that is for more rewarding.

Good job explaining that. It was never about "realism". It was about getting the software to deliver a result that everyone could agree on. That being what we see in the mirror or in our lives. Or more precisely, what we want to say in our renders exactly as we envisioned it. A software that could do that could be a useful thing. An underdog software that cost $250 and deliver "realism" could be an even better thing.

*I think bagginsbill, stewer, face_off  and a few other talented people here always had this in mind with the recent development of Poser. Realism is one goal that can be mathematically achieved in the material room.

I have Face_off's scripts for Poser 6.  It made a world of difference for skin rendering.  I have a bunch of studio lighting packages too for Poser 6.  Every little bit helps towards realism.

Quote - Rendering AO takes away from the realism, unfortunately.  Use it sparingly.  The lighting you use is 50% of the realism.  The rest is the polygon model itself and the material you've applied.

I say keep at it though.  Art is easy to do.  Just look at all the 5-star ratings people get here for a couple minutes effort.  Realism is a challenge that is for more rewarding.

Thank you for that. I didn't want to think that I was expending a lot of energy on nothing. To be quite honest, I am just trying to get past the look of a lot of the 3D rendered stuff I have seen out there  as far as animation. I am trying to animate a full-length movie that I am writing. So the results I am getting are close to what I want to achieve. I have a lot more to do before I am completely happy with it (are we ever happy with what we create???).

Well, you mentioned no mo-cap.  Are you an animator?  The reason I'm asking is because you may already have heard about the uncanny valley.

As for AO.  It needs to be tweaked according to your model's material settings.  Some materials look better with AO.

Yes.  Some creations are never finished for some of us.

Quote - Well, you mentioned no mo-cap.  Are you an animator?  The reason I'm asking is because you may already have heard about the uncanny valley.

As for AO.  It needs to be tweaked according to your model's material settings.  Some materials look better with AO.

Yes.  Some creations are never finished for some of us.

I am not a professional animator, no. I am just a novice who bought Poser 8 a year ago, and I am learning as I go. I am acutely aware that AO needs to be tweeked. I am still messing with it. I have noticed that a lot of the conforming clothing and such doesn't look right in AO.

And I have 1300 renders that I keep looking at and thinking "I should have done this... I should have done that..."

"Realism, schmealism. I think it's about an impression, a feeling, an emotional response. You get that from art. Laurie's work gives a lot of feeling, gets that response from me, and so does yours, RGus. To hold up realism as a goal makes the goal seem unattainable: however, if we can get away from that "Poser Look" and make a statement, have an impact with an image, we've reached it, haven't we?

The antidote to "Poser look" isn't realism, it is art. Let's strive for art, not realism. That, at least, is attainable."
As profound a statement ads I've read here in a good while.

Photorealism is easy enough, provided you have the right tools. At Raph.com there are lots of them, made in 3ds max, Maya and the like,

http://www.raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/imagePage?iid=6019
http://www.raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/imagePage?iid=6433
http://www.raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/imagePage?iid=6518
http://www.raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/imagePage?iid=6637
http://www.raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/imagePage?iid=6618
http://www.raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/imagePage?iid=6578

Buf couse, obtaining realism doesn't make you an artist as RobynsVeil points out quite correct. Being an artist is something else entirely.

"On 21 April 2004 [Jack Vettriano's] original canvas of The Singing Butler sold at auction for £744,500"

But Poser can help, fulfilling the role of manneqing or model. All the great painters have used models. If Jack Vettriano had had Poser, he would have avoided faux pas as this,

Wikipedia: "In October 2005, after the original of The Singing Butler sold for £740,000, research revealed that Vettriano had used the DIY-painting artists' reference manual The Illustrator's Figure Reference Manual to form his figures..Vettriano is self-taught, and said he used such sources in his early years, as he did not have the financial resources to hire models."

@ RobysViel - 100% support for that view

@ Richardson - I take my hat of to your work - it is masterful and beutiful, but art is not easy.

Art has has to have a valid message and the artist has to have the skill to represent that message in a manner that can be understood by the viewer. Representing the message in a single image might not be possible so a narrative over a number of images can be necessary: Art is not merely visual in nature and the visual aspect of the message does not have to be photorealistic. Pictures that lack a message can make an visual imapact and that can be photorealism, but to what end other than demonstrating skill in the material room?

Every time somebody wants to discuss tactics to decrease fakeness, i.e. realism, a whole lot of "what is art" comes up.

Please go make a separate thread for the 10,347th discussion of "what is art". Note that since nothing in "art" has changed, I don't think such a thread adds anything to the several thousand posts one can find on the subject already.

On the other hand, I think we haven't had a serious discussion of realism tactics in about three years, and since then Poser has changed a lot. There was a "realism" thread that went on a very long time with face_off participating heavily, and I learned a ton from that thread. That is still an important thread, although it doesn't say anything about GC, IDL, modern understanding of SSS, and modern approaches to specularity. I say modern, and by that I mean what I discovered and published since then. Prior to that thread, there was practically nothing about the subject of "less fake". Outside the Poser community, these things were already well known and heavily in use long ago.

If you don't want to talk about how to remove fakeness, then just leave the thread.

In the two years I have been in this forum I have never seen even a single Poser render that approaches those I showed above. So clearly Poser is the wrong tool if you want photorealism. But if you want to go on hitting your heads against the wall by all means continue to do so.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2006376&username=carodan&member&np

@ BB - Rendo is a digitatal art site and the OP did not ask for help with a particular aspect of production, the OP merely illustrated work in progress so I can't agree that we should leave this thread if we don't want to talk about fakeness.

The OP implicitly expresses the desire for photorealism and it's reasonable to ask why and illustrate other directions. I do agree though that photorealism is a laudable aim if photorealism better presents the message of the image.

I hate the term "photo"realism.  What does it mean?  I've seen an untouched 3D render that was realistic as a photo?  Let's stop talking about photorealism.  Realism on the other hand can mean a lot of things.  A figure standing in front of a spot light without shadows isn't realistic no matter how good it's skin looks.  

And adding art into the mix can be explosive.

There was an art exhibit here a few days ago that has wreaked quite a bit of havoc.  One artist took a book from another artist and smeared every page with food and put it up as an art installation.  The book was a massive book of Icelandic flora with hand painted pictures of every plant of the country (yes there are more the 5).  The artist who defiled the book said that since it only contained detailed paintings of actual plants it wasn't a work of art.  He, however, had turned it into art by smearing it with food.

So here we have a guy who has spent years and years painting plants and flowers in great detail and another one who spent less then an hour smearing it with food.  Which one is the artist?

I don't really care.  I'm just saying that I want my renders to look pretty realistic before I smear them with food in Photoshop.

Ok.  four posts seem to have appeared while I wrote my last post (I'm so slow)

I just think too many people confuse the pusuit of realism using cg software as a means to an end (what I do) with the actual pusuit of  cg photo realism as an artform to make a living with. Then treating it (photorealism) as some elitist threat to their own endevours. I cannot explain it any better.

It is fun to play artist and crow on the forums, though. ;p

yep a few posts later...

There's a difference between what one can snap with a camera and rendering an image of something that looks as if it has "life". I don't just love all images that are realistic, or stylized or painterly. I like some of all. And there is ROOM for all. I never bought the "you can't possibly achieve realism so why even try?" argument. Things can always be improved upon. And since the OP mentioned realism, perhaps we should stick to that ;). There is a certain amount of pride in making a render look as realistic as you can. I try. I've never quite gotten it. Some have. I admire them because it's something I've tried to do and can't grasp myself. I don't give up trying to do it myself simply because I think it's impossible ;). There's always room for improvement no matter what you're trying to achieve. And while the "what is art" discussion has merit, the OP was interested in realism. So, maybe some tips toward that end would be more productive ;). Laurie

"art is smearing food.."

Well, just to define what I personally do admire and strive against I show what I think is the best portrait ever published on Renderosity, namly addy's

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/master-techniques-for-realism-using-postwork/46535

If you can paint like this you will never be without a job in the CG industry IMO. It is a class of its own far above even those semirealistic renders from raph.com above.

Some think art is smearing food, others this it it about style and taste, Take your pick. But one thing I have learned in a long life, "those who can do, those who can't teach."

 “Even the hint of a hand-created element can activate a surface, instill passion and energy into a medium, and reassure the recipient that human understanding and insight are the foundation for the message.” Josh Chen

Right, I looked up the term "photorealism" and it seems it was quite the art movement back in the day.  It refers to painting by using information from photographs.  Here's a photorealistic painting that took 70 hours to complete:

http://designrn.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/imagem3.jpg

Now could we please stop diminishing the whole photorealistic art movement by associating it with 3D renderings?

And I agree with Laurie.  There's nothing wrong with the "if you can't make it, fake it" mentality of the Poser community.  Why shouldn't we try  to push every limit of the material room for greater realism or effects?  Will it ever produce the same quality as 1000's of dollars worth of Maya's and Mental Rays?  No.  But who cares.  Well, Autodesk would propably look pretty silly if a $250 app was knocking on their door in production value so they might care.

(Why do I feel like I'm echoing thousand posts of the past?)

Quote - "art is smearing food.."

Well, just to define what I personally do admire and strive against I show what I think is the best portrait ever published on Renderosity, namly addy's

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/master-techniques-for-realism-using-postwork/46535

If you can paint like this you will never be without a job in the CG industry IMO. It is a class of its own far above even those semirealistic renders from raph.com above.

Some think art is smearing food, others this it it about style and taste, Take your pick. But one thing I have learned in a long life, "those who can do, those who can't teach."

 “Even the hint of a hand-created element can activate a surface, instill passion and energy into a medium, and reassure the recipient that human understanding and insight are the foundation for the message.” Josh Chen

Now we're talking.  That's a perfect example of food smearing.  A basic, unrealistic, Poser render turned into a beautiful portrait in Photoshop.  There are quite a few artists who combine Poser with painting.  One that pops into mind is Giana.  She doesn't strive for photorealism with her painting but her work is extremely beautiful and detailed.

Vestmann, may I ask you a question?

What do you prefer,  your own link the painting that took 70 hours to complete or any of the spotless Maya/3ds max renders above? (I hope I don't need to tell my own opinion.. )

It is nothing wrong to "reduce fakeness" as much as possible. But when your render is finished, do your postwork. That is the art bit. The proud statement "no postwork" is that of the hobbyist playing.

By the same token larissad was an excellent postwork artist, yet her images were not realistic but painterly. I think we all agree that postwork can be an essential tool, but doing as much as you can with the render in Poser only makes sense so that you can reduce as much postwork as possible. And I don't think doing that means "playing" by any means ;). But, different strokes, I guess ;).

Laurie

Vestmann, thanks for the links to Giana.

First class fantasy artist with a fresh style of her own.

Quote - Vestmann, may I ask you a question?

What do you prefer,  your own link the painting that took 70 hours to complete or any of the spotless Maya/3ds max renders above? (I hope I don't need to tell my own opinion.. )

It is nothing wrong to "reduce fakeness" as much as possible. But when your render is finished, do your postwork. That is the art bit. The proud statement "no postwork" is that of the hobbyist playing.

 

I don't really know how to answer that question.  I'm assuming that the 70 hour painting was painted from a photograph.  Does it look exactly like the photograph?  If so, what's the point?  I mean it's amazing that someone can do that but I'd prefer to use a photo as a reference and then build upon it to create something else.  As for the renders, I like the more stylized ones over the "ultra realistic girl with no expression on her face."  I think she falls into the "Look ma'!  No postwork" category.  I couldn't agree more with you on the "No postwork" statement btw.

So to sum up my answer, I'd rather be able to create semi-original 3D artwork than being able to copy cat photographs by hand in Photoshop.

Laurie, re larissad's portrait.

In a word: Wonderful!

"So to sum up my answer, I'd rather be able to create semi-original 3D artwork than being able to copy cat photographs by hand in Photoshop."

I can agree with you in that but it is the same type of skill. Can you transfer a photograph like that you can also enhance a 3d render in the same way.

Quote - "So to sum up my answer, I'd rather be able to create semi-original 3D artwork than being able to copy cat photographs by hand in Photoshop."

I can agree with you in that but it is the same type of skill. Can you transfer a photograph like that you can also enhance a 3d render in the same way.

 

 

True.  You can enhance it but can you add your own elements to it based only on your imagination?  That's what I would like to strife for but it takes years of dedicated practice.

You are too modest.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2188125&user_id=85814&member&np

ranks with the best IMO.

Quote - You are too modest.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2188125&user_id=85814&member&np

ranks with the best IMO.

Thank you for the kind words.  I'm trying to break more into painting but it's extremely hard to paint what's in my head or even from a reference.  I always end up taking shortcuts.  I have loads of tutorials on painting but it wasn't until I found a tutorial on how to set up the pan tablet properly and how to set up Photoshop to get the most out of the pen, that I'm starting to get a little more confident. 

I think when you make a 3D-render you have to  think more like a painter than a fotographer. The great painters of the past like Rembrand and Da Vinci didn't had any foto-references. They made their paintings by observing the reality, the light, the colors, the composition, the posture and anatomy of their models and put that on their canvas, trying to make a painting that reflected reality.

Trying to make a 3D-render that looks like a foto is imitating something that isn't always reality (or beautiful). Compare your everyday vacation pictures with foto's of some famous fotographers and you know what I mean. Above that many professional fotographers retouched their pictures, and today with photoshop it's more rule than exception, just ask any Playboy-fotographer. (Speaking about what's real and what's fake!)

Some years ago a CG-artist made a render that looked like a crappy foto of his girlsfriend, he had to show his wireframes to prove he wasn't cheating, although everything was wrong on that picture: the lighting, the pose, the scene. It were just the details that made it look real: an old calendar on the wall, cloths on the floor and all kind of littering we see in everyday life and we won't see on professional foto's for advertisements and magazines. It are those kinds of things that cheats the eye and makes our mind believe it's reality. Perception of real life is more than a realistic skintone, which is just one aspect of what makes a good render.

best regards,

Bopper.

Kinda sorta piggybacking on what Bopper said, sometimes it isn't about the lighting, skin tones, etc. It's about the scene. I've seen hundreds of otherwise very realistic and nearly exceptional renders in the gallery ruined by:

1. Not changing the default expression on the V4 model. A half smirk, half frown, pursed lips, etc would have SO changed the image and made it "realer".

2. Not changing the eyes. Eyes very very seldom ever look straight forward even if someone is staring straight at a camera. Move them two degrees up down or to either side and wow! You wouldn't believe the difference.

3. Feet! My biggest pet peeve. How many women do you know who walk around on tip toe while being naked and carrying a sword? Come on! Seriously!!

Now I'm only average and learning in terms of lighting and scale and texture; but I've produced some fairly passable results especially thanks to BB's VSS. But the MAIN thing that I think makes the scenes work is eyes, feet, expression, pose.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, but I just REALLY wanted to gripe about feet today!!!

And it is a problem that when you're battling the technical aspect of achieving realism you forget about the details like expressions and posing.  I quite often think "oh, why didn't I spend more time on the character" AFTER I've uploaded the image to my gallery.  The rush of trying out new shader tricks or postwork techniques takes over your thought process and you just forget.

I think it is important to have a (one or more) reference character when you make a Poser figure. So you wont forget all these small details.

68K really does not cut it all by itself. A 15K figure with a map made at sub5 might work, though

Daz figures are detailed enough. movie production models are so complex.

Quote - I think it is important to have a (one or more) reference character when you make a Poser figure. So you wont forget all these small details.

Another good tip is to write down what you're gonna do before hand.  Make a check list. This can be done both before the Poser stage and the Postwork stage.

I never thought of that allthough I always forget something..

I've never actually done it, but it's good tip ;)

:)

Photorealism was a marketing term used in the '90s to advertise that a program's renders looked as good as photographs.  Programs like Carrara still have the old legacy "Photorealistic" render setting in its menu.  But the renders still look CG.

Software that can do photoreal renders don't display the word photoreal in their settings.  It is a given.

As far as splattered food, there is plenty of bad art out there.  Not all art is good art.  The BBC did the best job of the wedding coverage btw.  That could be considered a good art of broadcasting and commentary compared to how well NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and the rest did their broadcasts of it. 

Bad art?

There is nothing in the entire world as ugly as a typical unpostworked Poser render. Compared to that, even splattered food from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC would look good.

It's funny. I stopped playing with Poser for a couple of years and when I came back, my first thought was, "OMG, I can't believe I actually thought those figures looked human!"

A couple of years later, and I think those same figures look acceptable again.

I think working for a long time with CG art might tend to inure one to its obvious flaws. The figs aren't good enough without a lot of work. People don't just meld into walls, floors, and furniture, and their flesh and muscles do change shape when they move, lift, bend, carry, lean, push, etc. I hold the handle of a basket and the handle presses into the flesh of my fingers. I rest my chin on my knuckles and the skin of my face reacts to the pressure. But almost no one is making morphs that are this detailed. Yet, the eye will notice these flaws.

The most perfect lights and shaders will not make an impossibly posed, weirdly morphed mutant look like a photo of a human. It will still look like a photo of an impossibly posed, weirdly morphed mutant.

I think working for a long time with CG art might tend to inure one to its obvious flaws. The figs aren't good enough without a lot of work. People don't just meld into walls, floors, and furniture, and their flesh and muscles do change shape when they move, lift, bend, carry, lean, push, etc. I hold the handle of a basket and the handle presses into the flesh of my fingers. I rest my chin on my knuckles and the skin of my face reacts to the pressure. But almost no one is making morphs that are this detailed. Yet, the eye will notice these flaws.

Exactly. The mesh I think, is the next frontier and why I posted that render. Daz seems to think so too with their V5 previews.

I'm looking at the history of Bethesda's game figures over the years.  I'm hoping no one thought the characters in Morrowind looked photoreal.  :)  Their new Brink and/or Rage characters look a bit better.