Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
You and me both.... lol
Architectural renders shouldn't count...it's too easy to get them 'real'. Still life...a bit harder, but quite passable.
I admit, the original post and thread title by the OP threw me off for a second. I wasn't sure which direction this thread was going in. Now I can see its moving in a good direction and I'm glad to join in.
Long post ahead.................
Like the OP, I too strive for realism as much as possible. My feeling is that the whole purpose of using a computer to aid me is to accomplish levels of realism I might not be able to achieve with other methods of creating artwork.
It's all very technical, and it all deals with real world physics. If you dont care about physics, then you wont care about realism. Why use raytracing? Because its more realistic. Why use SSS? Because its more realistic. It always saddens me the people who don't understand why we realism seekers do things the way we do them. It really has to do with technical control and how it is exercised.
The "secret" to realism is one word.....INTERACTION.
Do the elements of the render interact with one another in a manner that is plausible? Does the "lighting" in the render interact with the surfaces in the scene in a manner consistent with my experience of lighting behavior in real life? Do highlights and shadows fall where they should? Is there gravity holding things in place, because if items are floating above ground with nothing to support them the render will lose its grasp on realism because the logic of gravitational interaction has been ignored. Do the long locks of hair fall convincingly onto the shoulder? All of this matters for realism.
In fact, the more "realistic" a render may be, the more blind viewers tend to become to it as they accept it as real. No one pays attention to the real world. We see natural beauty every day, we don't often stop to marvel at the realism of the grass flying by us as we speed down the highway, or the pores on the skin of our little sister. Realism communicates with our unconscious minds, and unless something sticks out, we simply won't notice it consciously. Those things that do stick out, are usually the things that are still unrealistic and need yet to be further improved. Stealthily show the average person a portfolio of physically accurate renders of interiors and they will probably like the designs, but it wont be a very memorable experience beyond that because the viewer is assuming he is looking at real photographs. Once he closes the folder that's when you tell him they are not real photos but 3d renders, and then he will re-open the book with a new level of awe and appreciation for how his unconscious mind was so willing to accept what he'd seen as real, and by consequence, to unconsciously disregard what he'd just seen. Suddenly what seemed unworthy of remembrance is actually quite memorable.
Realistic renders are often the most ignored.
Back to the importance of interaction. There are different types of interactions that spell real or fake for a render. Reflections are a fantastic form of interaction to help make a digital world seem fully consistent. One object reflects the colors of another, making both objects seem more real as a result. One object casts a shadow onto another nearby object. Silly as it seems, a render without shadows will hardly seem realistic because shading is an essential interaction.
There are several "cheats" which can spoil the realism of a render. My biggest personal peave is with the overuse of material Ambience "glow." When people employ material ambience glow as a solution for indirect environmental light, they are making a big mistake because ambience is perfectly uniform lighting and in real life light is never perfectly uniform because in real life light will INTERACT with things, so illumination should never be perfectly uniform once it reaches the target model. If nothing else the ground should be interacting with the lighting on its way to the target model.
For me, you've got to get your priorities right when you want realism.
1. Lighting matters most of all. 90% of the job is done with the lighting. Doesnt matter the materials you use, if your render doesnt show light that behaves (interacts) in a way similar to what the viewer will predict based on their unconscious experience of real life, the realism will fail. This is why physically accurate render engines like Lux and Octane have such a huge advantage, in that they already handle light simulation in a manner that is consistent with real life experiences. Trying to use conventional lighting tools to accomplish realism is hard to do. In real life every single surface interacts with every single other surface to some degree via diffuse inter-reflection. Trying to model this level of subtle interaction with spots and point lights is not really possible.
2. Once you've got the right lighting, now you need materials. Photo based skin textures are one thing and a very good thing often times, but you also need the SSS interaction to get something that looks realistic in many situations, but not all. If you carefully apply material ambience glow using a UV map to provide strength variations in different areas of the skin, it can look a lot like SSS with much less render time. On the issue of skin textures, understand that a lot of photo based skins are fried, overly processed, overly sharpened, overly contrasted, not realistic.
"Realism" is often about subtlety, "art" is often about exaggeration....its obvious why the two don't always get along.
Here is one of my favorite "realistic" human renders. He has quite a few. I find Elite Marie and Rob are both fantastic for realism.
Amila:
http://iamuman.deviantart.com/art/Amila-153084010
Oh, almost forgot. On the issue of hand drawn images that look real, check out Kevin Okafor.
http://kelvinokaforart.blogspot.com/
Fun fun!!!!!!!!!
First off, BRAVO! You could definitely fool me. Your work is beautiful and wonderful.
For me, trying to make realistic art has really opened me up to the world around me and caused me to want to look more closely at things we all take for granted. Realism for me is a starting point and not the destination. Once your materials are realistic, then we begin to change reality and remake the world according to our own vision and we don't have to ask anybodies permission.
I really think if we can encourage more people into art, in all its form, whether it be realism, fantasy or whatever, the world will be a much better place because of it. Instead of kids going around seeing who they can beat up, they can race home from school to try and make another piece of amazing art that shoots up straight into the darkness of the night sky, exploding with a radiance the lights the world around them.
It's strange that we can spend literally days, month and years making collections that people might only briefly glance at if we're lucky. I don't think we do it for the attention, more likely that like the very sun in the sky, we just need to shine.
I don't think everybody here realizes it, that they are part of that tradition.. they are the light. Thanks to you and the many other brilliant souls that have shared a bit of that light. I'm very grateful.
I don't know about that... I've seen some architectural renders that I thought were amazing but not only that... they help to provide a visual reference for the architects vision. What if every render you make is an instrument for creation of the future itself?
I try to see the beauty in everything. Thanks for sharing.
I agree with you, even more. All of the arts, visual, music, dance, and theater should be encouraged. Alas, that will never happen. As a music teacher I struggled my whole career with fine arts programs that were cut to keep the sports program intact. Nobody gives a crap, except those that have been touched by the arts which these days are too few in number since the cuts in the fine arts programs of the 70s and 80s. The world is going to hell. I just want to be off of it before we get too much closer to it.
I agree with you, even more. All of the arts, visual, music, dance, and theater should be encouraged. Alas, that will never happen. As a music teacher I struggled my whole career with fine arts programs that were cut to keep the sports program intact. Nobody gives a crap, except those that have been touched by the arts which these days are too few in number since the cuts in the fine arts programs of the 70s and 80s. The world is going to hell. I just want to be off of it before we get too much closer to it.
We are not doomed to the short sighted cataclysm of a single vision 'Gramps'. If you believe a thing to be true, you are correct and you will take action to manifest that very belief. The goal is not the change the landscape but rather to see the landscape with new eyes... those of a child. The 'Impossible' is only made possible by those determined to make it so. The key is, don't give up the beauty of your vision my friend.
Their was once a baby elephant that was tethered in a small circle with a chain and a stake in the ground. He tried to break free but found the chain was too strong and he couldn't pull past the edge of the circle he was in.
Conditions change.
Years later, the same elephant was a giant adult but it never left his circle because he remembered the chain that held him in place that now he could easily break free from except he never tried.
Just because something hasn't been accomplished in the past, is no indication of conditions in the future.
What's holding the elephant back?
Live out of your imagination, not your history.
Ultimately the goal isn't just about fooling you but rather to have fun trying.
LOL.
You think you can actually fool me? Not at all. Have you ever seen some real photo realistic images?
This is photo realism. And here are the tutorials to see how these pictures were created:
Making Of 'You're Goddamn Right!':
http://www.3dtotal.com/index_tutorial_detailed.php?id=1691&catDisplay=1&roPos=1&page=1#.UtJ0Kfnex8E
Making of 'Kid':
http://www.3dtotal.com/index_tutorial_detailed.php?id=388#.UtJvsfnex8F
Making of 'Chris':
http://redragon.deviantart.com/journal/Master-Techniques-for-realism-using-postwork-242621100
Please never tell me again that your pictures are photo-realistic. Sorry, but you have no idea.
To see the difference - This is your picture:
I've seen my share of real people that have that feel to them
LMAO, sad truth! :)
I would say that if I did see that, I wouldn't know it. Isn't that really the point of the exercise? Thank you for sharing those excellent examples. What would be really great is if you provided people with a link to where they can purchase that quality of character mapping so that all of us can make those characters with all of its stunning details. I seem to have missed where I can buy a Robert Cranston skin map.. Was that for Genesis 2 maybe?
From the beginning I've spoke about materials, I've taken advice along the way. The goal isn't to be critical of my work but bring everybody to that promise land of easy realism with no postwork or photoshopping and available materials.
The goal isn't to make this some type of testosterone driven competition and I'm not a 'know it all', I'm here to learn how to make everybodies art even better, faster, cheaper and still a lot of fun. Ideas don't compete, egos do. Conflict cannot survive without your participation. Everything you are against weakens you. Everything you are for empowers you. How people treat you is their karma; how you react is yours.
Love is the ability and willingness to allow those that you care for to be what they choose for themselves without any insistence that they satisfy you.
I hope this helps you in some way. Take care and be blessed.
I would say that if I did see that, I wouldn't know it. Isn't that really the point of the exercise? Thank you for sharing those excellent examples. What would be really great is if you provided people with a link to where they can purchase that quality of character mapping so that all of us can make those characters with all of its stunning details. I seem to have missed where I can buy a Robert Cranston skin map.. Was that for Genesis 2 maybe?
From the beginning I've spoke about materials, I've taken advice along the way. The goal isn't to be critical of my work but bring everybody to that promise land of easy realism with no postwork or photoshopping and available materials.
The goal isn't to make this some type of testosterone driven competition and I'm not a know it all, I'm here to learn how to make everybodies art even better, faster, cheaper and still a lot of fun. Ideas don't compete, egos do. Conflict cannot survive without your participation. Everything you are against weakens you. Everything you are for empowers you. How people treat you is their karma; how you react is yours.
Love is the ability and willingness to allow those that you care for to be what they choose for themselves without any insistence that they satisfy you.
I hope this helps you in some way. Take care and be blessed.
Of the three links given the last is for a postwork tutorial on how to take a basic Poser render (M3 IIRC) and use various postwork techniques to create realism.
The other two links do no even use DS or Poser and have nothing to do with Genesis. They are custom modeled meshes and textures created in ZBrush. You cannot buy them because they are not for sale.
Saying that one's picture is photo-realistic isn't the same as saying they are indistinguishable from photographs, and he said the former, not the latter.
Saying that one's picture is photo-realistic isn't the same as saying they are indistinguishable from photographs, and he said the former, not the latter.
We have to be patient with those for whom "tact" is not their first language. :)
I mean I didn't want to be rude... But your pictures really aren't photo-realistic and you won't create photo-realistic pictures with DS. You need other software like 3DS Max, Maya... And most important: You need good render engines like Renderman, Mentalray, V-Ray. I also work with these engines, and my work isn't photo-realistic, but it's pretty realistic and close to the given examples in my eyes.
Of course it's much work. You won't create anything photo-realistic without investing money and work. That's just the way it is.
I just like making cool comic like stories since I can't draw...
Saying that one's picture is photo-realistic isn't the same as saying they are indistinguishable from photographs, and he said the former, not the latter.
Of course it's the same. That's why you call it photo-realistic. But maybe he meant just "very realistic" and I got that wrong.
We have to be patient with those for whom "tact" is not their first language. :)
Hmh... Ok, I was a bit rude... :/
As this is the DAZ 3D forums, and people using them will be using DAZ 3D software, including DAZ Studio, then really advising someone to use other, high end software is a wee bit counterintuitive wouldn't you agree. This entire thread is discussing what can be done with DAZ 3D software, not what can be done using software that costs a considerable amount more than the programs being discussed.
Where does he actually say that this thread is only about DAZ studio? Many people posted things that aren't from DAZ in this thread. Examples: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/35386/P90
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/35386/P30
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/35386/P15
So I did the same...
tee.timo...and 3Delight doesn't count with 'good render engines'?
It's not the engine...it's basically the fact that much of the power of that engine is not tapped, or is difficult for the average user to tap. It's kind of like dropping a 12 cyl Ferrari engine in a VW bug...
Spot on advice and great links, thanks.
I see nothing wrong with tee.timos post, especially since the OP posted that he could fool us with his work (see title of thread) and posted an example which is what is being critiqued.
This was done in 3delight. You have to know lighting, material settings, and of course start with a good texture.
Basically, when studio/shop is deciding between Pixar's offering and 3Delight, it comes down to which of them is better for what they do...each does some things better/quicker/easier than the other, but overall render quality is considered pretty much equivalent. So basically, anything you can do in one, you should be able to do in the other...it may take a bit more work, but it is doable.
For DS, that means...as far as render capabilities, if it can be done with the renderer, then, maybe with quite a bit of work, it should be doable in DS...but not necessarily for the casual user.
Slosh, texture helps, but technically, it isn't absolutely needed...but I'd hate to build the shader network to 100% substitute for one. I think the biggest factor is lighting...
We have to be patient with those for whom "tact" is not their first language. :)
Hmh... Ok, I was a bit rude... :/
:) You just came on a bit strong. It's good to have an opinion, and I actually even agreed with you, the images you showed were, IMO, much more realistic.
Sometimes I have trouble reining in my own posts when I'm passionate about something, I think I'm being completely reasonable, and others think I'm out of control. I didn't really mean to come right out and call you rude. Because, well, that would just be rude. :)
When you have a little time, walk me through how you made that picture. Any tips or tricks you care to share?
Thanks in advance. Is that character in the DAZ library yet?
When you have a little time, walk me through how you made that picture. Any tips or tricks you care to share?
Thanks in advance. Is that character in the DAZ library yet?
The skin I used was from another marketplace, but I used AoA's SSS Shader with the textures. The AoA textures are a completely different ball of wax, and I recommend you get his video on the shader here. Make sure you set up enough lights at the right intensity to light your character, but not wash him out. I admit, this one might be a bit dark. It would be very lengthy to talk about everything I did to tweak the materials in this image. Basically, you have to try each setting until it looks good to you. I usually crank a dial up to maximum, then back off from there until it looks good. I also put extreme colors in the color channels so I can better identify what that parameter does. For example, neon green in the spec2 color channel and bright blue in the SSS color channel. Then I can see what that channel actually does and adjust from there. Of course, after awhile, you will already know what the channel does, so you don't have to go to extremes. For example, to remove a skin texture that was made too reddish/orangish, you want to tint your diffuse with a tiny amount of blue and maybe also raise the Absorb Red a little. What that will do is absorb the redness instead of projecting it back out through the skin.
I appreciate your compliment and enthusiasm. It's not impossible to do this in DAZ Studio using the default renderer. If I had sent this to LuxRender via Reality or Luxus (both of which I own), I would have probably been even more realistic, but you don't have to spend too much money to get results.
Your pics are stunning, and Kelvin Okafor's work is incredibly good!
I appreciate your compliment and enthusiasm. It's not impossible to do this in DAZ Studio using the default renderer. If I had sent this to LuxRender via Reality or Luxus (both of which I own), I would have probably been even more realistic, but you don't have to spend too much money to get results.
To me, the statement, "I can fool you." Is meant to be dramatic. I have it on good advice that I'm not fooling anybody yet but hopefully I can learn how to very soon then... LOL. For me, I feel really comfortable in a lot of the toolsets I keep learning, I've been watching a heap of the Dreamlight training videos that I bought on sale when they were having that crazy sale in November.. (Thanks DAZ and Dreamlight, lucky I bought gifts early) I get that it doesn't look like a photograph.. if I wanted that, I'd buy a nice camera. The end result is just the way I like it to look.
I wonder if your next product could be a collection of those rendering settings and light presets. I can't get enough premade lighting kits. I love the idea of click and light with rendering. What do you think? What I do know is that there are a lot of really bright people around here that know how to make a rocking product. Looking forward to seeing great things. (mad respect)
I think no truer thing can be said besides, garbage in, garbage out.
This one is Olympus 6HD with a customized mat I pieced together in my typical Frankenstein fashion. I like where I'm at and I'm always getting better as I learn more.
To date my favorite sets are the HDR Pro sets. I tend to like to do it quick and dirty but AoA and Dream Theories Real Light pack are my current favorites. I love the 'advanced spot lights'.