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
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Just semantics.
The video in the first post says it is about photorealism. I don't use the terms photorealism and realism interchangeably. I use photorealism as a subset. The real world has bad lighting. The real world does not have photographers placing lights to highlight a person's best features and minimize the worst, unless we are in a staged setting. Most of our daily routine is not staged.
People pursuing other styles still study light, perspective, etc. I don't see those as photorealistic to the exclusion of other styles. If a cartoonist studies anatomy, I don't think that means the cartoonist is studying photorealism.
...2 years of theory and a year of counterpoint taught me that.
What I find odd about photorealism, is the amount of non-photoreal assistance it needs.
I think some people are confusing the difference between striving for photorealism and understanding realistic basic anatomy and understanding the way gravity affects the body and clothing, etc. There are basics to art that are going to be helpful for just about any type of art. But that doesn't mean people need to strive for photorealism. While one can certainly build on the other, these are two separate things.
I'm confused what you mean. ???
ALL 3D images use mathematics and algorithms to produce an image. NONE of it is actually an actual "image" at all. (???)
Well I go for iRay which unless I do a closeup of human skin invariable winds up looking like a detailed painting more than photorealism. It's more impatience to get a good result with my super slow computer and lack of shader knowlege and texture creature cameras and editing software though than a preference for iRay. Although looking at much of the old 3DL ad copy in the DAZ Store it's quite clear that even the people that are selling the 3DL products to us aren't 3DL experts. iRay is much easier than that.
Truthfully I'd love if there was a fast easy to edit render style I could do quickly, render quickly (pwToon) & that I've liked. I've tried a few and they have been close but no cigar, That's one of my goals though is to do a few pwToon animations this year.
I also have interest in realistic renders too and not just realistic renders of human skin. So if you are paying attention in the DAZ 3D gallery it is the attempts at realistic renders that get posted far more often then the toon and non-realistic renders.
Also, you have to consider what DAZ 3D and the 3D industry & art community as a whole have to strive for in designing new art - realistic is tangible and evident while more abstract styles are gambles that aren't likely to pan out. Those that do do get represented in the DAZ Store, see Sakura 8, Girl 7 & Guy 7, Morpheus, and Toon Generations 2.
Photographs are sometimes manipulated by photographic artists. Again, not a criticism.
One example of why I distinguish photorealism from realism was Jamie Lee Curtis's magazine cover in which they did not enhance the photo.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/our-beauty-hero-an-unretouched-jamie-lee-curtis-113020098248.html
.
.
So...???
Understanding how gravity works, or how bodies move in RL is more important than understanding how light works in RL? Because, essentially, isn't that what photorealism is? An understanding of light...
... in art and in the real world.
How could this NOT be an essential thing to understand now that we have it?
Please don't put words in my mouth, that's extremely rude.
Photorealsm isn't just about understanding light. It's much much more than that. Understanding basics of lighting is important to most types of art. Striving for photorealism isn't.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.
I'm simply asking you to expand on the words you used:
"I think some people are confusing the difference between striving for photorealism and understanding realistic basic anatomy and understanding the way gravity affects the body and clothing"
So, what's the difference?
...yeah, I remember those rules. Studied "classic" cel and flat animation back in my second round of college.
I've always defined Photorealisim as an attempt to make an image that looks like it could be a photograph. Someone set up a studio, or walked into the park and took out their camera or their phone and took a picture. Which is why it's easy to achieve with still life (think those IKEA pages from the video) and so much harder with anything organic and moving - like people. This is what makes things like Gollum and the Na"vi so impressive. And why I can't watch Jurassic World in HD.
Having realistic lighting, poses, gravity, etc is required for Photorealisim, but doesn't automatically equal photorealisim. Most art has these things (except when it doesn't) but that doesn't make the Last Supper (for example) photoreal.
DaWaterRat said:
"And why I can't watch Jurassic World in HD."
Okay, that made me laugh.
Quite a lot of images considered to be photoreal have, invariably, been tinkered with in photoshop or the like, to correct errors in the image eg shadows in the wrong place, hair pointing in the wrong direction, poor skin texture, etc.
What's the difference? Uhhhhh A lot. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble getting why you think basics of art is the same as striving for Photorealsm. I think I see what the issue is now. Maybe Google "Photorealism" and look up what it's about - particularly in when it comes to 3D art. Understanding what Photorealism is should probably come before telling people they need to be striving for it.
To expand my point on photoreal v. realism, let's take one of the most iconic pinups of all time - Betty Grable's famous WWII pin up
This is a photgraph. A photoreal render would try to replicate this, or better (because this was 1943)
This is a nose art painting of that image. It uses Realistic posing, lighting (mostly), gravity (because it's based on a photograph) but the colors are more stylized. This is in the vein of what I'm trying for.
I realise this is a topic that people can be a bit sensitive about. Please, accept my apology if you feel I am singling your opinion out in some negative way. I'm REALLY not trying to tell anyone they "need to strive for it". THE VIDEO made a claim that UNDERSTANDING photorealism was essential to producing good 3D art, even if what you want to make is not photoreal. I am interested in that notion and thought it would be a fun thing to talk about. I am not trying to offend anyone.
Part of the difficulty in this thread is that the video conflates realsim with photorealism.
You absolutly need to understand realisim to producce good art. You don't need to be practiced in simulating photographs (photorealism) to make good art.
In your original post, you wrote: "a really good argument for "why" photorealism is important to strive for when creating any CGI" - so it sounded like you were saying you thought that people should be striving for photorealism. I apologize if I misunderstood and if that isn't what you were trying to say. :)
Well...
I did think it was a good argument. (lol)
...I think that is more part of what Andrew in the video is implying.
That was a pretty awesome video. And the info presented makes sense.
I agree 100% that the more you understand how reality works the better you will be at bending those rules and making it work.
DaWaterRat said:
"Having realistic lighting, poses, gravity, etc is required for Photorealisim, but doesn't automatically equal photorealisim. Most art has these things (except when it doesn't) but that doesn't make the Last Supper (for example) photoreal."
No, the Last Supper is not photoreal. They didn't have photos back then...lol. But they were trying to get as close to "real" as they could. Studying what those "masters" learned about light, perspective, etc led to other art forms that then "broke those rules" (Like cartoons, for example). But, having that basic understanding first was essential.
Could the video be correct in suggesting that understanding "photorealism" in 3D is essential to creating any type of art in 3D? Or maybe essential to improving it?
Anyway...
I just thought it was an interesting idea
If you weren't, there'd be something wrong with you. But, in the greater scheme of things, what other people think is, really, of no great consequence.
I could have used Norman Rockwell or Frank Millar, or the illustrators of the Ospray reference books just as easily to establish my point. These artists live/lived after the advent of cameras, understand the principles of realism and are proficient in producing realistic art that is not photorealistic. This, I think, is the important distinction.
Understanding realism is important. Mastering photorealism first is not. Just as there is a distinction between realism and photorealism, there is also a distinction between understanding realism (generally a good thing) and striving for photorealism (good for some styles, not others) before trying for anything else.
So, while understanding realisim is essential to good art, proficiency in photorealisim is not neccisarily essential to improving ones skills with CG art.
I agree with you that not everyone "should produce" photorealistic art. I'm not trying to imply ALL people should. We don't all have to practice artistic forms from the High Rennaisance in order to understand it. But, even Norman Rockwell likely studied those masters before him. He had a solid understanding of how their work was achieved.
I have never produced (nor do I understand) what is required to create a photorealistic image. I have always tried to, though. But, my reasons for wanting to understand it might surprise you, because what I LOVE is stuff like Pixar or the aliens from "The Fifth Element".
It's that blurring of real and make believe that intrigues me.
(Yeah, those Dinosaurs from Jurrasic World get me all tingly)
It just makes some kind of sense to me that UNDERSTANDING how to achieve photorealism would help make any style of 3D render I choose to make better. I don't know. Just makes sense to me. That's why the title of this thread was a statement rather than a question.
When people ask "why?" I'm just thinking... maybe THIS is why.
We don't all have to practice artistic forms from the High Renaissance in order to understand it.
Ouch, because -just about every discipline works this way. You want to play piano? You start with the hard stuff(s).
In art, we studied ALL THE FORMS. And realistic, or whatever it's being called in this thread, was also something you did.
You actually brought in a photograph and tried to paint it, draw it, charcoal, inks....everything.
It was learning about the medium, not the art. so, many studies and endeavors are based on Learning Your Tools.
So, yes, you might want to learn to control all the aspects and I find most tools are pushed to their max when trying to replicate/create/make something to an EXACT standard.
---------------------------------------
I think a big point being skipped over is ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
Attention to detail is what many are going for instead of realism or photorealism. Light bends and reflects when it hits that water. Long as you're making it do something- that shows attention to detail. If you do something...unnatural, it may still lead to art. If you don't know that water/fire and rapid air and...and has an affect on objects, you are likely to make stuff that's breaking so many of the wrong rules, that it misses the mark being artistic as in 'delivering' a message or creating a mood.
More knowledge is better. Artists should study reality. If they have the time, that includes photography.
Some of us, but not all of us, do not use the term photorealism identically the same as the term realism. I don't equate realism and photorealism because sometimes photos can be used to misrepresent reality and to lie to us.
so
On the one hand, great painters (and other artists) gain from studying the real world, including by reference photographs. Examples from Elvgren
On the other hand, cameras can be used to misrepresent reality. Studying how photos can be used to misrepresent reality is great and can be used to purposefully present images to communicate an emotion, message, etc. to a viewer. (arguably one definition of art). But knowing that the camera can lie is also a cautionary tale that photoreality and reality are not necessarily the same thing. Trying to make something look like a photograph sometimes means making something look like something other than reality. Depends on the photograph.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2059455/The-camera-DOES-lie-Proof-lens-difference-pretty-pretty-ugly.html
I really don`t care much about realism, I enjoy looking at real realistic images, like those ZBrush works that actually looks like a real person, because the work behind them is admirable.
Realism is not my goal, I try to make images look as nice as possible, if by any chance they turn out realistic, probably thanks to Iray, then fine, but not the priority.
I certainly like cartoon or definitely not realistic images more than "close, but not there" images.
Worth mentioing that photorealism for humans (which is what we mostly deal with here in the Daz community) is extremely hard to achieve. Even more so when also animated. I know of just one example that I would consider truely photorealistic even out there in the billions of dollars VFX industry: Rachel in Bladerunner 2049. Even she had a few hiccups, or possibly I'm just incredibly sensitive in that regard. Still, near perfect. From what I read they worked on this alone for a year.
Or maybe I'm confusing photorealism with hyperrealism?
In any case, we are a far stretch away from that in our Daz human figures IMO. It's much easier for still life, creatures like in Avatar or Valerian, even talking animals (the new Jungle Book). Anything that has something our eyes aren't used to I guess is much easier to pass as photorealism, but when something is even slightly off in a human, it's hard to look past it.