Which DAZ Genesis 8 M/F characters are the most realistic/beautiful?
This discussion has been closed.
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
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Ideas never compete... only egos do. There are many different paths that artist can take and none of them 'compete'.. ideas don't run in any race or swim anywhere.. they don't go over the moon either... You have your ideas.. I have my ideas.. they do not compete.. they are not running anywhere or seeking your vote or your approval and the thought that they compete is a real impediment to progress... ideas co-exist. It's the people that compete.
I can dial any shape I want, in fact that is fun. For me, the most important part of any character is the mat, as I can't make that.
I use male characters mostly, and I would like a no facial & body hair option. Obviously this would be a problem for the likes of Darwins Mishap who generally uses photographs of characterful mature male faces, which I applaud for their realism and the skill/effort that goes into the mats.
I would also like a really pale north european type skin colouring, I can change the settings to go as dark as mediterranean colouring quite easilly. Its easier to add colour than remove it, though that is possible to some degree ussing SSS reflectance tint.
Texture maps are pieces of artwork in and of themselves. We then employ them at various stages of our own artistic processes. So the discussion is to my mind even broader than just skin textures, but applies to artwork in general.
You're both perfectly reasonable individuals and you're both making perfectly reasonable arguments. Perhaps even the same argument. I use the term argument academically.
You're not even disagreeing. You're both saying that different strokes are needed for different folks, you're just each coming at it from different angles. This is just one of those things where you're missing each other's points ever so slightly probably because you can't speak face to face. No worries. From where I stand I can see both of you are on solid ground.
I think there are two very valuable discussions going on here. The thread title asks which textures are most realistic/beautiful. However realism and beauty are not mutually exclusive, and are indeed rather different things probably not even safe to discuss in close proximity to one another. I think it helps to decide which of these two ideals one is addressing at a given moment.
I like discussing realism because realism is based on physical values that can be measured and defined and repeated easily. We have clinical distance from it, it is cold and mathematical, and doesn't reveal any particularly interesting underlying thought patterns or biases from its observations. Anyone can contribute to a realism discussion because we all share real world experience in common because we all live on the same planet.
The beauty argument however is the complete opposite. Unlike realism, beauty is a completely subjective argument and can only be discussed as statistical likelihoods. People will probably like this kind of cake or people will probably hate this type of sneaky baseball manueuver. Since beauty is a biased subjective argument to begin with, you need lots of samples from various individuals to compare against one another to find any consistent "truth" that applies to groups of people; and even then you'll always have some margin for error. So beauty is often only discussed at the local level of individual preferences. Beauty arguments immediately reveal underlying thought patterns of those who share their work and those who share their observations of the work. Beauty arguments are where communication with the audience through the artwork becomes more paramount. It's not about suspension of belief, so much as it is about making a specific point.
As an artist, I find that I try to remove as many signatures or indications of myself from the visual artwork as possible. You'll rarely say, "Rashad must have rendered that." I've never developed any particular style, other than striving for stark realism, which means mimicing the Universe if anything, so removing signatures of myself a mere human is the most logical way to go. In many ways I am still highly unformed... 43 y/o stem cell. But there are other artists who are on a level of connection with their art that they always find a way of weaving something about themselves into the work. Leaving a signature that points back to them. A swag of sorts! These are artists who I think are much less likely to strive for realism, as it will be too limiting and will rob them of too many opportunities to comment on the many various aspects of the world they are creating.
I suspect that most users want a certain amount of realism, and a certain amount of beauty at the same time. The proportions and thresholds; the exact recipes we follow will depend on what is appropirate for each of us and for each particular project we endeavor upon.
Realism and Beauty as they relate to food. Yeah, food!
Realism is beautiful in a manner similar to the way cheese tastes good to certain individuals. Flavors are complex in that along with fats and salts there are aspects of freshness and fermentation at play at the same time, and depending on the consumer, different aspects of the flavor will be appreciated or unappreciated. There's some ugliness blended into the mosaic. This to me is similar to a generic photograph featuring shadows falling unflatteringly onto a man's face or the way a pimple draws focus away from an otherwise typical and non-memorable human face could occur and still be viewed as beautiful. When it's real you accept it and appreciate it for what it is. Ugliness helps to sell the realism which makes it seem more beautiful.
But if you want to increase the likelihood that a partcular food is going to be liked by large random groups of people with high statistical likelihood, you're going to want to make the item sweet, not cheesy. Most sweet tasting things are fairly one dimensional. Usually not too terribly risky. Flavors do not tend to be overly complex, because sweetness occcupies most of the sensory experience. And we're genetically wired to seek sweetness due to its high nutritional value and ironic rareity of access in the past.
Realism = That which one will ACCEPT to be true because it fits logical/clinical expectations. Out of human hands
Beauty = That which one might PREFER to be true if they could have things go their way. Directed by human hands
To me it seems the actually topic of the thread has been totally co-opted... The question is Which DAZ 8 M/F character looks the best and is the most realistic.. So we are talking about PRE-EXISTING characters that are for sale right now ... While I have had discussions in the past about character creation in the SUGGESTIONS thread... This is not the conversation which some seem to have take the opportunity to rehash obsolete ideas.
One of my favorite examples is this side by side of a V4 character and a Gen 8 character.... for me the added articulation points make all the difference and I think DAZ has done a brilliant job making a fantastic machine.. now its just picking the wrapper... nobodies trying to re-invent the wheel.
Well due to medical and legal identity privacy reasons there is very good reason to think 3D modeling will never produce models that are on the surface 100% accurate to the realistic real person, at least not for reasons other that asserting legal identity and medical reasons.
That's not to say that that data couldn't be procedurally generated and randomized so as not to match a known real person that is extremely realistic.
We already have realistic models that can fool almost anybody .. the goal isn't to replacate any one person.. just make one character to look like a real person.. but which one do you think is the most real and the most beautiful.. that is the question.
No there isn't.
Where?
OK.. Maybe I should have said that the realistic models are available at other web sites but I try to be respectful that this is a DAZ site and I don't want to advertise pretty much any other web site but I do find that Renderosity has always had better characters, clothing and pretty much everything except the base characters...
As it stand 'the most beautiful and realistic' characters are to be found at other sites... I want to see the artist here at DAZ improve by raising standards and not joining the 'race to the bottom' ideas...
The irony is that AT NO STAGE HAVE I EVER SUGGESTED BLAND PRODUCTS NOT BE MADE. I SIMPLY STATED I WON'T BUY THEM.
Yes, there is... seek and you will find.. Granted.. beauty is in the eye of the beholder but there are plenty of options that look real... just not at this website.
What is interesting to me is that you can do both just as easy... Why is the concept lost that you can pub a bland skin and a high detailed skin in the same package?
In the before mentioned "Metropolitan collection" the London character had a really interesting version that included a full head of hair and a standard hairless version.. I always used the hair and then put a 3d hair on top of that.. then the matte hair looked like roots connecting the hair to the head..
Most of my favorite packages all come with more than one skin option for the characters and some of them are very beautiful ... I love having lots of different options.
Only you can decide what you think is most beautiful because beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
Beginning to think we have very different views on realism. The character in this render doesn't look realisitic to me in the slightest. The HDRI, the cloth, even the hair looks more realistic than the woman to me. Can certainly go into more detail but I'm also starting to wonder what's the point. In my opinion we are miles and miles away from true photorealism in CG when it comes to humans. It's really tough one that will ultimately require so much more than we even have available in Daz Studio. Skin stretches and contracts for example, as seen here:
Even beyond that, look at your hand as you make a fist and relax again. All the things that go on there, knuckles protruding, skin stretching, color changes to white, veins moving. Look at all those wrinkles on the inside of the hand as you move the fingers... it's just insane the amount of stuff that would have to be simulated for actual photorealism. And for what? So we can make renders that are indistinguishable from photos? We don't have enough photos yet on the web today?
I don't know. The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to conclude that an aesthetically pleasing CG style that can look realistic to a degree but is also clearly unapologetically CG is preferable in the long run. Look at this:
Isn't that so much better than straight up realism?
Skin gloss has zero to do with skin details... gloss is a matter of altering the reflectivity of the surface and can be easily customized by going to the surface tab... but I can't add details to skin (without changing the skin) on the surface tab..
So while its easy to be critical of my render and what I think is properly reflective skin which varies accordingly... some people have oily skin that reflects .. some don't. I've often compared this in real life. Again.. it's easy to stand around and be a critic of what other people do while you put nothing up to show how you can do it better...
Has zero to do with what character is the most beautiful and realistic for Genesis 8... To answer your question..
No if the goal is to replace a human model for print advertising and you don't want the end user knowing that you are using computer animation instead of paying live models thousands of dollars and countless manhours getting that just right pose that we can now create by digital means.
Totally different topic.
If your goal is to make a beautiful render .. then congrats.. You did that with stars in your eyes.. very cool picture but not applicable to the topic. Keep up the good work and happy rendering..
I'm not critical of your render, just that character and only in the context of realism. None of this is really a failure on your part as far as I can tell. I don't see any other way though than to point things out if you post a render claiming realism that I don't see. Hence I thought maybe we all have different ideas about realism which complicates any debate about it.
Honestly I'd worry more about the art part. Something doesn't have to be photoreal to invoke an emotion as countless comics or Pixar movies have proven. I'd say on average people would probably be better off learning about composition, colors, lighting, and most of all telling a story or touch the viewer in some way. Otherwise even the most realistic character is going to be in a render of the typical smartphone snapshot variety. No artistic value whatsoever.
Having spent the last 3 months or so trying to make Sahel as realistic as possible, at least 10 hours a day, not one free day... I could have stopped at half the time and have a pretty decent character but I kept going striving for realism... that I should have the realisation here now that realism is perhaps not the most important thing, at least not to the point of obsessing about it like the math genius over numbers (Pi, the movie) who eventually loses his gift but gains happiness, is kinda funny.
Ok, I'll still probably strive for it for various reasons. And to varying degrees of success no doubt
Sure yeah, though in all fairness, creating a CG model of that quality would cost far, far more than booking a model and shooting some photos. If you were truely hoping to do this with a couple of dollars worth of Daz content, then I think these hopes are a bit misplaced. As discussed earlier, the only actual case where I thought for the first time that this was successfully achieved was Rachel in Bladerunner 2049. Top notch artists worked on just her for a year, and that's on top of real action shots they took with an real stand-in actress. And even with all that they didn't succeed 100%. Think about that.
Opinions vary.. granted she is just a test render and my rendering needs to have further adjustments before it would fool the viewer.. I think its an excellent character full of detail.. but then this isn't even the proper morph.. this one is my own customized version using that skin.. If there is anything that doesn't fit perfectly.. I'm certain I can with patience make the right adjustments to make her look vibrant and alive.. I'm not into making excuses when I know I have the tools that I need.. I'm on the right track and my facebook friends agree with me. Still would like to see what you think the best is...
The point being that none of those things you mention are excluded from learning.. by all means NEVER STOP LEARNING.. Never stop striving to be the best... it still isn't a compitition. Take care and happy rendering.
Ok. Well again I hope you don't take this as personal critisism because it's not. One major thing that wrong with her is highlights in the eyes that don't match the scene. Probably painted in? The eyes look flat and painted on in general. Black dots on her face don't work for me, I don't see what kind of realisitc feature that is supposed to be. Also nowhere else on her skin do I see anything like that. Hand behind her back featureless and plasticy. Lips and teeth look very CG. Skin is passable I guess though I find the tone a little weird for a real person.
Oh also probably no SSS whatsoever?
At this stage you have now cut to the very crux of the issue... getting paid. On the one hand we can have top Hollywood artist making millions and then here is me hoping to score a bargain because some young Rembrant releases a character to 'the public' for next to nothing hoping to make up the difference via mass quantity sales...
The topic of character realism is huge and I bet if you look, you'll find that this thread is generating a lot of readership by people who are also looking for that same bargain.
I can't afford to pay what its worth for that character you've been spending 10 hours a day for months creating but if Hollywood isn't going to buy it.. then what do you have to loose by selling it on the cheap? Yes, I know that some artist will be angry because it means that fewer people will be buying the inferior looking products but in the end, we all have the same goals when you look at it... A better product in more hands. So which one do you think is the best?
That's exactly what I'm doing right? I was merely making the point that a single artist isn't going to replicate in Daz Studio what some million dollar VFX studio did over the course of a year anytime soon. Much less in a way that would allow anyone to just throw the character into a random scene. True photorealism for digital humans can still be considered damn near impossible even today, despite all the prowess of hardwae and software and all the might of the world's CG industry. It's not even so much about money, it's just technically near impossible.
You are talking about animated characters, which are much more difficult to pull off than still photos. CG artists create models for still work that compete with photos all the time. The attached photos are far more realistic than any DAZ model, but only a very skilled animator could make them move like a real person.
NOT! The fact that you have written this proves that it's more common than you think! It's happening right under your nose and you don't even notice it. Sort of how the best special effects are the ones you don't even realize are special effects. If you notice them, they didn't do their job. It is standard procedure nowadays for all actors to get 3d scans (along with expressions for animation) before shooting a film. Do you think this is wasted money by Hollywood and that none of them get used? Check out this article to get an insight into how digital doubles are used in modern films. http://www.cartoonbrew.com/vfx/cg-actors-logan-never-knew-149013.html
Not to mention this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMAN_IIZgJg This isn't even animated, just a real-time demo of a facerig.
Here, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24818769 a CGI child was used to fool online sexual predators and even resulted in arrests.
And then there is this created by a CGI god! One person! Keyframed! Nearly impossible? Nope.
@SnowPheonix - you said there are G8 Daz models that can fool most people. While I dispute this claim, I would want nothing more than to be proven wrong. I think its fair that you point us to one or two examples. I have seen nothing so far that compares with the realism of professional film CGI artists' work but that is to be expected considering the vast difference in costs.
If I were a savy artist such as yourself then I would definately be looking into PsychoGinger's Melany for Genesis 8. I have to warn you its a huge file that comes in 6 parts.. If that doesn't knock your socks off then nothing will...
Can you post a link to the first image being CG? The last one is a photo so I'm not sure why you're posting it here. Best one of those would have to be Kristen Stewart, the others are rather obvious CG. He did write animation by the way: