Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
That is so true.
Another thing that does stop people striving for improvement is those people who will just post "Nice Image" or something similar, over and over again when adding comments to images. Far better to say ''Nice image, but it could be better if............" I much prefer comments like that added to my images as constructive critique. I, like many people, am my own worst critic, but often can't quite see what the image needs to improve it. Honest constructive critique, phrased nicely, makes sense and helps people to develop instead of just keep posting the same blasé images because they get favourable, yet basically dishonest or incomplete, comments.
To the contrary, we should appreciate where we are. I would find it hard to want to improve a turd so a discouraging attitude of never being good enough is hardly the answer either. No matter how much you improve you are still limited by the materials you have access to so if all you have is Pentium 4 barely running windows xp and 8 years old mats, your choices are limited.
I agree that everyday is another opportunity to improve ourselves but then again, we have no need to be critical of what other people appreciate. Reality is what we make of it.
I agree about constructive help but it should also be consider whether or not its even wanted. Maybe I'm happy living in my own little bubble, who is anybody to judge? Your judgment does not define other peoples art, only your need to judge it.
I tried taking some advice but I'll have to invest in better hair if I'm going to fool more people. LOL
3Delight is not "industry standard". That term gets bandied about but what industry and by whose standards? It it Renderman Compliant bu then so are many other render engines, including Poser's FireFly render engine. Not to mention the fact that the version DS is using is not the current release and users are not given full access to all of that versions bells and whistles (though this may no longer be the case but at one time it was).
Sorry I'm late to the party, but holy cow that skin render is pretty dang photo-real. Also, Dublin is probably my favorite skin texture to date.
Also, to the OP, the issue is the hair. It's really hard to get photo-real hair, from what I've seen of various contests about it.
Maybe not industry standard, but the non DS version is used in the movie industry
http://www.3delight.com/en/index.php?page=projects
Maybe not industry standard, but the non DS version is used in the movie industry
http://www.3delight.com/en/index.php?page=projects
I would honestly call it "very common" in professional production houses but Studio's implementation of 3Delight is just scratching the surface of this engines full potential., those higher functions of the engine are not readily available in Studio. That compromise may be necessary to keep it usable for the hobbyist or it could have something to do with the licensing.
Firefly is a REYES based render engine but it is NOT Renderman compliant. If it was then there would be NO issue getting surface settings between the two to work 100%.
I think these are as close as I've gotten to looking "real", both rendered with Reality
Those do look great, Tim, but I can recall seeing a few more of yours that are even better. Can't offhand recall what they were, but you've put out some great renders.
Those do look great, Tim, but I can recall seeing a few more of yours that are even better. Can't offhand recall what they were, but you've put out some great renders.
thank you!
and thanks for the tips on transferring UV's from D5 to M5. It finally sunk in.
I've started a couple for genesis 2, the problem is that i can't really afford all the new shapes for genesis 2 (i dont even have all the shapes for genesis 1) so I can't test them. I haven't installed genesis 2 male yet and I only have one character for Genesis 2F that I like (from FW) because the new shaders drive me absolutely BATTY. (dislike)
I've made a lot for genesis tho a couple months ago my harddrive had a complete death and lost a lot I was working on including a tutorial for LAMH.
More importantly, why not buy LAMH and make your own hair? :D
Not that I mind making presets, I love it, and i'm working on some now for Genesis (and maybe genesis 2F) but i don't own any of the genesis 2M shapes yet. when i finish i'll put them up at Alessandro's site :)
Well I think one thing can definitely be said...the programs and available content and plugins have gone a long way in helping artists reach closer to the mark of realism. On the flip-side, does it really matter how good your computer or program is if you know what you are doing. I remember back when Daz2 was on Pentium 4 and some artist were making realistic images just as good as what is being done today. Not too long ago, there was a thread here about an image from another site of a small child in a high chair. The artist used a render and post work and many here were arguing it was not a render but a photo, that is how real the image was. I could be remembering it slightly wrong, but the argument was the same.
Some here are completely missing the point the OP started here. You can argue all you want about render engines and plugins, yet that has nothing to do with why this thread was started. The OP was simply tossing out a challenge to create a realistic render to the best of your ability with the tools you have. Arguing against the possibility that it can be done is the same thing as not even trying.
There is a new program and rendering machine out there. I was checking costs for the Art Institute where I live and was talking about the programs I know about and was told I would be using a program I have never even heard about before (can't remember the name), it's new and what studios have started using. That was last year I checked on that. I really wish I could remember the name, it was quite unusual. Apparently it's better then Maya, ZBrush and the like. So while you talk about industry standards that are available, the actual programs being used are progressing ahead of you. The only way to push forward is to stop thinking about what can't be done and think about what can be done and improve on it.
What she said, I second. I love the fact that now if you think about it, can we see to the other side of Dr. Martin Luther King's mountain and we can transport people to a better place by our vision that being critical never could. Only light overcomes darkness. Thanks for sharing your insight. I think its all ravishing.
I'm just pleased to see Danae just released Edinburgh M4. I'll have to do a render with this one. She won MVP of the year in London for her work. Oh and I see her collection just went on sale. See You Later.
I've found a few big bugs which I also encounter with Garibaldi, and the main one is that it really hates adjusting figure poses to the extent that LAMH and Garibaldi might crash Daz Studio entirely and you lose any changes to your scene. Also, the manual doesn't actually tell you how to apply the newly created hair to the figure. On the LAMH player, this was fairly obvious, but I went through several attempts to render it only to find my figures as bald as a newborn.
Anyway, we're digressing from the topic a fair bit. I'll just say that creating decent looking hairstyles using those plugins requires hands far more skilled than my own.
To me getting a good picture isn't about shooting for photo realism, it is about balancing the elements of the picture so they look like they belong in the same picture. Most Poser and Studio users are hobbyist and have to work with purchased content, some of which can be quite old. In the following image the figure has the duchess hair, a nice hair product but not photo realistic. It would make no sense to try to make the figure's skin hyper real as it would just make the hair's short coming stand out more, going for more of an airbrushed art look was IMO the way to go.
It's interesting to me to see how totally different the schools of thoughts are and of course I'm not saying you are wrong in any way, just that my experience has been very different.
Take this render of Edinburgh M4. I had to manually install it and then convert its M4 maps but for me great materials for the most part has meant that on things that are less realistic, I think the eye is more forgiving for minor details so long as the majority of the picture looks real. If the hair isn't all that realistic, I find using darker hair tend to be a good way of hiding poor details.
The thing is that the average person doesn't look with our eye... they aren't looking for faults. In fact most of the pictures we render probably only get a quick second glance if we are lucky. Just my thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
Image removed
I understand the quest for photo realism, and enjoy seeing the truly amazing images so many are able to produce with DS, and 3D in general. My personal preference for what I produce is more in line with what jetsmart and several others have said. I don't strive for photo-realistic, instead I try to get realistic 3D, or images that look like the elements and scene are 3 dimensional, more like a photo of a diorama, or similar, rather than a photo of a person.
Regardless of the subject or style, materials/shaders and lighting are the key to making any image believable. But often the pose, composition, and consistency of the quality/realism of all of the elements in the scene are overlooked. These are also very important to ensure that the final image doesn't fall into the realm of uncanny valley.
The devil is in the details. You may have perfect skin mats and shaders, but if the pose isn't just as perfect, or the cloths don't quite look as real, or lighting of a background photo doesn't perfectly match the scene lighting, or other elements in the scene aren't as realistic, people automatically recognize that something isn't quite right, even if they can't tell you exactly what is wrong with the image. The little details are where so many images fall short (mine included) of being "real".
Attached is my image to contribute to the thread - obviously not photo-realistic, just trying to achieve realistic 3D light, shadows, and mats (click to see the details of the full sized image).
Love all your food for thought and your render looks amazing.
A recent favorite of mine from the DAZ3D library is "Sol". A great cartoonist pointed it out to me and I caught it coincidentally on sale and snapped it up.. WOW.
http://www.daz3d.com/m4-elite-texture-sol
I'm having so much fun with these realistic textures and having fun trying to see how close we are and loving it. So many hidden little gems and brilliant people here, thank you for sharing. There is something to be said for just slapping things together and making it work. It gets you a solution oriented vision instead of being worried about details.
Take care and be blessed.
"This is what we call love. When you are loved, you can do anything in creation. When you are loved, there's no need at all to understand what's happening, because everything happens within you." — Paulo Coelho (The Alchemist)
Edinburgh M4
Dimension Theory Yosemite
DAZ Studio 4.6
No postwork besides title
Snowpheonix, I love you Edinburgh M4 image, I have always loved Danae products and own a couple myself. This last render of yours is more real then the first post you made to start the thread. The only thing I find fault with and I could very easily be wrong here, is the eyes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even in shadow, would not eyes still have a shine or light to them? I never really paid attention to this in real life, so I'm not sure.
Now as to the face, according to some posts further back, symmetry was mentioned. If you look closely, Danae did not make the texture look the same on both sides of the face, so according to that description, that image passes the realism test.
This is the kind of work Renderman is capable of.
The following link has expired, but the info can help find the listing if you have access to 3dWorld.
http://www.3dworldmag.com/2013/07/10/behind-the-scenes-ssncs-peregrine-falcon/
An image is below.
Kendall
You are so right but I'm only using the M4 textures, I converted the textures to fit Michael 6HD and the different symmetry is a result of my taking that same advice and tweaking the morph probably via one of Zev'0's brilliant character morphs. The lack of a eye reflection is my fault because pre-genesis characters don't have the same reflective map on the eyes... so I added one since you also noted that and I'm shooting out a second render. I should point out Danae only markets the product to everybody that uses other software besides Daz Studio, I've taken it on my own to transfer and modify it to my own purposes.
For me the purpose of switching over to M6HD becomes obvious when we start using the powerful morphs behind it.
I love Danae's work to the extent that I follow her on Facebook. I love what we do... its a great outlet. Thanks for sharing and have a brilliant day.
Some very good images here--some do indeed look "photo-real". I'm not usre I want my image to look that real, but I did fool around with Luxus for a while and made this. It's probably the most "real" image I have (and it's still a long way off). The renderman image of the bird looks great!
Not trying to fool anyone but I think this is an interesting study of some of the tools that have recently appeared in the store.
- The skin is 100% procedural using AoA's subsurface shader. There are no maps in any channel of any skin surface.
- The eyes use Dimension Theory's Project EYEris.
- The hair and eyebrows were made in Garibaldi.
- The scene is set in a Flipmode skybox (mountain trail).
- Lighting consists of 1 AoA Advanced Ambient light (diffuse only); 1 AoA Advanced Spotlight; and 1 distant light (spec only).
No postwork.
Seems to me, DS has come a long way in the past couple of years.
Hello!
Okay, I may just be blowing so much hot air here because I have virtually no experience compared to just about anybody else who's posted in this thread...but I've never been one to shirk away from an opportunity to stir things up and generate some new thinking.
I think "realism" is only one aspect to art. Any art. It's optional. It can be there or not. It can be there in small quantities or in great quantities.
* When we take pictures of the family holiday, sometimes things need fixing to return them to "reality". Film wasn't perfect, and neither is digital, so it doesn't matter how old the camera was. I just KNOW that umbrella's reds and yellows were a lot more vivid in real life!
* Conversely, I can stylize my photos with HDRI or a photo editing tool to make them more interesting. Maybe at the cost of "realism".
* With easily available consumer software, we now have the ability to write and record an entire symphony and use real instruments. Or virtual instruments that just sound real. Or we can completely substitute it all with a 1980's Moog synthesizer and do away with realism. Or we can use a virtual instrument that sounds like a Moog. Or a completely made-up instrument that doesn't even exist in reality. In each case, it's still a symphony!
* With our easily available consumer 3D authoring software, we can create pictures and movies. Interesting things, simple or complex. I have entire lighting rigs available to me now; all inside the box! We can choose whether or not to bring realism into our art. For me, some closeup renders might need some fixing or the "perfection" of digital would distract from my intended retinal targets. Even if the whole scene is outlandishly fictional or not even possible in the real world, sometime a work could benefit by some added realism. Or would that be "simulated realism?"
Anyway, that's what's on my mind right now. :-)
By the way, I saw some of the "realistic" render examples earlier in this thread. Amazing, truly amazing. I aspire to these, but maybe not for everything I do. Who wants to look at warts and blemishes on ALL of my characters? :roll:
Wow! What a talented artist, those drawings are just amazing.
As for realism, it is my opinion that art is my way of moving away from the real life and bringing something else to the table that adds color to something seen day in and day out. If I wanted ultra realism I would have been a photographer but that is not what I strive for, and thus here I am today a rather happy traditional sketch/3-D artist. Sure I did my time with drawing realistic anatomy, I studied the body, worked my way through the lines and curves of the muscles and bones and yet when I was finished I did not continue drawing that way. I made my own style, not just all me of course, but with the admiration that I had for other traditional artists. It is the same with Poser and Daz, I like to make art and to me that means giving the renders something a little extra post work. I prefer to add what details the rendering engine will not give me in photoshop. It doesn't mean that I believe that all should feel that way, or that I think anyone who just renders is not an artist.
Everyone has their own way. But when flaunting realism when using a non professional render engine you have got to be careful because as those above have posted, it is hard to fool someone who has been using these programs for so long, even other artists in other fields who are used to being critical can see the render in the image you posted.
Yes it is a really nice render, but does it stack up in realism to what you can see in the films? No not at all. But that is not because of your effort, it is all in your hardware.
Daz does a nice render for what it is meant for, so does Poser, but ultra realism in these programs takes a lot of knowledge in how to work with the lighting, surfaces, etc.
Do not take my critique as a personal attack because it is not, and your willingness to praise the Daz program is great. But take care in boasting on sites where artists dwell because even the greatest artists know that their work is not perfect in everyone's eyes.
You will find the artists who are going to be blunt when they tell you just where you may need to work on your stuff, it's not to be mean, but to be helpful believe it or not.
And then you will find artists who are going to say that their way is better, and that your work is not half as great as you boast it to be.
Just my opinion and such.
I don't aim for realism, I aim for fantasy and surrealism. If I wanted real, Id go outside for a bit. It takes all kinds tho.... art is art, and what any single person makes of it.
The OP's render is good... but I don't find it to be that realistic. The eyes are wrong, as you can tell they are reflection maps. Ive seen some incredibly realistic work in my time... where you can barely tell its 3D (but most of the time, I still can)
Reminds me of a quiz... http://www.creativebloq.com/3d/photo-or-3d-quiz-can-you-spot-difference-912874
I got 3 wrong.
I also got three wrong (80% correct), and they were all images of static things (flowers, the snake) that are easier to fake than human portraits thanks to effects like depth of field and IBL.
We are not easily fooled. :)
heh yeah I got the same ones wrong... I got the snake right, but the flower and a couple buildings tricked me (hungarian parliament building, and slovakian street) They are harder to tell apart. I think with humans, there's a souless feel to them, which is always tell-tale
Realism is in the eye of the beholder
I've seen my share of real people that have that feel to them
I've seen my share of real people that have that feel to them
LOL