Daz and Poser Stylistically
nelsonsmith
Posts: 1,337
A comment was made on a post that Daz3d was becoming primarily a software for people thriving for "photo-realism" while poser was more for the aritistic look.
I thought about that, and determined that while it might not have anything to do with photo-realism vs artistic, there does (or did) seem to be a difference in the basic style of Daz renders as compared to Poser renders. I still see a lot of poser renders that are immediately identifiable by the uncanny valley expressions on the models, or the way the clothing seems to fit. This seems to be common with much of the promo art you see on Daz with items using V4 and genesis. The strange thing is that when one searches for items on the other sites such as Renderosity or RuntimeDNA, some of the most photo-realistic models you can find are for Poser only.
So are the look of the renders in each program a stylistic thing, or rather a software issue, or a mixture of both? And if it is a stylistic concern, do the programs even need to try and stay compatible as they evolve?
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
Realism or lack there of is always a result of the end users skills and abilities no matter which program or render engine they use.
Realism has never been a particular goal of mine, but what makes something look real to me is the proportions, the lighting, the expression and a number of other factors. I think that can be achieved in either program, although I personally feel v4 is getting a bit long in the tooth, I think people can make amazing things with her.
I'm just starting to get into realism. I used to go out of my way in Photoshop to make things NOT look real, to look more artistic or stylized. I think DAZ does better realism for big sets and environments and even G3 characters at a distance. But Poser and V4 can do some great realistic closeup portraits, but can't get the realism for environments that IRay produces.
I have to disagree a bit. While it's true that skill or talent plays a big part, that skill or talent are what will make the renders look less like poser/DS renders and more like high end CGI and more distinctve The biggest issue is that most that use either software are used to plug and play content and setups and as such their results will showcase what the software does best and as such, make it more noticable to those that are used to what either software produces. Thinks have gotten better as it used to be pretty obvious in most cases what was a poser, firefly render and what was a DS, 3DLelight render. now that we have Iray and cycles, it is harder to judge when it comes to lighting, but content tends to be the bigger giveaway now. I really admire artists that kitbash and create their own content and make it harder to pinpoint what apps were used for the final image.
then you have the few that use renders as just a base and postwork the crap out of it till the finished image is almost totally different than the original render, which can really showcase an artists skill in many more ways.
The initial thesis is flawed. Both programs can do either style with either of their rendering engines. Some used to say that DS renders were horrible because of 3DL w/o knowing that the version of 3DL in use was the same as used in the feature films. Then you had some saying that Poser renders were horrible because the Firefly "Look" was aways there, without realizing that the "look" was just using the defaults.
In actuality, the amount of effort put into the composition will determine the "quality" of the art. In the early DS renders, users were using only the headlamp and not anything else, and the Poser users were all using just the base lights provided and nothing else. Slapping a figure into a scene, then putting some clothing onto it, then clicking render will get exactly what you think it will get. However, DS and Poser *ALLOW* that to be done. That "ease" of composition doesn't exist in the other "professional" packages, so the user MUST put more effort into the work -- it doesn't mean that it will look good, I've seen way too many Maya "fruit platters" that look like "blech!" from University Students to say that. However, DS and Poser allow the amateur to quickly slap together a scene and publish it without the need to know what "good composition" is.
Most DS and Poser users have no clue about framing, correct lighting, body mechanics, etc, yet they put out "art" because it is easy and can look relatively good with little pain. But the amount of effort and knowlege of the user will be evident. Trying to set up a scene in Maya, by definition, is a lot of work just to get anything to "not be black."
Both packages are tools, and either can do fantastic realism, fantastic stylized, or plain fantastic fails.
Kendall
I use Daz studio and octane render for stylized renders. Yep octane render. Cause ultimately as others have said, both are just tools. It is up to the user to execute thier vision, assuming they have one to begin with.(if you don't have your own vision it's easy to be steered by whatever you buy and you see sold. and a lot of casuals are influenced heavily by what is sold. some people get their inspiration elsewhere.)