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
In order to overcome the urge to make my renders look photoreal, I have to achieve it. Then I will go for cel-shaded renders.
Pooches playing poker, now thaz art :D
not gonna say never, but cant imagine hanging a vicki render print on my wall
i always thought Art is the short form of Arthur
there are no bad pictures or photos
its just you thinking it
just your sort of label
or to what rules you are referring to ?
If art is what makes you wonder about life and inspires you then photographs of space and especially those photographs of earth from space or of space from Hubble are the best examples of art for me. Nothing in a museum or artbook comes close.
I'd say it depends on where you're coming from. I'm a coder with focus on 3D Graphics. Getting (moving) photoreal graphics, where you cannot tell the difference is something I'm striving for. It's less about artistic style for me, but the opposite. Better to say, trying to reproduce nature, is my kind of art. :)
@nDelphi:
where is this site?
what I always wanted to do was create pinup and fantasy pinup photography art combining creatures I sculpted with models posed wearing costumes/outfits in fantasy and scifi scenes as well as the normal pinup stuff and did and still do photo manipulations but this with daz is so much easier, quicker and cheaper then hiring paying someone to model for me, buying props, costumes making sculpting creatures not to mention locations and with daz I can pretty much get things set up how I want too saves a lot of headaches plus I can either use from a wide range of premade characters or alter them to create unique looking people/characters using various morphs and products like skin builder even make them look like actual people might know or take it even further and actually add a real person and cgi them via headshop and there's other programs too can do this recreated a few friends and family and modeled them into scenes that just can't do normally via photography or very hard to do which they and others have loved and in a way is bringing fantasies to life in a way having a fantasy/pinup image done of them
I think people will want to look if it's real or not. Although I had art professors who hated photo-realist painters and said they were less talented than dentists who made ceramic teeth. This isn't the most "real" render but it was done by one guy with Blender and I was pretty impressed when I first looked at it, and I still am now.
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?372859-Tyrion
here's a good example from the daz facebook page where's if you recreated this via a real photography project it would probably cost more time and money hiring a model finding the costumes and cost either rent, buy or making it as well as the gun then going out on location getting the lighting right extra whereas it is much easier to recreate in daz and similar programs oh btw really liked this image daz
https://www.facebook.com/DAZ3D.FanPage/photos/np.1446562261443585.703997693/10153649462240540/?type=3¬if_t=notify_me_page
What originally got me to restart my interest in CGI is trying to come up with artwork for a self-made RPG supplement. And, well, a fair price for art is well outside the 'I may never sell more than 12 copies' scope.
Doing it myself is WAY more affordable. Although, as it turns out, I enjoy doing it more than writing, so hey.
I personally find hyper-realism boring in a render. That said, a certain understanding of real world lighting techniques can help with your image. With GI or un-biased renderers, you can literally use real world techniques, such as reflectors to light your subjects, just as they do in movies and photo studios. The lighting in those situations is just as un-real, and designed to evoke a mood or provide separation from a background/backdrop as any light in Studio, Carrara, LW, Blender, etc. etc. It is all un-realistic.
I find it interesting that some people find realistic renders boring/not good.
It takes so much to get to a point where it looks realistic and convincing, there is so much to learn about the real world in order to be able to mimic it. If one has really achieved that, which is super difficult, and on humans it is uber difficult as we are very very sensitive in noticing if something is human or not, how can that be bad? It's actually an achievement not many people are able to get at all.
For most renders it takes less than a second to realize that this is a render. I think I can say that often before I have the chance to think about the image, my brain has already decided that this is not natural. If I need a couple of seconds to realize, or even more, you got much further than most ever do or will.
Yes, but, Mork, the question becomes... why? WHY do you want to make something hyper-realistic?
That is the question someone needs to ask themselves when doing the artwork. What's the end-goal?
If you want to do it to create something that looks like a photograph, that drives certain decisions. If you want an amusing surreal angle of 'looks real but that's impossible,' that drives slightly divergent decisions. And so on.
tl;dr:
Because to me, that is a legit kind of art and it is something I, as someone whos hobby it is to build 3d worlds, strive for.
To explain:
I grew up with games consisting of green text on a tiny black screen. Ever since then I wanted to have graphics that look like real - that's partially the reason why I became a coder - it has been a long way and we're still not there by far.
Therefore, if one creates CG that mimics nature, with the limited ressources that we have, but it still looks convincing, that is a kind of art to me. As I know what it takes to get there, part of it analyzing nature, digging into or developing really really complex formulas and whatnot, to me, personally, I value such things very high. (Note that I'm usually thinking about moving CG, where ressources are even more limited, not still images only) If you pull a render out of DAZ, where I can't tell the difference to a photo, that is art to me on its own, because all those sliders and buttons and textures still won't make it even close to being easy for you. Not to mention that, when you strive for realism, it is very easy to miss your goal, so it just looks wrong and awful in the end.
Now, anyone can say: "meh, that's not art", or even "that's easy to do". But try to do it, then we talk again. :) Because, actually, it is super hard to make it convincing, to put nature into formulas that are still fast enough to compute, be it in a render or in realtime graphics, or being able to do so at all. On the other hand, in CG, it is pretty easy to make something look "unnatural", in the sense of it is not looking like in real life, because that's where we are coming from, no extra effort needed, if you know what I'm trying to say. By no way I want to say those things are bad in any way, the opposite is true, but they fail to meet the requirements when and only if the goal is: create a perfect copy of nature - which is only one goal out of many legit ones.
Again, I don't say that everything else, that is not photo/hyper/super realistic, is not art! But that there are different kinds and oppinions of what is art and multiple, very different things, can all be art in the end on their own.
I very much like a lot of the renders others do, often because they're doing something I'd never try to do and they do it impressive in their own way. Most of the time that is not art in the sense of creating a perfect copy of nature, but in a different way. In the end, it's art as well and it's not worth more or less than anything else. "Same same, but different". :)
To answer you question about the end-goal:
When you want to make something realistic, your end-goal is obviously to make it realistic. ;)
To be more serious: Should an artist question himself, or be questioned, why he wants to explain his creativity in a certain way? Really don't know.
But I can tell you that my goal is to create the matrix (w/o those evil guys), if you want to put it in an ultimate way. :) You enter a virtual world and you cannot tell a difference to the real one. Of course that is something I won't achieve in my lifetime and also not in the next one, if there is one, but I keep trying nonetheless. Because it makes me look at nature (in a broad sense) much closer than I would do normally, discovering things I would probably never have realized. Nature is amazing, even more when you look very close at all the details. And in order to copy it, you have to look at it really close in many aspects. And, to cite someone famous: "Not because it is easy, but because it is hard." And it's fun. :)
I'm tired of renders that look like renders, spit out of Iray or 3Delight or Lux or Octane, no postwork, it looks like someone said "eh, close enough" (they made the "eh" noise too, really)
I think questioning yourself helps illuminate your process, and that is likely to help you consider options and directions you may have overlooked before.
Why does anyone want to make art?
My own short answer is: to see if I can. Yours, and likely everyone elses will contain some of that, but also so much more.
There's a difference between hyper-realism and something that doesn't look like a render.
It's also a matter of personal taste and preferences. For instance, I have seen people spend hours on creating still-life renders, and I have been in art classes with sections on doing still life paintings, drawings, etc. Sure, it takes skills to compose and illustrate a still life in traditional media, just as it does in CG, but you know what? I still think still life images of any kind are perhaps the most boring and uninteresting pieces of art out there. Bar none. But that's just my opinion.
Of course I understand that here are talking about still images / art ... But looking at the other side, the films, which in the end are sequences of still photographs ...
I hear, I can not prove it, that movies like "Indiana Jonas and the Crystal Skull" had rendered scenes in Vue,
and the special effects used in the movie avatar too (no in Vue) ... But that's another line of thinking is composition
I like images which tell stories. A lot of photorealism art is more portrait-ike and therefor less interesting to me for this reason. I don't find still images or close-up of 3d figres to be interesting visually.
What resonates in an image, is more than one character, some interaction, a story, use of props, light, and such. That is what I enjoy looking at, but everyone's visual interest is different.
some people take this like engeneers do
the "i can do that yeah" stance
other like painters that try to communicate an emotion or a message
others (like me ) just playing with their toys and see what comes out
but do not discuss about Art
he does not like that
I want to make art because I hate doing housework. I, for one, do not want my renders to look real.
Art, like history, is subjective.
I agree with the OP. Maybe not the tone, maybe I wouldn't bother telling this community either. (the poserverse is very much it's own niche and not respective of the greater art world. Some parallels, but largely dissimilar)
It's not nearly as hard as people pretend to make "photoreal" stuff with the assets that are available these days. We are a flooded with decent stuff people can now make in a few seconds with no skill of their own, leveraging the skills of the content creators.
Its boring as sin. But in the long run it will work out. As people bore of this, some will stop, others will push to do something that sticks out. It may be photoreal with more purpose than simply being "photoreal". it may be they take on a style. Maybe they tell a story.
This current phase of photoreal in this sub-set of the art community is just that. Won't last forever. Style lasts forever :)
I can go on for days about this, but I'll close with saying everyone has different standards on photoreal too. I never take it literally. So my comments are tied to that as well. I actually don't think literally photoreal stuff is easy. Most people see something sorta realistic and go "oooh, so real".
Shooting for CGI renders that literally trick people into thinking their photos is really rare for people to do in this space. People being expressive tend not to go for photoreal.
There's nothing boring trying to get something looking hyper-real. I have done it. The last time I tried was with the Olympia Cityscape. That set doesn't even have DAZ Studio material presets. You have to work on the Poser ones to get them looking right in DAZ Studio. I worked on them and the result was so great that someone on the "post your Iray renders" thread had to look twice because he/she thought she was looking at reference photos.
For some unknown reason to me, my posts containing these renders were removed from the mentioned Iray thread.
I post some of them here again. Checkout the promos for this product and compare to see what I did.
how about a photgraph that looks like a render
I've often looked at the sky and thought 'man, that's unrealistic. Oh.'
Skies do funky things sometimes.
Like, in the last month the sky seriously looked badly pixelated. MATRIX TIME