PDA

View Full Version : Is photo-realism in the detail ??

pzanna
05-25-2007, 11:00 AM
Hi all,
I have spent the last few months working on a photo realistic female model and I'm beginning to think that I've been concentrating on the wrong things. I have watched so many tutorials and read so many articles on creating realistic skin, eyes, teeth and hair which go into the smallest details that I'm starting to wonder if its the detail that matters. When I look at the style of image I'm trying to create (glamour / fashion photos) they tend to highly modified (i.e. airbrushed) to the point where there is not a single pore or freckle or any specularity in sight - yet they still look real.

So, I guess my question is - is all the time spent on the perfect bump or spec map wasted? Is it more colour or lighting or overall form that is the key?

Thanks

Paul
JamesMK
05-25-2007, 12:53 PM
Is it more colour or lighting or overall form that is the key?
I'd say it's mostly about form, followed by lighting/shading. There will be a lot of different opinions on this matter, but I believe that detail is something that should be added only to improve on something that's "already there" so to speak.

A simple test: google a photo of some random person. Throw it into Photoshop and desaturate it. Now add tons of gaussian blur all over it. Even though all detail has been wiped out, and there's no colour anywhere, you can still veeeeery easily see that it's a photo - simply from how the whites/blacks/gradients are distributed. In other words, the overall shape and shading is quite enough to make it obvious it's real, and not a painting or render.

Subtle detail can make good stuff better, but a hyperdetailed skin texture will not do much to help a bad model with poor lighting and shading.



.
CGTalk Moderation
05-25-2007, 12:53 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.