The Photorealism Obsession

[AdamT]

Originally posted by dandavis
More and more lately, I'm seeing a trend that everyone seems to be striving for photorealism in their renders. I can see the importance of this aspect of 3D but don't really understand the obsession.

My question to you is this: Do you, as a 3D artist, consider realism the ultimate goal in your work?

If not, what is your goal? Is it the story behind the render? Is it to showcase your skills? Technical or artistic perfection? Let's hear your story.

dano

No long story here. My goal is to create the picture inside my head. More often than not it's photorealistic, but not always. Sometimes I work at photorealism as an exercise--I guess because the picture in the head isn't always so clear.

[miketche]

Photorealism always gets the ooohs and aaahs. Everybody loves praise.

But I agree, I usually have an image or idea in my head that I want to recreate. Sometimes it vears toward realism but not always.

[Beechdbum]

right now my goal is to make my charcters have more personallity and feeling

[Thierry HL]

It is true, but the photorealist is a very good exercise, to understand how functions the software and texture and more. Then one needs a little imagination. It is my opinion

sorry for for my english

[Thomas S Nelson]

I see it as a style variant; a demographic target, another genre. A cartoon style done well, is as stylistically recognizable and technically demanding as a photorealistic style. It is theme and variation, emphasizing some aspects over others. Photo realism is very challenging. It is relatively easily critiqued, ubiquitous and glamourously productized and presented to us throughout the media; print, video, film. Personal realism is something else and much more difficult to attain.
Currently I am trying to have a skill set that can accomodate whatever work is required of me. I like the technical and aesthetic challenges. However, I feel that I do 3D as an Artist that happens to do 3D, not as a 3D artist.
Time permitting, I have several projects that I keep returning too. Currently, most of my work is more craft than art.

Thomas

[LucentDreams]

In moy own work I"m definitely not a photorealism guy, illustration and cel animation are my forte, but I always have an inaterest in realism all the same.

[STRAT]

i am an architectural artist, an personally i strive for photorealism.

[squidinc]

its impressive when you see a render thats photorealisic, like a teapot, jars or something but to me I don't really see the point of taking the time to make an image like that, I think mainly because if I wanted an image of a photorealistic teapot or whatever, I'd take a photo of one, I prefer making stuff thats cartoony or stuff that looks real but doesn't exist :)

[DELTAadmin]

I simply want to reflect reality as seen around me.
Wether it is art or not, I do not know, even I do not bother myself with questions like this.

I decided to copy the great Universe, it has enogh beauty in itself, God is the greates Artist who works till now, and as I observe His creatures I can see all kinds of beauty. I 've seen enough monsters to hate them. If man had the ability to create he would create monsters as seen most often in movies, stills generated by a virtual reality generator that is a 3D app.

It should not lead to the thought that U do not have artistic freedom, U have, but I think we should strive to grasp something out the greater beauty, as mentioned above.

[DELTAadmin]

properly "something out of the greater..."

[B-A-R]

I agree with thierry about this one. It's a great excercise !!

What is photorealistic ??
Is it recreating a picture or a scene in a way you couldn't tell the difference between real and render ??
So how about recreating a picture or a scene from a comic book...Is this also photorealistic ??

You wil have to ask yourself the question, "what do i want to show people, or who am i rendering for" A building could look great in cartoon style render..if it is created for an architect to show shapes and shadow castings etc.. However people want to know how its really going to look, so you'l have to make it more photorealistic.

[sebek27]

its impressive when you see a render thats photorealisic, like a teapot, jars or something but to me I don't really see the point of taking the time to make an image like that, I think mainly because if I wanted an image of a photorealistic teapot or whatever, I'd take a photo of one, I prefer making stuff thats cartoony or stuff that looks real but doesn't exist

absolutely right on squidnic ! i feel the same way. I do love seeing photorealism and myself thrive for this with my first car, but I think the best art is creating things that look real but don't exist in real life, that's when an artist truly shows off his/her talent IMO since they are creating something out of their head instead of doing something which can be filmed or taken a picture off.

edit: I just wanted to add that I love looking at photoreal work and envy it a lot but i love looking at creations that never exist a bit more.

[fxgogo]

Photorealism is one of many styles that exist in our potential digital brushes. I feel that the huge amount of photorealistic pictures and animations being attempted is a result of all the growth in the 'rendering technology' that has been offered to us. But this is a phase that will pass. Sure there will always be loads of people doing photorealistic work, but on the horizon sits the next big rendering hurdle, non-photorealistic renderers. A few examples of these exist, but mark my words, you will soon see loads and loads of people doing non-photorealistic renders. The next Fad if you will.

[knight42]

Most of the work I'm doing is still learning, so sometimes I'll try for a photo-realistic thing, or just "real-looking", or just for the modelling practice. I don't do much myself but "3D art" can be fun. The current WIP in my sig is art rather than photo-real.

I've done some low-poly modelling for a comic-strip type sequence recently which definitely wasn't photo-real, but I also did a bit of compositing which was real-looking (we don't get six-foot Lego men digging up the road in my neighbourhood :)).

Photo-realistic is cool when you can do it, but I like realistic too, when something just looks like what it's supposed to be.

I don't know, perhaps when I'm alot better at it I'll think differently!

J

[ThirdEye]

I've always been a 100% realism guy. When i was a child i was a car lover (you know there were bikes lovers, car lovers like me...) and i've drawn (more or less) 30 cars using a pencil (and yes, they were quite good imo, a lot of people always accused me of overlaying the sheet and the real photo to follow the contours). Then i lost the car passion but my main goal has always been the creation. You know... You feel like a demi-god when you're able to create something and give others the illusion of reality, you feel like "hey my character is living!!!". I don't know what i'll model next, 2 cars are enough, i think i'll go back to organic modeling, but my aim will always be realism. Sadly i lost my interest for toons when i was a child :hmm: There was a Softimage ad that once said something like "we're not kids anymore, but we still like to play", that's my spirit too. :)

[tomphillips]

Photo-realism is definitely what drives me in my 3D work. Even when i draw with a pencil i still strive to match reality as much as that medium will allow. So i guess it follows on that given the tools to make something that does look real, that's what I'd want to do.
I do appreciate other styles in 3D. A friend of mine mainly does abstract work, which I really enjoy as an observer but I would be in-capable of doing it myself. I like 'fantasy-photoreal' as well, making something that doesn't yet exist but making it look so convincing it's as if someone has been to another planet and taken a photo. Dan, who started this thread, has done a series recently with robots that on site look real, but a sense of reality says that they can't be. i definitely think that creating that sort of 'grey area' is a worthy skill in itself.

Tom.

[dandavis]

Well, I must say that I'm very pleased that this thread has generated this amount of interest. I'm always curious about what drives the rest of you. While some of my renders have leaned towards the photo-real spectrum (kinda :) ), it really never is my intention for them to be that way. I personally enjoy the act of creation the most. Being able to imagine a scene in my head, and then bring it to life.

Thirdeye and tomphillips have taken this to new levels and I VERY much enjoy their work but I also love the work of squid and the rest of you who have taken the time to respond to this.

First and foremost, the emphasis should be on composition, color and technique.

I'm very fortunate to be able to do this as my job, especially when I'm surrounded by artists who are infinately more talented than myself. I'm only beginning to scratch the surface of my artistic side as most of my "paid renders" are absolutely technically conceived.

Just have some fun, guys, because ultimately, that's what it's all about, right?

dano

[Brucie Rosch]

I go for believability... so even though the images aren't realistic, does everything work together to create a plausable image or scene? I look for things that don't look right or like they don't belong and try to make it all fit.

[Cinema1954]

It depends a lot on what you're trying to accomplish. Obviously, if you're working on something to composite into an existing environment, then it has to be as realistic as possible, or at least as realistic as that environment.

Perhaps a better criterion is consistency. If you're doing the Simpsons, your level of detail and realism needs to be consistent with that genre. A highly stylized science fiction piece can certainly be detailed and self-consistent without necessarily being realistic. A Giger illustration may not be photorealistic, but if you want to duplicate it, you certainly don't want stretched textures and knife-edged objects.

Photorealism is a way of developing the skills needed to be able to handle whatever gets thrown at you.

[archrendr]

I don't object to photorealism itself. A boring camera snapshot (however "realistic") is just that and it is just as true for 3d renders. As 3d software becomes more and more capable of 'realism', the temptation is great to see what it will do. That much seems pretty natural to me. 3D is still very new to me so how I use it is evolving - however - I like light and I respond to light in a rendering /3d scene that is convincing but which also tells me something in an unexpected way or reveals some new characteristic. I have about zero interest in competing for the most realistic model and render of guns, swords, robots, monsters, cars, spaceships but prefer a subject and render that demands something more of me in poetic and artistic terms - something more like the way I experience life. As a beginner, I know that if I can approach the photorealistic then I will have the tools to bend the rules for a more poetic kind of effect. I often try to tease out the beauty of the unexpected in the everday but not try to faithfully re-create it. I prefer a certain amoutnt of disorder in a scene where the light can unify it in a very subtle way and suggest realism. Scenes that are too tidy are also too boring to me. I can't relate to that kind of order. Altho I work mostly on architectural related projects as learning exercises for my 'day job', I also like working with light on the human form. I am not a modeling purist either and I have no apology for using premade objects in my renders - including the occasional Poser figure - or whatever else comes to hand - that is what is realism for me.

[dandavis]

Hi archrendr, I agree with you ALMOST 100%. I to have little interest in cars, guns, swords (well maybe robots ;) ) but think that when they are well done, they deserve some credit. These things can be very demanding on your skills, especially when you are not copying a photo but designing and creating it all yourself. BTW, I really like your architectural renders I've seen at Renderosity and don't comment nearly enough anymore. I've grown tired of looking at alot of the things that I see there, ie: guns and swords, and prefer to mostly just stay in the shadows these days (that could change at any time so don't hold me to it). Anyway, keep up the good work. Looking forward to some new stuff from you.

dano

[flingster]

personally its not really important...i'm more impressed by artistic skills...be they being able to depict the 3d world realistically enough that the viewer believes the image to be a photo...or as someone mentioned fantasy real...something that you know is alien in nature but to realistic to disbelieve...all these skills i admire....however i'm also great admirer of traditional artistic skills.

if i could do photoreal i don't think it would be the way i would go solely...its impressive technically....and just as impressive artistically....but surely the subject defines the image...(thats for art theory classes everywhere)....if your subject or inspiration demands photoreal..then make it photoreal...if it doesn't use some other artistic technique/method.

My take would...be whatever yanks your goat...heh heh.
just make sure you ENJOY IT...

[That Adrian Guy]

I like making cartoons as photorealistic as possible.


I'm surprised there aren't more like me.

Oh wait... there is squid and pupii.

[MJV]

For me, being able to achieve photo realism is everything. It is the ultimate objective of 3D software. The better and faster and easier that I can achieve it, the better I regard the software as being. Once I can achieve photo realism, I can achieve anything. And then I can back away from or edge toward it to any degree I desire.

[bobtronic]

I like to obtain a more painted look in my works.
I do like photorealism also but its not my goal.
For me the main advantage of 3D software lies
in animation. To do all the complex movings
(camera, actors, lights...) in classic 2D is sometimes
impossible. Though I am a big cartoon and manga
lover.

Bob

[JIII]

bottom line if its good enough I don't really care what the subject matter is.

[archrendr]

Hi again, thanks dandavis- nice words and it is appreciated. I do not mean that the excellent models and renders of the subjects I mentioned are not worthwhile. So many of them are really accomplishments for me to work to attain - technically. I meant no offense to anyone. They deserve recognition and it seems that those particular subjects benefit most from hyperealism. But I feel I have to start somewhere - so I go for what I know because I feel I can get the most effect from what I have affinity for. I've learned considerable from models I would never attempt to model or render. Robots included ;) MJV here has some really excellent ideas and info - for me.
best wishes - really nice thread here - glad I found it.
arch

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.