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
That looks even closer to Chris now. nice work. :)
One of my favorite stock photos is of a girl, 8-10 yo, in a yard captured durimg the golden hour with the sun behind her. The intensity of the sun is so great that her arm does glow like in that render. The difference is she has bones in her arms, and they cast "shadows" in the SSS.
So it's not just me! Thanks! Just to be sure, does it also look less caricatured? In any case, with that last render, thought it was time to update my unposed study portraits, and these were the results.
Gregorius,
These are getting much closer. At this stage I can see the main issue is the chin. Just as an experiment I'd be curious what it would appear like if you lowered the size of the chin to half its current size? I know this seems drastic and may end up being too much but I think making it smaller by a considerable degree would be ideal. Great work!
Yeah, those are much closer.
Still need to reduce the cheekbones a bit more Greg. They are too much out there still!
https://www.google.com/search?q=christopher+reeve&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=jI6UE6QCUGzt8M%3A%2CdU7HDa1hUjRMFM%2C_&usg=__Dn3SfODEwMuPFS-W6qkfGmQbr2E=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLwdGkiZzbAhVDNH0KHSh1AKYQ_h0ImgIwGw#imgdii=EfmMzxjX1x5T_M:&imgrc=xmUqvt80xVb3uM:
OKay, so the consensus seems to be that my Chris Reeve portraits are at least much better than previous renditions in terms of realism (assuming that "closer" also entails "less caricatured/cartoonish"). The funny thing is that I didn't change the morph at all. In fact, as an experiment, the last two renders have had it back at full strength (i.e. dialed to 1 instead of 0.75 or 0.875). The main issue turned out to be what Saldaz said a page ago in response to a question from Magnumdaz about camera distance. I've used Poser's default "Face Camera" settiings since forever, assuming that the makers knew what they were doing, but apparently they didn't. It turns out that the camera I was using for the head shots was at least three feet closer than it should've been, which caused a substantial fish-eye effect. Of course, I adjusted the focal distance so that the images at the different distances would be otherwise comparable, and the difference was striking!
Ironically, RAM, that very picutre that you pointed out is one of the ones that suggest to my eye that I've got the chin and cheeks just about right, so maybe it's just an ambiguous angle or something. I already started a render before receiving these latest comments, and it's still in the works (trans-mapped hair takes forever in Poser), but after it's done I'll tinker with the chin and probably the cheekbones as well and then post the experimental results. In the meantime, let's take a break from Christopher Reeve with updated renders of a couple of female characters. These two images are not of the same face, but the textures/shaders are the same (and the hair, just 'cause I really like this hair set). Thoughts?
Looks good. Looks less of a caricature/cartoony. You fixed the bad plastic surgery.
Well no, hiding inaccuracies while it might trick people into believing you've make improvements doesn't change the fact the inaccuracies are still there and that you haven't made improvements. Sorry, if you want to improve then you need to improve the geometry to be more accurate, not just hide the inaccuracies with lighting and camera angles.
If you don't want to make improvements than I fail to see why you are posting more renders of the same unchanged models you already have extensive opinions on.
Am I hiding the flaws in the geometry or correcting an error that created the illusion of those flaws? I'm not saying it's necessarily perfect, but it seems clear that poor camera settings were responsible for at least a large proportion of the problem which has so far been attributed purely to the morph.
I'm pretty sure we see this effect in real life. Heck, I think the cinematic "wide angle" shot relies on it. Put a camera too close to a person's face without making the right lens adjustment(s), and you'll see the same fish-eye effect that I discovered in my renders. Also, the lighting hasn't changed, so there's no trickery there. Not even the camera angle is really any different. It's still pointing at the figure's head from the same direction and at the same orientation. The only things that have changed are the physical distance between the figure and the camera as well as the focal distance of the camera's lens.
I wonder if it might help to settle this if someone else were to download my Christopher Reeve morph from ShareCG themselves and play around with it a bit. To whatever extent the problem is inherent to the morph itself, that will likely reveal itself in how much of the caricatured/cartoonish look emerges in the hands of a completely different user. I'm really not trying to be stubborn. I'm just trying to make sure I attack the problem at the right source. After all, if I correct for the exaggeration of poor camera settings in the geometry itself, all I'll end up doing is creating an overly subdued morph that only looks right under rather specific and unlikely camera conditions.
Also, do these "inaccuracies" detract from the overall realism or just the specific likeness of the target person? The distinction is important, at least to me. The use of the term "inaccuracies" suggests the latter, but then again, the record of prior comments on my work simultaneously suggests that I shouldn't be too quick to assume that.
Upload it and let us have a go. I will try both your morph making changes & I will do a separate FaceGen morph and then we can see the difference easier. LOL, what you are doing is not easy, do don't take our criticicism the wrong way it's intended to help you get closer to an accurate likeness not to discourage your from trying. So then I promise not to cheat and use the FaceGen morph to align me attempt at morph dials only to try and get as close as you have.
I do have RareStone's morph kits for G8M & G8F and the DAZ Originals Face morphs for G8F & G8M. I have no other set of face morphs that aren't part of a character like Ollie 8.
I honestly don't think your main problem is the morph, but the main issues that I see are with the textures/skins.
Here's your Chris Reeve morph on G8M. The texture is Edward 8's and adjusted with Altern8. His expression was created with PowerPose.
While the morph is a little extreme, and with less realistic textures those extremes stand out a bit more, the main issue I see (and this is just my opinion), but your skin needs a lot of work before it approaches realism.
Again, that's just my opinion, and these things are probably pretty subjective. :)
Nonesuch00, as Diva has already shown, the morph is already linked above. I used Rarestone's morphs extensively in creating it, so I'm very familiar with them (though the morph was first shaped on a masculinized G8F and then transfered to G8M, 'cause at the time, Rarestone's counterparts for G8M were either unavailable or too costly). Don't worry about discouraging me. It's going to take alot worse than what I've so far gotten before I feel anything more than momentary discouragement. I know you're all trying to help, : )
Diva, wow! He looks far more different than I thought he would! Could you please be more specific about the textures? In the meantime, I've got a render in the works with reduced chin and cheekbones, so stay tuned!
Yes, these things are more subjective than you might thnk. You think my skin needs alot of work, while at least one person over at the Smith Micro forum seems to think I "nailed it" in that latest female close-up (and I made it pretty clear that I'm aiming for photo-realism). Sometimes it's hard to know whose feedback will ultimately get you closer to a truly convincing image. It's probably wise in general to err on the side of the more critical commentary, but this does come with the risk of inadvertently compromising whatever it was that earned you the more positive comments.
Honestly, the quest for convincing photo-realism would probably be much easier if there was more consistency in the responses.
OK, I downloaded. I am painting now but I will give it a try by Monday.
As Divamakeup showed in her render the morph is strongest around the eyes but gets weaker on the nose and chin.
In the meantime, here's a test of what he looks like with reduced cheekbones and chin.
I don't want this to be a "Gregorius only thread" so I don't leave much feedback (because other people have already given you a TON of feedback).
You want my opinion - start with some high res high-quality skin photos and create a good skin texture base. I see some improvement in your skin from when you started but it's still (imo) far away from photorealism and I'm not sure you're going to get there with what you're currently doing. BOTH the morph and the texture isn't close to photorealism (again that's just my opinion). But the morph, imo, is the least of your worries. Once you get an actual photorealistic skin, the morph will only be icing on the cake. As I think you can fudge an "ok" morph as long as you have photorealistic skin. I've very rarely (if ever) have seen the opposite. Getting the skin photorealistic should probably be your main focus, imo. Once you get that you can worry about morphs.
But again, I'm not sure what exactly you're doing, but I don't think it's getting you much closer than when you started. I HIGHLY recommend doing what PAs do and start with high-quality high res skin photos and create textures from that (or start with a good quality Merchant Resource skin set where someone has already done that legwork). You just can't fudge the look of real skin.
I agree 100% with Divamakeup. The morph isn't the problem. The skin is simply not photorealistic.
Diva's textures on your morph look great. Granted, her render shows the figure at a further distance from the camera, which makes it easier to approach photorealism (imo). However, her skin shows age-approriate wrinkles, color variation and non-blurry marks that add character. Plus the slight smirk and eyelid droop, a subtle expression, help trick the subconscious into thinking 'real'. The absence of hair in her render seems believable given the figure's age and gender, and doesn't give the mind the chance to latch onto the must un-photorealistic aspect of nearly all renders (hair/eyes).
Most don't criticize because of the old saying, 'if you don't have anything nice to say'. However I think rawart said it best: 'No one has ever grown from listening to praise, the critiques are what will help you see where you need to grow...if you take the time to look'.
I hope you don't get discouraged tho. Eventually you'll reach your goal. And btw if you wanted your superman to be in a pixar-like film, I'd say you have reached the goal already, as he's very believable in that regard.
I did exactly that, unless this resource isn't what you'd call "high-res" or "good quality."
Well Reeve's skin was very clear and you should be able to get a good clear skin with no beard stubble in the DAZ Store. That is the other thing, you are presenting an older Reeve as his Superman role but he was younger in those days and while I didn't see Reeve in a lot of movies I can't recall seeing him with beard stubble ever. They presented him as very clean cut as Superman.
Also, geomtery vs skin textures will it's not an either or case. They both carry a lot of weight and it is the geometry that is usually built 1st before the skin textures are created because of the UV map and painting the textures. You want to paint the face when the geometry is completed and correct if you don't go the route of buying a similar skin texture set. Buying a similar skin texture set will always get you a close but no cigar but lucky Reeve's skin is clear so that'll help you if you do buy rather than paint.
True, bit remember, I tend to focus on the younger crowd, so it's not quite a straightforward comparison. Granted, even a youth's skin may not be as smooth as my characters' skin obviously appears to at least you and Diva, but it might be more efficient to compare my renders to actual studio portraits of twenty-somethings. Also, with that last "adds character" bit, it's starting to sound like much of the problem may be that the textures are too generic. Would that be fair to say?
It seems to have a ton of lighting baked in. Even reflections on the eyes. So no, not particularly high quality.
I agree with you. Gregorius should start his own thread. He is just making this thread a daily/weekly update on his morphs.
Yes. After seeing it so much, it's hard to put a finger on what exactly I don't like about the texture. Generic, a little 'blurry', single-colorish, unflawed. I wish I could be more specific but I lack the skill, so please just take my comments as pure opinion, just one opinion among many.
Cheekbones look allot better!
When I was first trying my hand as face morphs I had a tendency to really push those out too far too until I realized that unless the person has fake cheekbones or is really gaunt and they just protrude like that I started toning them down. Now when I'm out to coffee with friends I really notice that ALLOT of men are not gifted with robust sticky outy cheekbones, allot of the times just the opposite and yet they are still very handsome.
Thanks all... I will admit a huge component of my formula for these renders is indeed the lighting. These are all done using a single Spot Light with a Rectangle or Disc light geometry setting of around 60 by 60. I typically position the light with the same transforms as the camera. I've unfortunately found very little success (from a realism perspective) using other lighting schemes... Jeff.
Here's a spin-off thread dedicated to my project. Hope to see you there!
Jeff, Firstly thanks for chiming in. Though your post isnt very long it does make a few statements that I think thread viewers need to keep in mind. Much of this I've stated in other threads in discussions with Jeff but I think it bears repeating again here at this stage in the thread.
1. You had to identify the aspects of the Daz Models and Daz texturing trends that detract from realism under normal lighting and staging conditions. This includes weakneeses in the eye modeling as well as common texture construction shortcomings. This is a smart first step and to my mind the main step missing for most of us as we endeavor on this quest. Better identificatin of "what's wrong" is the only way to devise tricks to solve it.
2. Secondly you made the decision either consciously or unconsciously to mimic camera effects, which while similar to cornea effects are not entirely the same. By embracing the artifacts of a camera and its "errors" such as chromatic abberation and other effects are used to create a context where the target model can exist within. it is in the specificity of this "context" that the magic emerges in my opinion.
3. You openly admit that the the results are not based on luck, but on a set of tricks or even techniques which you admit that the formulation you are using now is not terribly robust, which means that only slight changes to any aspect of the formula and the effects doesnt reach the goal. There are constraints.
4. The shots appear mundane, not as if they are driven by an artistic need to "make a statement." That lack of obvious commentary actually lends itself to realism more than anything since realism is usually not purposefully staged. Not that there is no commentary, just that you arent banging us over the head with it. To put it another way, if you were to render a Millenium Dragon under these exact same lighting schemes and techniques it would still appear less realistic simply due to the subject matter being an imaginary dragon sitting at a computer desk wearing casual garments. Basically you know whcih risks you can take and which ones to avoid. Smart.
I state all of this because as we are all at different levels of understanding, skill and desire to improve thus it can be challenging for newer members to truly appreciate what you are doing and why it isnt done more often by more people. Great though this is, it has limits and one needs to understand what those limits are if they want to extend these techniques beyond their current limitations.
I feel the need to explain a little bit the focus on technicalities. I interpreted the opening post quite differently than you. To my mind the post wanders a good bit, doesnt really point to anything specific as a discussion direction and seemed to me to be more of an open call for ideas about pretty much anything related to 3d rendering that improves the likelihood of a character based image appearing as realistic; and to the deeper questions as to why we can always identify a real photo when we see one regardless of issues like "bad lighting." It is a mistake in my view to try to attack all aspects of realistic rendering at once. It's like seeing an advanced multi-staged firework under display and trying to explain it with only the understanding of basic fire making principles...no way you'd be able to explain all the colors and delayed reactions and other effects present in a sophisticated firework display. It must be broken down into digestible pieces which admittedly are different sizes for everyone!
What I assumed the OP was looking for was for people to propose ideas which could be REPEATED by anyone at will in order to achieve similar results. So while on one hand it may seem as though some are just showing off unfortunately without those examples the thread would have nothing to discuss. Jeff's examples are great, but to be honest his results are not repeatable for anyone other than himself, and thus not terribly helpful to the next guy unless of course the next guy is willing to work within the exact same constrants as Jeff which is unlikely.
Lighting-
It first must be stated that from an accuracy standpoint it is physically impossible to have "bad lighting" in real life. Light always behaves as it should in real life, even if the lighitng isnt flattering for a given target, it is still accurate, so in a sense all light is "good." This underlying accuracy from light propogation, bounce between surfaces, energy conservation etc; if we can bring it into our CG work, should enable us to get closer to results that appear "realistic" even if it isnt particularly flattering.
Geometry-
It's also physically impossible in real life to have "bad geometry." Things in real life are made up of three dimensions even if one or more are very thin like the leaf of a tree, its still not infinitely thin or smooth on top. This underlying accuracy of surfaces is part of why we can identify real photo most of the time.
Texturing-
Its also impossible in real life to have a "bad texture." Things just simply are what they are. Water always refracts as it should and skin always transmits as it should in real life. Again, this underlying accuracy is still at work even in poorly lit real world situations,and again I argue that it is this underlying accuracy that helps us know when we're looking at something real.
Posing, Staging-
While I do keep reading that people need believable posing to judge the merits of a character render, I find it hard to believe to a certain degree. And if people are indeed judging realism in this thread based on those ideals, I think it can become a distraction. Even a corpse looks like a real corpse, even though all it does is lay there motionless, emotionless, with no intent or connection to anything. Admittedly, we dont usual find images of corpses very pleasing, but that doesnt mean we dont know they are real. For example instead of uploading images of human faces what if we were only uploading images of human hands? Unlike faces hands arent "required" to really do much of anything. Why is it that a real photo of a human hand always look realistic yet a render of a human hand often doesnt? It's not an issue of posing, in this case it again comes down to accuracy.
I wish you had placed the thread into the Commons, you'll get much more detailed feedback in my opinion. Anyhow, I'll join you over there.
Double post sorry Diva
I love EVERYTHING that you do, Diva!! Seriously amazing. I think the thing I find least convincing is the lighting. Can't quite put my finger on it but the skin itself looks darned awesome to me.