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
DrZap and BlueJaunte,
Great comments, thoughts and viewpoints! DrZap -- I really like your take on things and I'm impressed with your keen eye detecting the problem spots on my renders. I'm always mad when I (or someone else) sees them and it's too late for me to go back and fix it because I usually don't save a scene file for each render...and I'm too lazy to go back and re-pose/light the scene ;) I'm also happy you appreciate the mood and feeling of the renders, that's really the whole point of me doing them. It's been a labor of love for sure --- been at these type of renders for probably 6-7 years now. It wasn't until the advent of unbiased renderers and Iray specifically (and Reality before that) that anywhere near these were possible. For some reason I'm drawn much more to trying to perfect the mood/look of the casual photo, vice a staged beauty shot. I like the amateur 'real' feel... That said, I also appreciate BlueJaunte's take that my renders are actually 'less real' because I've had to hide and obfuscate what a truly realistic render would provide. Like he said...he could probably take an image, make it black and white, blur it, crank up the exposure, etc, and it'd be passably realistic. He's no doubt correct (I'm assuming BlueJaunte is a male so I apologize if not) and he's also correct that I'm forced to do it because of the limitations of both my skills and the current toolset I'm experienced with. I wish I didnt have to 'fake it', and maybe one day the model fidelity, shading tech, etc, will be at that point that I won't have to. In anycase, to be clear, my entire objective with my renders is to produce an image that the casual observer will believe is real as if from a standard low-quality camera or web camera, in fact to pass the test, they can't even ask if its real. For a select few of my images (of hundreds of renders) I'd say about 1 in 5 have passed my testing methods (PM if you want to know my methods...its funny). As for how far I can push the limit with detail vs. 'believably like a photo', well, I think my images represent that limit. I've tried to push it further by getting rid of the eyeglasses (obfuscate the poor Daz eye geometry) and used different hairstyles...but as soon as I do, people usually respond with "is that a videogame screencap?!" :) DrZap - check your notifications, I sent you an additional response. BlueJaunte - btw, your products are AWESOME!!! I've definitely used them in many of my renders.
Honestly, I have to disagree on Divamakeup's render. I can't quite put my finger on it, but although it's by no means terrible, it just looks rather flat to me. If I had to guess, I'd say it has the look of having used texture maps with too much baked-in shine and/or shadows, but I'm not sure. I didn't even notice any of the more specific nitpicks that others have pointed out. For me, the overall impression just didn't strike me as a particularly realistic. The detail is definitely there in the texture maps (kudos on that, Divamakeup), but maybe the shader needs work. Or maybe I'm just seeing things.
A human face and body are a collection of imperfections. Everything on a human face is askew. 3D characters are much more perfect. Human skin looks like human skin, whereas 3D charcter skin looks like airbrushed Playboy centerfolds from the 1960s. Even when a human's eyes are closed, they still look human. Even when they're dead, they looks human. Even if their back is to the camera, they look human. Because, maybe, 3D figures are designed to pose quickly, and a lot of artists don't want to spend huge amounts of time posing - so there is unnatural stiffness in many of the joints, and the poses are often unnatural. If you think about human joints, they are NEVER all zeroed, yet how many times do you see characters with zeroed joints. Humans are all curves. Humans each have individual personalities which are expressed in how they look, move, and express things emotionally with their faces. 3D characters often have a "look", but most of them don't have a human personality. Humans have variations in posture - how often do you create an individual poster for your character? And GRAVITY plays a role in how human skin looks in real life - there is no graivity effect on skin and muslces (except for some breast morphs) in the 3D world.
@RorrKonn @PhilW @algovincian @SixDs Thank you all! I appreciate the feedback! And the suggestions are super helpful too - I really appreciate it! :)
I took the advice that several of you gave about the lighting, let me know if changing the lighting here helped:
I think that's an improvement, Diva, which means that the flatness that I mentioned was at least partially due to lighting.
FWIW, here's another attempt of mine, this time featuring a brand-new custom Asian character for G8F. Constructive critique is welcome as always!
"DrZap and BlueJaunte,
Great comments, thoughts and viewpoints! ..."
Ah, so the artist makes his reappearance. It was really a pleasure to view your work. I quite agree with your summations; the quest for true photoreal continues. But your work has reminded some of us that Daz Studio's main purpose is to allow us to create something that makes a connection to other people. This is the artist's ultimate endeavor, damn the torpedoes. Your efforts have greatly inspired and enlightened me. I have taken a look at your body of work on Artstation and I hope others take the chance to do so as well.
I've been reading this thread and am very impressed with the way Divamakeup's work is evolving. I wanted to put my two cent's in about the last image (the train platform) which seems to be getting closer to photoreal than I've seen in DS before. Rather than write a batch of comments, I Photoshopped the areas where I thought there could be some incremental improvement.
I realize that this is all subjective and my attempts may look "photoshopped" but I felt that the lighting, though improved, was still a little flat. The variety of skin tones that makes the figures appear less flat seems to be missing and the skin tones were a little grey IMO. In addition I thought the background (which I assume is HDR and provides some of the lighting) was a little distracting. These are just personal preferences that you may or may not share with me. The lighting setup obviously is a factor and the original image that was posted is fairly lo-rez and my suggestions may be moot with a higher resolution image. I also found the coarseness of the cloth texture a little distracting and changed the shadows to make the fabric appear thinner and more conforming.
I've posted two versions of the Photoshopped image--one with a blur applied to simulate DOF--and also the original for comparison.
Daz Studio iRay render of Alexandra 8 HD with my own Ultimate Eyebrows and a new hair product that I am working on. Adjustment in Photoshop for levels and a small color adjustment and I also faked a little depth of field but otherwise this is as it was rendered.
My $.02. - Consider using a small spot or meshlight to create catch lights in the eyes, give them more life/depth. Nice work though, skin looks great.
I really think it is the eyes that kill the photo realism most of the time. After studying a bunch of close ups of real eyes on a Google search I came to the conclussion that transition from the face (lids) to the eyes is way too abrubt. Here is a list of factors I believe are causing this in a lot of the renders I see. 1) The whites of the eyes are often way too white/bright. 2) The transition "line" between lid and eyeball is way too sharp. 3) In the photos of real eyes, they tend to have a lot more moisture, specifically right above the lower lid. In a lot of renders I've seen you don't really see this moisture line.
I've attempted to correct these issues in the attached sample. 1) I toned down the white/bright in the eyes a lot in Daz. 2) In Photoshop post work I added some "noise" to the line between the lower lid and the eyeball so it wasn't a perfect razor thin transition. I also used the blur tool to help ease the transistion. 3) This is the most important one I think; In postwork I added a white "moisture" line between the lower lid and the eyeball. Basically I just drew in a white line right above the lid, then turned down the opacity and blurred it a bit.
The eyes are the only thing I did postwork on. Additionally to help attempt with photo realism I made some features asymetrical. I also used the Victoria 7 ultra displacement maps at level four to give more detail. I didn't mess with the skin shaders at all though. That's just the Victoria 7 skin. The morph is 50% Victoria 7 and 50% someone else I can't remember off the top of my head. Oh, I also did a simple "sharpen" to the whole image in Photoshop.
Anyways, this is my attempt. It would fool me if I didn't know better. It kinda looks like a high school yearbook type photo (minus the fact that she has no clothes.)
Oh, and the lighting/background is just one of the newer studio HDRIs from hdrihaven.com.
They are, but by the time I was studying the eyes (less than a second), I'd already noticed the hair as being 'off'.
All the same hdri lighting
Great image but it looks too uniform in its shininess; I'm thinking especially on the arms.
I wonder if creating 3D art, influences what we think of as real, and alters our perception at all?
Here is an ongoing texture test; I'm working on the textures, but am still not happy.
Of course, I'm also now not happy with the eyebrows or the teeth. That is what seems to happen, as each improvement refocusses the eye on something else.
And then there's the issue of noticing 'something'; the two images appear the same, and they are almost. However, The lock of hair in the centre of her chest/collar area was not right; it was floating, and was just annoying.
Can you elaborate on this last sentence? Do you mean Genesis 8 as a technology improved this area, or some of the figures released for Genesis 8 improved it? Did you have a specific recent figure in mind?
Thanks!
I think it does, if we let it.
Yes, I think CG artists are definitely more discerning than a typical member of the general population, which only exacerbates the surprising amount of subjectivity there is in judging photo-realism. I think we need some way to make it more objective, or at the very least get as many opinions as possible on the same image(s) and see what the aggregated consensus is.
If you wanna know wether something is truely photorealistic, you need to ask the most discerning people. I don't think there is very much subjectivity at all. You can either tell it's CG or not.
It depends somewhat on your goal, but I don't ultimately disagree with that first statement. I said much the same thing on another forum when I wrote, "Being a CGI artist yourself tends to make you more discerning, so if you're just seeking to fool the general population, fellow artists may not be the best people to ask for critique. On the other hand, something convincing to other CGI folk may be just the thing to aim for, since if you can convince them, you can almost certainly convince the uninitiated."
As for subjectivity, I do disagree. Just recently, Divamakeup posted an image that seemed to impress others but looked rather flat and lifeless to me. Even if there is general agreement on whether or not the image truly fools the eye, the particular detail(s) or aspect(s) that break(s) the illusion can often vary. Some might say the skin is too perfect but make no critique of the eyes, while others might find the skin believable but the eyes a bit dull. That seems to have been my experience, anyway.
There's a difference between being impressed and not noticing it's CG though. When it's about the former, yes it's often subjective. As it's so very nearly impossible to get it right 100%, it then invites a lot of subjective comments as to why the 100% wasn't achieved. Had it been though, such discussions wouldn't happen at all. You would simply look at it, unable to say for sure wether it is CG or not. You would perhaps accuse the creator of showing a photo instead of a render. Only then do you have complete photorealism and that should be a very objective feeling. "I cannot tell" vs "it looks pretty realistic".
Why don't we just test it. Is this CG or a photo?
Nice render
Photo
Haha that's the end of this thread, nobody wants to stick their neck out
. 1-1 so far
It's a photo, but probably heavily processed with that tone. That hair has actual little frizzy sections I have never seen in CG. Ever.
The translucency on the ear and the nose are a bit off/too strong. Something about the shaping of the inner eyelids seems unconvincing but I can't quite put my finger on it - I'm sure there are probably actual people who have that shape. Maybe a tad more assymetry both in structure and in the expression? Finally, the fit/lay of the clothing doesn't seem altogether natural.
It's still a very good photorealism attempt.
Re the 'photo or CG' image, everything about it says 'photo' to me. She does seem to have an incredibly long neck, though. Perhaps she's just all in-proportion and the apparently eight-foot tall Genesis girls really do walk among us!
You've kind of "cheated" here. lol First you picked someone with very unusual physical attributes (such at the super long neck) - which makes it look a bit artificial as most people do not have super long necks like that. This is also low quality and somewhat grainy - which hides much of the skin's true texture. Even still, I'd say it's definitely a photo. If it's a render it's been heavily photoshopped (which would also be a cheat, as if you put enough post work into an image you can make just about any image look real). :P
If I wasn't made fun of having a long skinny neck myself I might of guessed CG based on the neck but everything else says it's a photo, even if heavily retouched. If it's CG, which I don't think it is, likewise it's been heavily postrender edited.
Either a heavily edited photo or a photo-real painting. Not a render. The clothes are to natural/thick, the hair is to frizzy and real (I would kill for CGI hair that real especially if animatable) The much detail in the skin even with the grain.