Why do the models all look fake?
bhfineartist_2d42f5137d
Posts: 98
in The Commons
I've noticed more and more that the models look fake or dead or like silicone sex dolls. They are also starting to look a bit anime too. I want realism how do I achieve that? The models have always had this problem I remember years ago being turned off DAZ by the complete and total ugliness of V4 or some earlier version.
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
realism seems to depend quite a lot on the morphs. Basically every character artist creates ultra symmetrical morphs (which will never be realistic) and they seem more like platonic ideals of humans rather than modelled off real people. Unless those people happen to be super symmetrical and idealistic models or celebrities.
Take a photo; they look fake because they are fake.
I think a lot of that is related to the pose and the expressions of the character. The lighting could also influence the 'look' of the character. There has been a lot of advancement in realism of the newer characters, in the textures and the bending. Unfortunately I am NOT an artist, so I can't give you advice on how to really achieve realism here. If you experiment and ask REAL artists, some of which ARE lurking in the forums, you'll notice a big difference.
Gus
Then fix it. You don't expect perfect realism that you just install and hit the render button do you, that is not how it works. The artists at places like Artstation that achieve a high degree of realism put the work in creating most of everything on their own. With the right morphs, materials, shaders, lights and skill you can probably get closer that what you get out of the box from the marketplace.
Also keep in mind that not every customer is into realism, so the figures in the store are more of a starting place for all the different types of users here at DAZ
You might want to look through this thread https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/313401/iray-photorealism/p1
Quite a number of the models are designed this way intentionally to appeal to the anime/gaming/stylized art crowd. Some are obvious such as the toon characters, however a number are only subtly different and much harder to pick out from a lineup, they might look nearly realistic but have slightly larger-than-normal eyes or exceptionally slim waists or far more muscle than a life at the gym could ever create for example. Although it is obviously up to you to purchase the characters you want and avoid the ones you don't, if you are in a hurry shopping and are worried you will miss a subtle feature and regret purchase later, it may be helpful to still take a quick glance at the product description and scan for keywords like "stylized" or click the vendor to see a range of their products to see whether they often create these characters. If you have more time, pick a product you think you like but aren't sure and see if people can post examples so you can see it from different angles with different lighting.
Materials can make a big difference. Some materials are great and very realistic, others not so much and look like smooth airbrushed plastic. While some features may require the original material to be used on the original character (perhaps wrinkles or scar bump maps must line up), probably you can simply replace the materials that you don't like with ones you do like from your own library already (on the same figure of course). Look through the galleries and forums and find one you really like and buy that and just reuse it on other characters.
Lighting can make a big difference. Once again look at multiple people's examples and keep in mind some people are good at it and some are not, and some people are on a schedule and don't have as much time as they may want, and the promos may not do justice for something that's actually better than the promo. Similarly a random beginner forumite can take a really good product and make it look absolutely horrifying, or somebody could be trying to illustrate an issue they are have a question about and may not have even set up good lighting if the question is about a posing or pokethrough problem or something unrelated to the material so don't assume a bad render implies a bad product, the two are very seperate. I can't help here because I suck at lighting sometimes, but if you can recognize that in your own work you can at least be aware that this can cause the look, and can try to fix it either by learning the details of why the lighting makes something look plasticly and featureless, or simply by trashing your current light set up and starting over with something wildly different to see if that helped or not.
Posing and situation can make a big difference. If somebody makes the best most realistic human figure possible and then poses it in a stiff-legged walk or unnatural stance or tries to make it wink by closing one eye and not moving the facial muscles, it's going to look like a robot or a cartoon, there's no hope. Same thing if the scene around it is terrible and cartoony. But that is only becuase you know, or think you know, what it should look like having seen people and things all your life. It may be a challenge (or not if you find prebuilt realistic poses and expressions) but you can eliminate that fake look yourself in this case.
I like to think of the resources we have here as nothing but a starting point. That goes not only for the models but also the poses, expressions, lights, clothing etc.
They are tools to get to a final product - a picture or an animaton. To produce something you're happy with you have to know how to use your tools which takes some time and effort. (I could mention the "make-art" button but won't LOL)
There is also a certain amount of skill and aptitude needed too.
A good few years ago I went on holiday to Iceland, a lovely organised camping tour. One of the other members of the trip was a professional photographer. Many were the times we were standing next to each other when taking photos. His photos looked glorious in 'Geo' magazine. Mine looked like happy snaps. It appears I have/had little/no aptitude for composition, framing, cropping, saturation or any of the post processing dark arts -and this was in the days before digital photography made such manipulation easier and more effective.
Like me, you may just be incapable of what's needed for that last little bit of realism. So, would it be sensible to aim at a different target, a 'Non-photorealistic Render'? Finding, instead, what you're good at rather than becoming frustrated with what you're not.
There isn't yet a "Create The Art I Want" button; it isn't just create art, but create my art button.
It requires a combination of light, shaders, pose, camera angle, scene setup and choice of and/or creation of materials/shaders.
BUT before that happens, you need to know what you want to try to recreate.
I'd say, it is less a matter of symetry, more a matter how make overs are affecting peoples' expectations.
Cosmetic surgeries have become so common, people actually believe it to be normal.
um... not sure im buying this cosmetic surgery scold being in any way formative in society's collective understanding of photorealism, in the context of symmetry, which is probably on some level innate. And even if we are living in a semiocapitalist state of constant information and false realities, considering that most people we interact with and see in media will not be facetuned influencers with instagram-face, we are still in touch with reality. And if anything the prolfieration of CGI has only made us more refined in our taste for good vs bad CGI.
It's definately giving too much focus, too much close up, and too much light to the models you've deemed fake, supposing you are making this claim about models that are supposed to be realistic looking. I usually give too much focus but I ike doing 3D toons so the intent isn't to look realistic in my case.
Some of the renders that are made with them do look fake, but by that same token, I've also heard people complain about photos of actual live people looking fake, when the real issue may have been make up, odd lighting or something else that may have even been done intentionaly for effect. The thing is, if you saw a image of a cg figure that didn't look fake, how would you know that it had fooled you if no one informed you what it was? It's like Matte Paintings - some people will insist that they never look right, but there have been matte paintings in films for over a hundred years that nobody realizes are there. It's just the bad ones or the ones of things that are completely unlikely to exist that your brain spots.
As for figures starting to look like anime, it's really a case of some artists specifically choosing to emulate that look rather than something that is just happening. But... since video games are one of the largest segments of the Entertainment Industry, and since toon/anime-esque designs are a huge part of that, why wouldn't artists want to make or buy that kind of figure if they're popular?
The simplest answer is to study photography. To create the most lifelike images, you have to understand why images look the way they do when photographed... because single lens cameras do NOT work in the same way as our stereoscopic eyes and are, themselves, only creating a facsimile of what we see in real life. Once you understand that, then you can use that info to recreate those same effects and conditions. Ironically, post-work, which is a necessary part of making photos of the real world look more appealing to our brains, is usually the same thing you need to use to make CG elements look more"real," though often the processes need to be inverted. Or, if you want the quickest way to perfect realism, you could always just hire live models and take pictures of them.
Even studio images people think look realistic because of skin or hair look can look rather fake I think to me.
A lot has to do with facial proportions and features. Models by default tend to represent a similar type of look, investing in morphs can create less perfection but humanity tends to come in a variety of shapes and sizes..so being able to dial spin a character will produce more realism.
Personally I don't care about photorealism a such, I don't see it as anything to strive for in itself, otherwise you could just take photos instead. All I want is things too look good, sometimes they just end up looking realistic anyway because the products used look realistic.
I am just the opposite. There is a special sense of accomplishment when you can set the materials, the mesh detail and the lighting to get a 3D scene to look like a photograph IMO and for me, that is something to strive for. It's easy to fool non 3d users into thinking a 3d render is a photo in many cases, but next to impossible (for me) to do it to seasoned 3d users. I happy to create what looks good, but the goal is always learning and improving to hopefully get closer to the photoreal.
..some very good comments here.
On the flip side, more and more "photos" in magazine adverts are actually 3D renderings and not photos at all. Same for some car adverts you see on television. Granted they are created using expensive professional sometimes proprietary software with the subjects, if not entire scenes, modelled from the "ground up" Many of us here do not have the resources for such software/hardware or time to create everything from scratch. Also as mentioned some like to work in a certain style that is not "photo real" (I personally like going more towards storybook illustration and oil painting).
Years ago I echoed the same sentiment as Taoz above,if you want a "photo" get a camera. I also want my work to look as good a possible. By the same token, pushing towards making a character or scene look as "real" as possible still helps to advance one's technique no mater what style he or she likes to work in.
Sure, what one prefers is a personal thing, or depends on the context.
I don't understand. The models have always had this problem or they're only now starting to look more and more like silicone sex dolls and anime?
It's only a matter of time before I post a picture of a real person just to see the people pointing out all the things that make it obviously a DAZ render.
obviously trolling
I would be curious to know who makes the realistic models being sought besides bespoke sculpts usually not animated or if they are direct facial mocap
I'm inclined to agree; it's an easy statement to create as it is, but it isn't backed up by evidence.
I would love to know what the OP uses if they don't use V4 or according to their statement, any Genesis characters... But one has to thank them, we've had an interesting discussion without their further input.
a bit of research
(looking at OP threads with the forum software)
reveals a Blender user, yes I have seen some damned realistic Blender animation but all use models made and rigged by the creator with facial capture such as openpose bespokingly rigged
dedicated Blender users don't by large buy premade content, python scripts and addons more their marketplace choices and free models if any
Because they are? They're pixels on a screen. Some people though (definitely not me), have a way with making them look pretty real. It's a talent, not a given ;).
Laurie
The uncanny valley is real for some. Others don't really notice it anymore. 3D is like that. It's not really real in the real sense, it's an approximation in a computer.
This is actually a mistaken belief. Many use sources other than their own, and is particularly true of professionals.
Like any profession, their job is to provide what the customer wants, not do it all by hand. That puts the cost up significantly.
..some think it is just load the character in push a few sliders and that's it. if you are into creating custom and very personalised or unique characters, it can still be a lot of work (with a heavier investment in resource rather than character content).
Yes the "Genesis concept" makes some things a bit easier than they were say a dozen years ago. Crikey I remember trying to create a viable teen and child character when all we had was Mike 3 and Vicky 4.(clothing fits were an absolute pain as we had no autofit or morph following). Until one enterprising person developed a flat chest morph freebie, creating a female child was next to impossible. The NPMs and Steph4 made it better for creating teen girls. For young/teen males it was worse as M4 had baked in chest/body hair.and there was not as much third party head/face morph or body shape content as for his female counterpart (I usually would resort to fey characters by Thorne for creating male teens).
Even with many of the utilities like the Growing Up Morphs, Skin Builder2, Anigenesis2, GenX2, various morph/shape resource kits, and all, it still can take a good deal of time and effort to design an original character who doesn't look like a base figure with a couple morphs applied..
I tend to feel as with lighting, hair and the way clothing drapes can also be a giveaway. Most hair content is transmapped sometimes having baked in texture highlights, and frequently provides a limited set of shaping and movement morphs which preclude using it with a wide range of poses (some hair content only works well in fairly basic standing poses as I occasionally find out after thinking, "that would be great hair for 'this' character" and purchasing it). I have gone to working with the Strand Based Hair generator (have worked previously with it's predecessor Garibaldi Express) to try and get around this The trouble is it needs to be re-styled with each and every different pose, and when using it in layers to create thicker body, that can become a very complex task.
For clothing I don't use dForce much because of the heavy drain it places on system resources (older hardware here), As I primarily use G3 as my character base, I really appreciate (and wish there was more) clothing content by PAs like Aave Nainen who's G2/G3 clothing often has a many extra morphs and bones to make it drape and "move" better with with poses.
Getting photo realistic imaging on consumer grade equipment is a rabbit hole. You'll always come up short.
Your best bet is to identify the limitations of the software you're using and stylize your storytelling to work within those liitations. You'll be much happier and more productive using stylized NPR renders that work well and look good than chasing the photo realism dragon with consumer grade tools. That's literally what Pixar does. It's why their 3D movies look awesome and Jurrasic World (all CGI) looks like crap compared to Jurrasic Park (which mostly used practical effects with 3D only being used to clean things up here and there). You'll never be happy going for photorealism with these tools because you'll always be banging up against the uncanny valley. Stylize your artwork. If you absolutely need realism then hire actors from your local theatre scene.
This is a weird take, I think. You can achieve photoreal results with "consumer grade" equipment. DAZ characters come pretty close out of the box and with careful attention, talent, and practice can absolutely achieve photorealism to the untrained eye.