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
Some characters are created to loke silicone and plastic. They are meant to imitate anime and gaming characters. Other characters have pretty good skins and morphs, and if you light them properly, they'll look "good enough" for their purpose out of the box. You can try improve on that, with some work, but at some point - as other pointed out - the "uncanny valley" will hit you over the head.
I guess you have to define your goal.
IMHO, Photo Realism and Realism can be different things. Most of the time for a professional photo, Lighting, Make up, clothes fit/Style/Color, Pose, and a ton of other things are controlled to the maximum degree, and then the result goes through post work to fix any flaws before it becomes viable to the massess. Is that "Real"?
It's why our own home photos via old school film and even digital phones etc look more often than not like crap.
Then there are those whose goal in 3d photo realism is to mimic all the quirkiness of a "home photo" with all the flaws to appear like a real (crappy) photo.I've seem so really good 3d artist that go to crazy lengths, even adding "red eye" to the models to appear like a "Real" Photo... is that your goal?
I am currently sitting in a supply like office that is 40x40. The lights are off but my East wall is nothing but windows and the morning (9AM) light is pouring through. If I took a picture with a super model sitting on a chair 15 feet from me, even using a $100,000 camera, its probably going to look like poop, but it will be "real".
So what is your goal?
For me, pictures tell a story. So whatever image I create, whether it is a polaroid, 35mm, or Daz/Blender render, it has to be telling a story. If I can get that story across successfully, whether the figures look toony or realistic doesn't really matter.
Regarldess, realism doesn't often come with the click of a button (or one button anyway). Light, pose, colors, subject, etc all have to be managed or manipluated
And you get there the same way you get to Carnegie Hall.
Even multimillion Hollywood blockbusters don't get it right a lot of the time (Tarkin and Leia in Rogue One, anyone...?)
I've worked in 2D animation in a studio that also created animation and VFX for the MCU films. (Trixter, a German VFX company) Even did a tiny bit of professional 3D character animation in the days, for TV productions. All a huge team effort with dozens of specialists involved, with many production weeks for single shots. Designers, modelers, riggers, texturers, animators, ligthers, compositors. Using many different and very expensive softare packages for each and every shot. (Maya, ZBrush, Nuke and others)
For absolute hyperrealism you need expert lighting and shaders. And in a lot of cases, for hyperrealistic humans, the technology just is not there yet.
You would need to simulate hard bones, that turn realisticly with the movement, flexible muscles in multiple layers rigged the right way, and loose elastic rolling skin on top of that, and perfectly simulated hair and cloth. Better and more precise shaders than we have at the moment. And computers that can handle all that detail.
They have mastered the broad stuff, like the dragons in Game of Trones, but realistic humans are another story.
Plus, you better keep your posing within the limits of how real people can bend - which requires a sound knowledge of the human anatomy and motion. And a sound knowledge of how to light scenes naturally. And for it to look really good, a sound knowledge of composition, contrast, the golden ratio and such things. Knowledge of how real people move and maintain their balance. (A live model is always on balance. A virtual one - no, that's hard work, especially for dynamic poses.) The sort of stuff that can take years to learn. All regular rules of art still apply to digital 3D art. You want stunning images, you'd better know them.
Better wait a decade or two if you want that from a free consumer software package with zero artistic education as an artist.
In games there are many shades from toons to realism as well, though.
Compare this
to that
The most common causes for poor results are bad lighting, bad shader settings, and clumsy poses (in that order). Bad lighting happens a lot! Poorly-done lighting with too much ambient light, no self-shadowing, lots of under- or over-exposed surfaces all make the figures look bad. Bad shader settings make the skin look plastic and fake. Clumsy poses and unnatural facil expressions can make figures look like odd mannequins. Even with PBR rendering, a lot can (and does!) go wrong. Making 3D look good is an art!
I think Darius 8 and Silas 8 looks real but it's probably because I like these characters. It's a very suggestive point of view.
There is a well-known aphorism in statistics: 'All models are wrong, but some are useful'. Perhaps we could re-purpose it here: 'All models are fake, but some are close enough'.
Detroit Become Human (2018 video game, Quantic Dream, french studio)
Marcus seems to be more realistic than the other characters.
Connor (Actor : Bryan Dechart)
Marcus (Actor : Jesse Williams)
AP700 android (Actor : David Atrakchi)
But Daz provides better figures than Renderosity (Poser), Hivewire3D or Reallusion (Character Creator), that is already wonderful.
think the moderation team better answer the original poster's question to be honest
Things went wrong after Michael 6 Bjorn when they stopped using realistic skin textures for Genesis 3.
However, if you look closely at Michael 6's textures they're loaded with highlights and shadows...things you don't want in a 3D texture where your lighting might not match ;)
Laurie
Richard responded early on. He pointed to this thread on iray realism.
That's explain why. The side effect is the figures look uniform like clones with different faces.
The shape of the face is not enough because many humans share a similar face, the skin details make the difference.
Why bother? It's a "When did you stop beating your wife" gotcha.
it's annoying me how we still having peoples come and "game" as if it's som sort of "perjorative and wrong and bad, as if we already don't have many 'photo realistc characters "in games", or close to it and some "movies" and series being made by "using game" engines as tool, "being realistic or not don't have anything to do with "game" have to do with the "creator" what he want to make and how he want it's to looks.
Being honest i don't see anything wrong in most of the characters in daz, just because they are "too symetric??", well while in the world we do have "assymetric peoples" we also the other way, not everyone look totally diferent fron his left to his right and in the same way not everyone looks like a "top model hot chicken/perfect hot guy", also not everyone is ugly or not good look, again the world is big. while i can understand some complains about "lack of diversity" in the means of not everyone is hot and perfect this don't means which the creators can't have the freedom to make they characters looks like how they want and while myself i also have some issues about "clones"(some artists which just keep using the same body shapes over and over with just small to almost none changes in shape and only the real change is on the "skin" i also can understand which this is how they works and like to work.
but is important for me to "stop with that "hate over game" as if "game" is the guilty of everything and if the characters don't look like how i like game is the guilty, the same goes for anime, stop of "blame stuffs" and maybe learn which not everyone have the same tastes and what you feel to "blame" others could have it fine, because everyone have they own tastes and most important the "creators also have they own tastes and "target public" which play a huge role here.
and to be "fair" realism can be pretty subjective", what you feel not being realistic for you can be for others and the other way.
Honestly, there's not much stopping artists from creating believable characters. It's not so much a software and hardware problem (though there's also some fault in there too) as it is an artist's knowledge problem. Before anyone jumps the gun, no, this isn't meant to shame any artist. But in order to answer this question sincerely, one has to be more objective. The problems I've noticed are as follows:
- Improper shader settings. Some characters have too much SSS or not enough SSS, as an example.
- Textures. A lot of it is in the lack of color zones, especially in a person's face. Based on observation from the many Daz characters in the store and renders in the gallery, the character's diffuse color zones are either not strong enough or are completely missing. It gives characters a waxy look, when coupled with bad shading. Lack of color zones makes the face look either dead or like they're caked in foundation. Reallusion's manual has some info about their approach to character realism, which you can find Here.
- Improper lighting. When presenting characters or telling a story, lighting matters and so does color. A rule of thumb is to never use bright/saturated colors in the scene for tense shots, or anything that isn't happy. There's a whole playlist dedicated to this topic that I'll link Here. In case anyone's interested in learning more about that.
- Posing. Sometimes they're too stiff, really awkward, or they don't make sense at all. All poses should follow proper gesture and a line of action, even when attempting stylized work. Also, the expressions are usually unnatural or too extreme.
- Stylization. I left this one for last, because this one is more of an umbrella term for different things. There's "stylization", what's conventionally beautiful and conventionally ugly (by conventional, I mean what the general audience accepts as beautiful or ugly). There's "stylization", the spectrum between the real and the abstract. And "stylization", the inclinations and deliberate choice of the artist. I know a painter that can explain these far better than I ever could. She hosts classes on YouTube, and has an active art community. And while everything she talks about revolves around 2d art, her knowledge also translates into 3d art as well.
If anyone's into character art, whether it's 2d or 3d, give her a watch! Take advantage of all that knowledge available for free.
I'm going to conclude this by saying that, again, none of this is meant to bash artists. However, we have to be aware of the reality that there's well-made art and there's poorly made art. Very few are the people that grow past their current level and move onto make masterpieces. It takes tons of study and practice to get there. Not all artists want to go through it, and that's perfectly understandable! The payoff might be great, but the process is tough, frustrating, and a bit boring from time to time. I'm in the business of helping fellow artists grow and improve, which is why I'm so eager to share any and all knowledge that I can find. I just hope I don't come across as snide or offensive, as that's never my intention.
Wow I disagree with.. almost all of this?
From a purely technical side too much/not enough SSS isnt really an accurate description you can have 50%sss and the light shines through the whole figure like jello, you can have 100% sss and have everything opaque but thats a minor quibble really
now on the whole good art bad art thing well by your definition of what qualifies as "well made art" theres a lot of generally agreed upon great art that doesnt match your qualifications
no bright or saturated lighting in tense scenes? I guess John wick, both blade runners, pretty much all the rest of anything cyberpunk and 60% representations of dystopias are all not tense at all, even as a rule of thumb that is a terribad rule of thumb
stiff poses? unnattural movement? extreme expression? there definitely arent whole movements in art devoted to pretty much all of these. lets see, you have Mannerism back in the 16th century intentionally distorting perspective and form, Certain elements of the Pre-Raphaelites, The Vienna Secession, Expressionism and this is just sticking to western european figurative art, which is still a tiny piece of the pie
I guess El Greco just couldn't get proportionds right or something,
look at these stiff poses and the flattened perspective
And who likes this garbage? look at the angle of her neck? look at how stiff her feet are1 look at that terrible flat lighting
look at this distorted pose but still stiff and stylized, all those extra eyebrow lines, distended hands, rough shading (man do I love schiele he's so good)
What you are describing is not the difference between good and bad art but a how to of how to fit within a very narrow incredibly conventional corner of (mostly commercial) art. And hey, no nocking that stuff I really like a lot of it, and when it comes down o it, I'm probably more influenced by Sargent than Schiele myself (and I love them both) But If you're going to claim theres objectively well made and poorly made art you're going to need to do a much better job argung it
and by much better I mean you wont ever successfully manage it because art is an incredibly subjective field and while you can make objective statements ie "this artwork features flattened perspective" the second you go "and thats good/bad" it is no longer objective and just like your opinion, man.
Yeah I agree with all of this. In art school, they also teach you that the key to realism is subtly exaggerating poses and expressions. You're guiding the viewers attention to the details and that's what makes them believe what they're looking at looks real. That's why the filmmaking in movies can in many cases feel like it looks more realistic than a candid photo you can take of your friends, because the filmmakers have done everything, from lighting, exposure, enhanced camera angles, etc, to make you see the details you know should be there, but don't actually occur naturally the way our brains perceive or process them.
"From a purely technical side too much/not enough SSS isnt really an accurate description you can have 50%sss and the light shines through the whole figure like jello, you can have 100% sss and have everything opaque but thats a minor quibble really."
Maybe so, but this is a thread about why the models tend to look fake. Improper use of shader settings is an equally important piece of the puzzle of what breaks character believability. I only used SSS as an example, because it's something that everyone can relate to when thinking of shaders.
"now on the whole good art bad art thing well by your definition of what qualifies as "well made art" theres a lot of generally agreed upon great art that doesnt match your qualifications"
Again, I'm only speaking about character creation and design. What's conventionally beautiful is not subjective, like how an individual finds specific things attractive. Conventional beauty is the average of what the audience as a whole finds attractive. There are fundamentals to art that you (the general "you", not you in specific) need to learn in order for something to be widely accepted as "good art." Artists that deviate from these fundamentals are ones that already have gained the mastery over fundamentals, and know how to break them and bend them.
"no bright or saturated lighting in tense scenes? I guess John wick, both blade runners, pretty much all the rest of anything cyberpunk and 60% representations of dystopias are all not tense at all, even as a rule of thumb that is a terribad rule of thumb"
This goes back to the fundamentals of art. Yes, there are works of art that break the general rule of thumb, but again, artists that do deviate are ones that have a firm grasp on fundamentals. In this case, color theory. "An artist must first learn the rules before they can break them." - Every career artist I've come across
"stiff poses? unnattural movement? extreme expression? there definitely arent whole movements in art devoted to pretty much all of these. lets see, you have Mannerism back in the 16th century intentionally distorting perspective and form, Certain elements of the Pre-Raphaelites, The Vienna Secession, Expressionism and this is just sticking to western european figurative art, which is still a tiny piece of the pie"
Are you even sure that you're in the right thread? None of what you've mentioned, or any of the paintings you have posted have anything to do with what I spoke about. The topic is about why character models look fake. In other words, what goes into a 3d model to make it look believable. The paintings in your response were a treat, but they have nothing to do with this thread or my response. Did you get hung up on the "good art/bad art" comment? Let me make it clear, because it seems you didn't reach my closing statement: Artists can do what they please. Some artists are okay with staying where they're at, and that's fine. But the reality is that there's an average (a combination of fundamentals and style choices) that appeals to the masses, and that's what's called conventionally beautiful/ugly, regardless of any one individual's opinions or tastes. It's something that everyone should be aware of, if they aren't already.
This isn't opinion. Do you want my opinion? Because my opinion is this: It doesn't really matter as long as the artist is having fun.
I think the Daz characters are generally excellent. However, the shaders need tweaking. But that's a fun part of the process, at least for me.
Thank you, KetsyCola, for pointing out color zones on the face. I didn't know about them. I added them to my character, and I think it helped make her look more real.
My pleasure! I love helping out fellow artists any way I can! Yeah, it can make a massive difference. Though we've grown accustomed to seeing blood and fat changing the colors of the skin to the point that we don't notice anymore, our brains are subconsciously seeking out the color changes in the people we come across, because it's a sign of life. Adding it to a character's textures gives them more believability and helps the audience make a connection with that character.
There is ONE primary reason why everything "looks fake;" Lack of resources on all parts.
Problem: Daz3d requires that all of the content they sell be as low cost as possible in terms of system resources; geometic complexity must be minimal; texture templates must not in most cases exceed 4096x4096 etc; render settings generally must be optimized for speed, and Daz Studio itself, must remain accessible to CG newcomers. Too much power and control at the user level can put people off when they are new to a subject. I myself often find with these 3d packages that the same design and tool ideals that made the program fun at earlier stages of my development often start becoming limiting after gaining more experience and wanting to advance to the next level to tweak more things myself. The Daz store sort of puts a cap on the level of complexity you're going to get out of it.
Real life is infinitely complex even down to the micorsopic level, very few surfaces are truly smooth for example. If you want something to look truly realistic, you must tackle the natural levels of geometric and surface complexity that accompany that item. This is before we even consider issues such as lighting, which in itself can be done in a manner that uses minimal system resources and produces fast results, or lighting can be done in ways that are more complex and accurate, but that take 6 days to complete a single frame.
You can easily find real human photoscans of humans as well as other items, but for now lets just consider the humans which are millions of polygons just in the face alone. Clearly such meshes cannot be posed or animated, which is why games cannot use them, which is why Daz3d doesnt offer them. But what you will also notice is that most every render made with these super high res photo scans, even which minimal or just plain wrong teure settings, still ends up looking more realistic generally than even the most detailed Daz figures. Again for a million litle reaons like asymmetry and the like, but on a deeper level it is due to the level of complexity being presented.
You may not realize it, but what you are most likely asking for is not just realism..but for realism within the boundaries of the way Daz3d assets are designed... which I will argue is flat out impossible aside from a lucky exception or two. I'm saying this to make it clear that in most cases the PA's are capable of much much much more, but they must fit their ideals into the DS store's product limitations. And sadly for me....The PA's must also follow the trends of what is selling the best. They must feed the monster's demands. As I've had to accept, the store will never be my favorite place to shop because I dont tend to like the items that most other buyers seem to like. I make most everything for myself these days. And this isnt to say that the PAs arent doing amazing things because they are, and the need for efficiency in modeling and texturing resources is a good practice generally. but when you want true realism that convinces most everyone, you cannot have such a tight and constrainted budget on resources. You cant make The Avengers on a $20,000 budget....regardless of talent and skill. There's a reason it costs so many millions to make these movies even aside from Downey Jr's ridiculous salary.
You could always use Houdini, Maya, and other higher end software packages that have a million obscure tools which are extremely helpful in certain situations like rendering realistic humans. But here in the DS/poser world, there are limits. There will always be exceptional outliers, but the general rule will be the same. We cannot and should not compare what we are doing with what some of these crazy high end applications are outputting.
If we are supposed to put the artist first, I mean, if you really mean that- then maybe it's time to move a little bit away from the chase of REAL as the final goal..
Because no where does it state that's the only goal of everyone here, or every PA or any artist- aside from those that choose to pursue that look.
We are balancing what real means in regard to a 2D piece of digital art. Is it supposed to look like a portrait from Sears Studio?
Or maybe a magazine cover? Or maybe an Instagram model's share....what?
--------------
And it's not about any artist and their easily available tools.
For all the other Art forms, artists do create much of their raw materials and customize everything.
No one expects to be advanced and use their tool set at an entry level. Daz has many advanced tools under the hood- as add-ons, plug ins and such.
There's also a ton of tools and techniques beyond Daz Studio and I don't mean other 3D Apps.
The big studios and production houses also customize all the fancy programs - we thing are powerful enough to give final results.
They also add their own code and rewrite programs from scratch to achieve the results they desire.
---------
I don't know too many artists who do everything in one program.
but for realism within the boundaries of the way Daz3d assets are designed... which I will argue is flat out impossible aside from a lucky exception or two.
Not a solid statement when there are tons of images that fool people.
You are confusing the difference between a regular person looking at a picture and someone who does 3D micro-scanning and looking for any trace of a 3D engine to scream "AHA!- I KNEW IT!".
My Social Media timeline is full mof renders that have comments from people thinking the renders are photgraphs.
There's threads on here full of picture-like renders.
I think we should give the audience a bit more credit than that. After all, they're always complaining about "bad cg", which tells me they know when something looks believable and when something doesn't. Not everyone is easily fooled. I personally believe it has something to do with what era the person was born in, and how much exposure to 3d art they've had. By 3d art I mean movies, games, and tv. You know, stuff that non-artists see on a regular basis. But that's just my theory. There are several exceptions to that rule, I know, but the rule is the brush we use to paint the audience.
That being said, I do agree with the sentiment that artists can and should do whatever they like with their art. The only exception is when the artist is doing commercial work. That's the point where they have to succumb to what's widely acceptable, because that's what employers usually look for. But as long as you're doing your own thing, by all means, experiment away!
Modern art was never about realism. It was about being expressive, about inner truths, about emotion, about imagination.
I wonder why 3D art is so obsessed with absolute photorealiism.
Stylisation, exaggeration, and larger-than-life are other options to explore.
There's a difference between an art piece as a whole, and a believable character. People seem to be conflating the two. But I agree with this to a certain extent.
Based on my experience, the obsession with photorealism in 3d stems from the artist's need to display their grasp on life (form, light, color, gesture, composition, etc.) in order to seek employment. The artist that knows their fundamentals, knows how to break them effectively. Having a few pieces of realism in your portfolio is a requirement for working in the industry, whether it's in animation or games. I feel like a lot of that has leaked everywhere else.
Also, photorealism can demonstrate the advancement of technology far more effectively than stylized work, so there's that too. Aside from all of that, everyone inside and outside the 3d community prefers stylized art. Did anyone see how well received that one Pixar-looking game was? I believe the name was Kena: Bridge of Spirits. Everyone loved the look of the game!
I used to be a professional 2D animator. Pencil on paper. Cels and rostrum camera.
The book Disney Animation; The Illusion Of Life used to be my bible.
Two important lessons from that book:
1) The key to the illusion of life is believability within its own context, not realism.
2) Fancy rendering won't save a poor original idea.
I still hold to those.
After all, they're always complaining about "bad cg", which tells me they know when something looks believable and when something doesn't.
Only the second half is right. When CGI looks "right" no one knows it's CGI. If a film uses 1160 CGI shots, but the one section/thing looks off, they say the CGI in the film sucked and they goof on that one bad-use.
BUT! They miss the other 1,000 shots that fooled them. Most CGI shots are picked up because the audience knows what's possible and what isn't. So obviously, when the destruction gets crazy, the viewers know it's fake.
Tons of CGI shots feature things the audience has NEVER actually seen in real life so there is no "that looks off" statement to be used.
-----------------------------
There's a scene in the Shining Sequel Doctor Sleep, where Ewan smashes his glass on the floor. I knew it was CGI because no studio would ever risk the actor for such a dangerous stunt.
So I said to my partner, that glass was fake. It looked REAL because they nailed it.
----------------------------
There's tons of features of scenes and shots that viewers thought were faked that were real.
Tons of debunked movie scenes that audiences thought were realistic.
---------------
CGI doesn't go in some special category of art.
There are practical shots that look off.
3D models that look fake.
Real footage that looks fake.
Real pictures that people think are digitally altered.
Either you executed it well or you didn't.
----------------
The only exception is when the artist is doing commercial work. That's the point where they have to succumb to what's widely acceptable, because that's what employers usually look for. But as long as you're doing your own thing, by all means, experiment away!
I have no idea- what point this is supposed to be aimed at. It sounds like a great closer, but I have read it several times and still have no idea what it means in context to this thread or any idea that's been offered.
I agree, but only to an extent because for character creation, having a grasp on what's real is what allows an artist to effectively create what's believable. While an artist's grasp on realism will hardly ever be shown to the audience, it's something that's still required in a portfolio. Employers hardly ever ask about training. All they want to see is how good you are, and how well you work. Realistic pieces show exactly that with the subtlety of a brick to the face. This is just for character artists in general. For 3d artists, there's a bit extra that they have to add to their portfolios, and that's the breakdown of the character they've made: Wireframes, closeups of the best pieces of the character's design, clay shaded shots, texture breakdowns, and turnarounds.