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
I think the black characters are more realistic.
Leroy 8
Hmmm, well the teenager Linsey Lohan in that case made some good fashion choices.
So the most realistic character is going to be a Black person who looks like Jamie Lee Curtis, dresses like Lindsay Lohan, and has Bluejaunte feet.
Hi Richard, I suppose I should say PHOTO realism in that when these models go to print, they should like like real people, something despareatly lacking and maybe a flaw of this style of rendering if you can't achive that. The problem is you think only what you want should be made instead of listening to customers. I like to check in and see if you've changed your mind or somehow have stumbled into some real photorealistic character but as usual, another disappointing response and no real products worth investing more into since I already have huge library..
I hope you see this a positive feedback to up your game and make better products that look more realiistic... I would pay good money if they looked real. It hasn't changed.... garbage in, garbage out... Make it real... or go home.
Take care.
Hello, Can I bring this post back? I think that it should also be mentioned
https://www.daz3d.com/araminta-hd-for-genesis-81-female which turns out very well with any light.
and
https://www.daz3d.com/syble-hd-for-genesis-8-female. I have a nude render of her in this gallery that I think is realistic enough. WARNING, NUDE.
https://www.renderosity.com/rr/mod/gallery/syble/2930303/
However in my opinion some aspects should be considered if realism is intended as Photoreal.
1. Real pictures of real models in fashion shots are all but realistic, with washed skins, photoshopped legs, brest, etc. It doesn't make any sense searching for the most realistic caracther for those type of renders.
2. Hairs are always a problem in photorealistic images. And fake hairs ruines photorealistm.
3. Overexposed lights, micro blurring, small defects in the framing are all helping to make a photorealistic render. Actually I think it is much more easy to make realistic a Polaroid-like render than a perfect model picture.
4. Details over details! A flattened bum when sat, gravity on brest, shorter legs, tanlines. And eyes! I barely find realistic eyes in figures.
One tool that was very good for me seems to be discontinued by the author. It was Anagenessis shaders for skin. His deviant's page is alive and he is continuously looking for hyper realism in his renders, but with few to no explaination on how the results are reached. Here is his page: https://www.deviantart.com/as-dimension-z. In 2017 he was saying NGS3 were close to be published but I can't find it nowhere.
Thank you.
I think Ahmunet is great for photorealisim.I loved her lip texture.
https://www.daz3d.com/ahmunet-for-genesis-8-female
So, one cannot take pictures of family members or friends in their everyday outfits doing everyday chores?
Couldn't care less about making images of fashion models.
For Daz I don't know about shape but for skin the option should always include ISourcetextures they are the best. IMHO
It must be my english, but I am just saying the exact same thing you are saying.
What a perfect answer...
For me its if you can look at the picture and confuse it for a real person, thats realism... It includes everything about the character from clothing and jewelery... any thing that doesn't look real spoils the illusion. I always like the old computer term, GIGO.. Garbage In/ Garbage out.. which is not saying that cartoon looking characters are garbage.. It's just saying that you can only get out of a project what you put into it.
Human beings don't start looking like cartoon because of bad lighting so I think that argument is silly.
Anybody that looks at any print ad or real people knows what realism is but some people want to keep making excuses so that they can say your picture doesn't look real because your a bad artist. but the fact is that if the model, clothing and equipment look real, modern CGI techniques in movies show that realism is achieve regardless of bad lighting..
The real issue is that realism can be cost prohibitive and is difficult to achieve. I would like to see a return to scanned characters with new HD techology...An issue that has really divided the art community and why the forum moderate was quick to address this issue. I'd love to see a premium line. I can't imagine any model wouldn't jump at chance to be immortalized
I love using the face transfer technlogy too.. I've made a couple of cool character that way... anyways.. thanks for all the great feedback and never stop improving..
If we understand the definition of "realism" in this topic as something that we can confuse with something real, in my most honest opinion I do not think it is possible to do today in Daz Studio and the factors are varied, either due to lack of complexity in the options to modify the shading and morphs (I think I am not the only one who needs to export the characters to Zbrush or similar programs to edit them), the anatomy of the characters in the store are unreal and have absurd proportions with lack of detail, the lights are very simple in terms of customization or not very faithful to reality or simply the iray rendering engine is what it is.
Anyway, it is possible to make renders that can come close to this realism, for example almost any character from Bluejaunte, we have an example in these promos where we see what I mean (https://www.daz3d.com/mega-updo-2-hair-for-genesis-8-and-81-females), it is in my opinion the most powerful renders I have seen in Daz Studio and there will still be postwork behind it, but you still see that it is CGI and your mind tends to mistake it for a video game character rather than a real person.
Sorry for my bad english btw
Since I'm an old guy I tend to gravitate to older figures. Realistic to me is RY Frida
https://www.daz3d.com/ry-frida-for-victoria--8
And RY Martha
https://www.daz3d.com/ry-martha-for-genesis-8-female
Just picked up this figure Izolda the other day from Rendo by EichhornArt
https://www.renderosity.com/rr/mod/bcs/?ViewProduct=136734
Anyway I think these are realistic older babes.
WkD3D Ulaan from that other store. Because majority of Asian characters made for Daz either looks like J-Pop/K-Pop idols or can pass as Japanese or Han Chinese celebrities. Ulaan looks like someone from Mongolia or Kazakhstan.
Some questions are actually pretty simple, but are made incredibly hard by overthinking it, which this thread certainly proves.
I think most people are pretty confident they know exactly what something looks like that isn't photorealistic, and while you can find extreme examples of realistic things that don't look real at all, I believe most people know exactly what someone means when they use the term in respect to CGI and 3D. It ain't that complicated.
The question to ask is not to explain what someone means by "photorealism", but rather to ask "what skill level are you at?" There are models in the Daz that can achieve incredible photorealism if you have the skills of lighting and composition to bring it out; in much the same way that a very attractive live model can look incredible unattractive with an amateur photographer.
My vote is for Sera by Mousso... But to be fair, I'm pretty biased as I found her to be gorgeous, and I just bought her not too long ago!
valid point! In all honestly, you can have the best 3D skin in the world and have it look awful if the lighting and settings are not set up properly
Do people really stuggle with what people mean when they say realistic?
How many definitions of realism can apply to a human figure?
"representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life"
If you struggle with the concept of life and what things should look like when you look at them then is a more specific question really needed?
I want to know what X figure will look like under overcast conditions, in shade under a palm tree at 1 pm facing west in mid October at Panama City beach vs the same character in New York 20 stories up on a helicopter pad at 2 am looking directly at a half moon. It either looks/reacts "real" under multiple conditions or it doesn't.
Yes, I was speaking from first hand experience. I've seen artists use DAZ to achieve remarkable photorealism ( or simply remarkable art for that matter) using the exact same models and tools that I have, and yet I wasn't able to come close to duplicating what they achieved. Sometimes it ain't the tools but the person using the tools. Give me a guitar to play a solo, and then give that same guitar to Angus Young and it will become immediately apparent that the lack of musicality had nothing to do with the guitar. My asking what the best sounding guitar in the world is, isn't necessarily going to help me to sound like Jimi Hendrix, and once I'm playing at the level of Jimi Hendrix, odds are I no longer need to ask what the best sounding guitar in the world is.
Conversely, most hobbyists are not at the Hendrix level so they rely on help and precision from the tools at hand. Tiger Woods could probably hit a golf ball with a shillelag better than most weekend golfers with their expensive golf clubs which is why there is a market for specially developed clubs which disguise the limitations of the part-timer. When it comes to making art with DAZ Studio or other similar graphics packages, the dedicated artists will have the imagination, talent and technical know-how to work around the limitations. I don't. I'm a plodder making pictures for fun so I would like the software to assist with some things (not everything). My starting point is well into the creation process (as it is for most of us here). I don't sculpt the figures or make UV maps. I don't know the technical details of raytracing or the mathematics of collision physics but I might like to know how to make skin look more realistic using the sliders in the IRay surfaces panel. I certainly would like to know how to achieve realistic SSS for skin, for example.
yes, includeing Sera, which I already discovered. She looks better in default lighting than in most of the pre=packaged stuff I have
Their latest female Caprica is astonishing!
So you're saying everyone means the same thing?
I prefer to know what they mean, than make assumptions.
I prefer believable to realistic.
If i can accept the image im looking at, believe in the story it is telling, then all is well.
I think there might be some art students who have been given specific definitions of "photorealism" and "realism" in their classes, or something like that. And they think those definitions apply to the world outside of those classes. But I think there are also people who are just bored and feel like dragging out an argument about what "realistic" means. I once offered a working definition, that "realistic" means "likely to convince people it's a real person" and they didn't like that either.
My definition of 'realistic' is that which is not perfect. Real life has flaws and asymmetry, lines and wrinkles, moles, spots and scars.
If you can't tell, then it looks believable, which is my point; you found it to be believable before you questioned if it was real... Or not. The believable was a subconscious acceptance of the item, where as the 'is it real?' is a conscious thing.
After that, you're mearly satisfying your curiosity, which can be a good thing, but the 'plant' has already served its purpose.
Yes tools are important, but when it comes to the nature of a photorealistic model, we're talking about something relative, which is why I said to answer that question in a way that is meaningful, I really need to know what skill level you're at. If you don't know about SSS, controlling lumens, light placement, Dof and a whole lot of tricks that make photorealism possible, a model I consider to be photorealistic isn't necessarily going to help you because you won't have the adequate mastery of the software to achieve the effects you're trying to get.
For example, not that long ago, I was really thinking that the rendering engine might be the key to photorealism, because contrary to what some people will say, I'd seen images rendered in Octane and Reality that fooled me completely, so I got Octane and Reality and the models I saw and I still haven't been able to get what I considered a completely photorealistic render yet with those engines, but I have on occasion been able to achieve it in Iray, the same render engine that I got for free when I downloaded the software to start with.
Being a film school grad I say this to anybody starting out at a novice level. LEARN AND STUDY your fundamentals, LEARN YOUR TOOLS! Just like owning the best camera in the world is not going to make your films look like Peter Jackson, having the most photorealistic model is not going to get you photorealism. There are simply other things you need to know first, and the reason I can tell that you don't already know those things is that if you did, you wouldn't be asking the question. Basically I can give you an answer, but in order to save you money and frustration, I'd rather be honest. There are no shortcuts to being a good artist and shortcuts are really what a lot of people are generally looking for.
That being said if you want a well-scuplted figure that can look incredibly photorealistic go grab Tate HD for Genesis 8.1 Male. Little known secret: some of the best sculpted models in the Daz store are the male figures.
So the purpose of asking for a 3D character the looks real would be to have a 3D character that when looked at looks real subconsciously and then attempt to find out it it was real with conscious effort.
Seems like a long drawn out question when I would think most people would just be ok with, "Can you link me to a realistic character?"
I would hope that if a random person asked you to recommend a good Mexican Restaurant you wouldnt get into a extended debate on what real mexican food is. You'd just use common sense to skip Taco Bell and direct them to a Mexican Grill. If I were to drive by a guy and ask them where a good BBQ place in the area is and they started off by asking me what my definition of BBQ was, I'd wonder if they had mental issues.
Maybe I would be better served by asking to provide characters that are the opposite of unreal.
In this age of the contrarian where people like to play dumb to what is being said even though they know exactly what is meant, that tactic wouldn't work either. What you will then get are the same wiseacres asking, "What is your definition of unreal?".