Uncanny Valley question?!? (Imgur hosted image)
WayneX
Posts: 52
I've been rendering for many years and I'm familiar with the software. Until recently, a good friend of mine claimed my image triggers Uncanny Valley with its false realism.
Would you claim my art or lighting is any worse or better than most other images? I've essentially put the lighting above the models as if a light is casting on their faces from an above light source.
My friend claims most of my models (that are mostly realistic in the sense of Daz3D studio realism) influence Uncanny Valley. I don't know what to think! Am I trying to make my models a bit too realistic?
I realize Uncanny Valley means 'almost disturbing' as an image is trying to look realistic, but something's off. I just want your opinions on the matter. Here's an image in question I've made for a story I'm building.
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
Melanie is definitely fake in a disturbing way. That includes the face beyond the obvious... and boy, it sure is obvious...
Don't care about what your friend says. As long as you are happy with what you are doing, then all is good. Realism is a lofty goal and something many try to achieve, nothing wrong with that.
That depends.... if it's for yourself, you do what makes you happy. If it's for sale/commision/etc., you have to please the audience.
There really does need to be a warning when an image is hosted by someplace like imgur.Or any other 3rd party off site host.
Thanks buddy! This is the response I needed!
Certainly not mwokee's uninformative reply. What about Melanie's face looks fake? You mean her lips? Fake as in plastic surgery or fake as in obviously digital fake?
FSMCDesigns said:
There really does need to be a warning when an image is hosted by someplace like imgur.Or any other 3D party off site host.
Why? Fixed it...
This image believe it or not is a commission story that I'm currently working on. I'd never give my personal models such large breasts. However, the commissioner loves it. I'm just blown away that my friend seems creeped out by my 3D models. Doesn't make too much sense to me...
mwokee said:
The number of ads mostly,none of which I wanted to see.
Some of them actually got past both my adblockers.
Why not just click the "Attach a File" button below the comment box and simply host it here?
I can't seem to. I try to upload the image and it stays on 'Uploading...' infinitely. It never finishes uploading. Whether the image is.png or.jpg, I get the same outcome each time. Not too sure why...
Thank you for the warning in the thread title.
No problem man.
My friend wanted me to post something in order to help me improve. He brought in some sample images to demonstrate what he's saying, but I still don't get it personally. Does anyone else know what he's trying to convey to me?
Note: And I apologize to the user 'IceCrMn', I couldn't attach these images either. I think it may be a browser based issue for me or something. I may need to update Chrome. (Which I'm doing right now).
Friend's description:
"This is the friend, it won't let me post. I don't really think it's uncanny valley/creepy, I just don't like the faces. When you compare it to these two images, can someone else try to articulate why they seem better to me? For some reason the lighting and details look better to me but I can't articulate why. This may help my friend improve if it can be put into words why these ones are slightly more appealing. His aren't bad, I just feel like something is slightly off for me"
Hi there, what I am seeing is that the two that are smiling look unnatural to my eye because of the skin folds around the lower mouth. So I wonder if it's more to do with the expressions you are choosing. I go for realism in my renders and anything that shows the teeth or deforms the mouth too much is much harder to get looking right. I think that's why the middle one looks so real (because the expression is more neutral / closed-mouthed).
People that don't spend much time around 3D or CGI, sometimes have issues like this when it gets closer to realism. I have never put any stock into the uncanny valley effect, if it affects you in an ill way, then don't look at it. Personally the closer to a real photo it is makes me envious, LOL.
Not a problem, I've blocked imgur at my router.
I do thank you for your concern though.
If you're going to put it that way, then you don't need my opinion. The first time my art was published was in 1973. I've been published in magazines, newspapers, internet, book covers, art galleries, textiles...
Regardless, you already answered your question. Your client is happy. It doesn't matter what your friend or the rest of us think.
Did not mean to double post. Not sure how that happened...
Odd how different people see different things. I'm not sure how much is people trying to be nice and polite or whether I just see things in a different way. I really hope you don't take offence but you asked for opinions and I kind of agree with @mwokee although I've never had any images published and don't even show my work - it is just my private hobby.
Anyhow, to the question - Melanie - er, just no. She looks like something from Team America, the comedy puppet show. The bust cling is not your fault (although the shape isn't realistic is it?) - clothing cling is a constant problem with the larger bust. It is the smile that is all wrong (slightly wrong on Sophie too). I don't use G8.1 but I'm assured that the facial expressions are better. I tend to be very light on the smile dial because I just don't like the DAZ smiles (and there have been some pretty bad examples in the store promos over the years).
I understand what he means now. I initially took offense, but I shouldn't have if he's just being honest with his savvy opinion. I've used the Tegan Krashwerk's model for her, but I don't like how she came out, mainly because of how the commissioner described her and his satisfaction made me a bit iffy too, but until now I didn't see too much wrong with the figures I've used. But, I didn't consider the expressions and lighting. I was mainly concerned with my renders resembling Uncanny Valley, which my friend recently took back as he claims he may have been describing the issue incorrectly, which brings me a ton of relief.
I respect all of your opinions as well. I want to thank everyone for taking the time to analyze and provide their opinions on the matter with my image. I want to apologize again to mwokee. I shouldn't have said what I said.
Sorry again.
Hey this is the friend he is asking about. I don't nesccarly think uncanny valley, but something is off with the lighting and faces and small details when I compare it to other ones he has sent me from other creators. Can someone articulate and explain why these ones are better to me so my friend can understand why I feel like something is just slightly off? I know the anime eyes in the first is just a preference, but I feel like there's more to explain. His aren't bad at all, I just feel like there's something missing.
(Image removed by mod for nudity)
I am pretty sure the endless "Uploading" that you are seeing is caused by the filename of the file you are trying to upload. I can't remember which characters the forum does not like in the name, but I would avoid using any special characters in the name eg: periods, underbars etc. Stick to letters and numbers. I think spaces are ok. The period before the .jpg or .png is also ok
Others have touched on the expression etc, so I'll just point out something that those two example images are doing that OP's isnt: Depth of field. If you look closely at the background and foreground of both images, you'll see they are out of focus. This lends a bit of realism to the scene, but more importantly it draws the viewers eye towards the characters, since they are in focus. The Pink hair image has a very tight depth of field, which brings focus to her face, while making strands of her hair blurry. It's a lovely effect.
There are lots of other interesting things about the composition, but I figured I'd point out the DOF, since its easy to implement and makes a big difference.
Whoa. I never would have noticed that in a million years! Thanks for posting Krzysztofa! I can't believe how many responses my thread has gotten. I appreciate everyone who has posted! I'm now looking into 'Depth of Field' again, which is something I have forgotten "nearly" completely over the past few months from when I've learned about it. I realize how much it benefits the image, but I've somehow completely forgotten about that feature... I use the 'Focal Distance' parameter a lot, but barely ever touch the 'F/Stop' parameter and I've completely forgotten to actually turn on 'Depth of Field' to improve the render foreground'. This is a fantastic reminder on how to render with quality. Thank you so much, Krzysztofa!
Uncanny Valley isn't an exact science, and different people have different thresholds for what triggers a reaction from them. Also, it's worth pointing out that the Uncanny Valley originally referred to robots, where the closer a robot gets to humanlike, the more endearing we find it, until it hits a point where it's NEARLY lifelike but not quite, at which we feel a revulsion against it because the human brain is very highly trained to recognize human faces and we feel like the thing we're looking is supposed to be human, but we know it isn't. The idea can certainly apply to CGI characters (especially humans) integrated into live-action footage, but I don't think it's appropriate to apply it to an entirely CG/rendered image or footage unless it's highly photoreal. The humans in the original Toy Story, for example, aren't really examples of the Uncanny Valley; they're just hideous. Even if they had been executed better, they're so highly stylized and in such a stylized environment that there's no chance they'd be mistaken for real humans.
Having said all that, I don't think your images are photorealistic enough to trigger Uncanny Valley reactions, and I don't mean that as a criticism. There are definitely things you could do to make it more realistic, though. I do agree that Melanie's face looks a bit off, though I don't know if I could really articulate why. Maybe her features are just a little TOO sharp. Her shirt being shrinkwrapped around her breasts isn't helping.
Thank you! That's what I said, my art style is a bit too cartoonish to be an attempt to be realistic right? That's something I intentionally try to pull off with my style of rendering with a vibrant glow to prevent it from looking too realistic. I love that angle you're portraying actually. It really makes me feel better to know my art may not be relevant in such a way to be labeled or considered that.
Thank you so much for your input Gordig!
I'm thinking back to the VERY FIRST TIME I saw what I knew to be a 3D figure - it was Victoria 4. And it freaked me out. I thought "what is this? Is this a photograph? Is this a real human. Is this a doll with a photograph pasted over the face?" It was disturbing and confusing. There was something dead about it, exactly the way I felt the flesh of the first dead person I touched with my hand (my grandfather in his coffin.) That's uncanny valley. And I still feel the same way. This is just my personal artistic choice to suit my mind - when I do a render, I try to make it look as much like a photograph as possible. Then I take the render and using filters in post, try and make the render look like a hand-created illustration. I have hundreds of filters and other art software to alter the final render. Sometimes it takes VERY LITTLE filtering to instantly tell viewers that "hey, this is an illustration". I personally don't like the look of renders of humans that try to make them look like they're living. Our reactions are cultural, and age related. If you're creating the image for yourself, then make it look any way you want. If you're crating the image for a client, then you have to make the render look the way they want it.
I don't think 'uncanny valley' applies - that applies to attempted photorealism and I don't think you intended that. I get a more caricature vibe. That said, Melanie is... off. I'd probably try dialling back head morph by 33% or mixing it 50/50 with a softer morph. It demonstrates a problem with some more extreme morphs - expressions just don't work with them (unnatural creasing) and would require correction morphs to fix, which invariably are not provided.
The problem with the Uncanny Valley effect is: it's 99% a personal thing. What bothers one person makes another person go "WTF? What do they mean? It's not creepy at all...". For the same reason I don't think that there's a catch-all to avoid it. People who don't work with 3d figures might or might not get more creeped out by renders, while those who do work with 3d figures might or might not rather discus the more technical aspects of a rendered picture.
In the end, it's only YOU and Your customer who count. Unless that customer is also Your friend...
Which game are the pictures for, btw? Always looking for new adult games from Patreon...