Renderotica

Thinking about this I'm reminded of a neat comic in Penthouse.

"Bob Guccione photographing for Penthouse 1970:" - he's got a hippie lady wearing a top and headdress of a Native American, partly nude turned to the side, natural setting - he's playing with the camera - "So, baby - I take one of your old nylons and stretch it over the camera for a soft focus effect...  You'll see when I develop these...!"

---Then - "...Photographing today..." - it's a professional photo studio harsh and white and lots of people, lights, equipment, 'actress' is anorexic bodybuilder with huge silicone boobs and underboob scars from surgery, blatantly spreading her legs - Bob is stretching a CONDOM over the camera lens - "You can't be too safe these days..."

"Photo real?"

Certainly not for me...

I try to make my works look like they were a 70s Grindhouse or a late 80s/early 90s B-Sci-Fi movie - lots of effects, blur, odd colors.  It's the 'reason' they used to reject my comics when I submitted them to the store - apparently they want 2 panels per page of bright, stark, real scenes that were 90% raw sex so making a 'comic book' of countless renders and effects to artistically convey a legit story that would have been an R rated movie with more sex..well that was why it was no-go.  Assuming I was given a standard held to others and I re-made everything that way, my comics would totally flop and I'd not want to read them or buy them if it was by a 3rd party. IMO if that standard was applied and turned into a live action movie it would look so silly even the "Social Justice Warriors" there to firebomb it would be too busy laughing...  But what I could do even in RL with mist, darkness, blur lens (maybe a facet lens to look like a bug vision) a big rubber mask over a rubber prop body...I could probably do something akin to the late Roger Corman for a low budget, and I say that with great respect, but what I'd shoot for - literally if that op ever arises...

And - well - that's why many of the modern wanna-be movies fail if they go into Grindhouse territory - they need that "NeoNoir" approach - the close ups, the camera pans - instead it's bright and harsh so you can see the blemishes underneath the makeup on the 'actress' and everything is explained openly.  Bright, harsh, "I am acting in a movie..." no edit to dialogue or scenes...

Even from "Erotica" perspective alone - look at a Men's magazine from the 70s, 80s, 90s - easy to eBay to get a sample cheaply - then look at one (the few still in print) today from the 10s onward though it really dropped 05 onwards...  The artistic placement -the careful play with colors - them using analog equipment but knowing what they were doing with it. Just getting a lady to take off her bikini at a beach and spread was the beginning... 

Davo

 

I have also seen that term..   Perhaps as Hellboy claims they want to get to as close reality as they can.  I also notice some artist claim their work is HD and that can only mean they render takes on a higher degree  of detailed size like in the TV  First we had normal DVD's  then they touted Blue ray and ow it's  Ultra 4K HD..  Well TV's are now evolving to an 8K format  so soon DVD's will be created in ultra 8K.   My concern is there is that  new version are always backward compatable with the previous format.andI made sure my high end DVD player is 4K compatable for my next purchase.  but my basic HD TV will not die and that is because I bought he best TV Samsung made at the time some 7 years ago   BUT I digress here

I create art to enhance my story telling abilities so that I can give visual meaning to my stories. I do my best to make the best render I can, then place the panels through Postwork as in Poser,  V4 and M 4 have base flaws that always need correction. I add contrast to the panels to bring out the scene and then using comic life I take advantage of their sharpening tool to add some crispness to the overall scene.  and since using  it, I have gotten some feedback that my readers seem to enjoy the more comic book look, even the internet reviewer that I submit my work to noticed the change and made mention of the fact.the stories took on a more professional look  ( by the way DAVO,  she enjoys the toys you create as she has a kinky side to her)

So I do the best I can do with what I have and make sure my work is created with as few flaws as possible and my comics have no typo's thanks to my wife who edits my work thanks to her degree in English and create a story that embraces my readers and allows them to escape reality for a short span of time

Shadoman

 

In my view, the point of making CGI images (whether one uses DAZ or Poser or something else) is to create fantasy images, scenes, characters and stories that are not possible with real world photos and models. Thus, a comic-book look and non-real world models is perfectly acceptable.

I've seen lots of work that strives for a real-world look, but, for my money, they are not as interesting as images/stories more along the lines of some comic-book look.  That's why men's magazine covers often depict some wild comic scene on the cover with torn clothes, evil Nazi villains, and lingerie clad victims often being thrown into a pit a alligators or roasted over a fire rather than real-world models.  It's the fantasy and story that sells magazines, not a  wide-open display of genitalia.

Davo's props and settings are, in my opinion, top of the heap when it comes to creating such images and should have a place in everyone's runtime library.

My work flow involves seeking inspiration from a variety old line art, rarely do I start with photos for inspiration.  I often save poses in my library so that I can re-use them for different scenes.  Then, construct the scene in Poser from a variety of props and backgrounds.  I usually adjust my renders with post work to change the vibrancy and lighting effects.  I use Corel's Paintshop.

Let me add something:  Perhaps people discussing might think this is relevant, perhaps not.

Poser did NOT start out as "3D for the masses" or "3DCG for people not wanting to spend $4K for Maya, $100K for a server system and take 6 months of a pricey college class..."

Guess what it started as?

A "Virtual Reality Artist Dummy"

Mid 90s, "Comic book boom" was in full swing - huge flood of creativity along with the shelves still groaning with the weight of all the "Look Mommy!  I maded my vewy fiwst kawmik!" that already had action figures, movie deals in the works - and more looking to join the party...  Poser 1.0 came in - and anything that could claim to do 3D used the term "Virtual Reality" for aspiring comic pros.  Sure you could get a cheap dummy or use one of the action figures (you took it from the PACKAGE!?) but it's neat to have a quickie, cheap, no frills but versatile 3D package where you can just drag and drop that default wooden prop dummy to pose as "The Extreme Extreme powers from radioactive Ephedra in his smart energy drik character who's going to make me the next Rob Liefeld!!!  Extreeemeeee!" jumping off a building, flying - various simple props in the background - then draw by eye or print out and trace over with a light board...  "Captain Anti-Axis is clobbering Adolph and fighting a dozen guys...  Neat if all the wood figures can pose including in the air, jumping, etc.  Not to do it in 3D and fool reality - that would have been daunting to the big-dogs then but a bunch of stick figures/wooden dummies with only minimal lighting just to show where the shadows should be?

I sound like I'm mocking it, but I'm not.  Even recently used this for some 2D art.  And if there's a good STORY behind it, I forgive shortcuts or tricks for art.  Vermeer used a "Camera Obscura" after all.  It's real neat for a 2D artist to have a simple 3D software option so they could put dozens of generic male/female forms, simple blocks for furniture/buildings and they have the proportions/foreshortening right in front of them.  Still < practice but combined with practice...

 

Long and short - Poser software was meant to be an "Artists Dummy" - 3D software but stripped down so you didn't have to take a class, buy expensive software and a computer that be > a college education to be a Doctor.  Just a few simple props all the "Look Mommy!  I'm going to be the next Rob Liefeld!" types could do on their own computer and at the price of a well made artists dummy - Around $100 - so Kid that wants to follow in Rob L's footsteps and make "HotBloodSuperTeam!" and is struggling with "Big Strong Rock Guy" and "Sexy Ninja Babe" poses - if you don't buy the 100 cover variants of Bat-Mutant 1/2 now you can get Poser and help yourself - then when the movie comes out you'll have the $ to just buy it on the collector's market...

 

1.0 died in the crash and black hole of the end of the Comic book boom aka Bubble.  But someone else bought it, re-did it, it changed hands.  I got my first poser in a CD-Rom (YES, CD not DVD) attached to a computing magazine - I think some of my earliest works are from that but maybe it's when I bought an upgrade to 5.  Really, second only to "Flash", Poser is the most mis-used or used <> original purpose software out there...  Oh, and DAZ - they started as a high profile "Free, but..." competition to Poser - but they were imitating Poser.  What saved Poser (and enabled DAZ) is the larger customer base who just wanted "Virtual" action figures, artist's dummies, 3D without the full Gamut in Maya and the ability to sell/make 3d party figures.  The 'big dogs' had professional elitism issues so they'd consider it a failing if they had to buy anything to save time and there'd have been too many red tape issues.

 

How's it relate to the topic?

 

Well - "One Man's Opinion" but if we want 100% realistic even with fantasy/sci-fi settings using Daz/Poser is the wrong tree - rather welcome to the less expensive these days but just massively expensive in time and also possibly money of Maya, C4D and ... Blender...  I've seen plenty of incredible stuff, including by individuals who don't have a lot of $ but spent the time to get through Blender's softening learning curve.  There is some neat virtual erotica done, but it's rare and far between - a few has made it here too I think.

 

Myself I can make stuff that looks like it belongs in a 90s B sci-fi movie, a 70s "Grindhouse" movie, pictures from 70s-90s Men's Adult magazines...I'm fine.  And I can make my own props/figures now where I can't buy them - Specific buildings/equipment - Alien bug monsters - internal organs...I'm fine.  But I do NOT care if I need to play with the lights, add post-filter, do blur or edit shadows, add mist or (gasp!) make a separate scene with "Internal action" and do a layer effect vs...?A figure so real I could have action inside - then somehow get the camera inside to see it?

 

Then again - maybe I'm being anti-progress...

Kid holding software advertisement box - "The Marquis De Sade's 120 Days of Sodom!  Approved for the whole family!" - kid goes "Mommy!  Mommy!  Dadeee!  Can I have it?  My friends say the mutilation physics are AWESOME!" - from an Adam Warren joke on video game violence.  We might have that another 20 years -IF- the government cracks down and makes the tech firms compete to survive again.  I'm afraid computers might only get another 100% better in 10 years because they are lazy and would rather buy another yacht than invest $100M+ in another upgrade to the system...  Hope to be wrong there.

Exactly, it's not only that the tools keep evolving towards realism, they do nothing to improve unrealistic artwork. The best effort has been the NPR system in ZBrush, and it's still a hit and miss. Not to mention not everyone is willing to export everything from DAZ Studio to ZBrush.

Most attempts to do 2D/Cartoon artwork from a 3D Render are a bit cringy.

To my mind it's personal preference, or horses for courses.

I enjoy the challenge of creating photorealistic, or trying anyway but a good artistic style can be just as appealing and a more toonish look can convey a story very well. The problem for me is when things are neither one or the other.

Whatever the style I think a sense of realism is the most important thing, attention to position, pose, expression and so on, if these are incorrect it just looks unnatural and somewhat rushed.

I love a good photo or technically adept render but I am also a fan of the old 50's style pinups that were nowhere near photoreal but conveyed a sense of realism and were as a result very erotic.


PS: NikitaHedon is producing some great work in a semi-real style at the mo.... sorry there are other great artists here but that one caught my eye recently.

///What kind of images do YOU like to see, not create. Do you want to see drawings/paintings/digital or 3d photo-real art?//

My preference these days is shaded B&W pencil drawings. Farrel is an example, but there are many others. Lots of stuff can be depicted in such works that is impossible in real life.

3d photo-real art is kinda in the eye of the beholder. Some might consider some 3d CGI works to be photo-realistic, but they are not and more often depictions like 50s pin ups or pulp magazine art -- erotic cartoonish fantasy that merely resembles a photo-real world. Of course, in my view, producing fantasy works is the entire point of CGI art. Programs like Poser and DAZ and Blender or Photopaint or .... just make that easier than learning to actually draw or paint.

Let me back up from my last response a moment to address you as the op directly instead of making a carpeted bomb post because I was totally drunk. I want to be a little more clear.

When speaking of photo real what does that really mean? Examine photography in depth and you will find it is just as diverse and all of the place as any other media. I think what the real question is if it can be passed off as convincingly realistic, does it cross the uncanny valley? That was the point I was trying to make.

To answer your question I like to see stuff that tells a story, even if I am not sure right away what that story is, I knew there must be one there. Ones that jump out as hey that is against the norm or are arousing help. Check out Daniel Lezama (deep search not the top level search stuff),  Wladyslaw Podkowinski's "Frenzy of Exultations" (1893), ARnnO PLAneR and Mr Godard on flickr is a must see

One major thing to take away from Godard's work is the level of exhaustive detailing in some of the works and how his work can walk a tightrope between one side of the uncanny valley to the other in a single image, like an illusion. But one must ask is this an illusion of being photo realistic or a realistic photo? And that's kinda what I was getting at, nobody has DEFINED photo realism except that it can be passed off as a realistic "PHOTO" but there are all kinds of photos, so that covers a lot of ground.

As far as your last statement goes as far as scenes, well I've attached a scene that is a mixture of photogrammetry and traditional 3d. But honestly even normal 3d can go far with the right rendering and lighting.

However....

...we currently stand at the brink of a paradigm shift about to happen in 3d art with HDRI and 3d photography blurring with traditional 3d modeling. Not just with scenes like this one but with actors as well. Mark my words (so dramatic I always wanted to say that.)

Imagine this, a woman uses her cell phone to photo scan her body and uploads herself to a digitals licensing site which auto rigs her scans and formats it for useful posing and rendering software, she's marked licensing for porn acceptable as an extended license. Is that far fetched from advances we have seen in the last 10 years? How many people are now scrambling right now to prep for such a site?

Edited by user Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:08:20 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Great scene Midnight and I love the quality of the render... it would look better with a victim chained to the bed though :-)

A lot of times I prefer high quality 2D, but again... emphasis on the word "high quality". The same applies to 3D.

As a gay man entering mid-life, I'm shocked at the amount of high quality 2d gay porn that is being created these days by the young millennials/older genz far outstrips what I could have imagined back at their age. I'm also shocked at how much 3D has gotten in the same time span. I would scratch my head when someone would show me freak 4 and michael 4 rubbing parented dicks together and rendered in 3delight and wonder how that was erotic. I started in the Genesis 1 era after Daz became free. And every generation has had technical improvements that allowed talented artists to take advantage of them.Now there are a whole crop of folks making amazing stuff in 3D.

To Hellboy's point, there's a lot of "I spent 4 days and $250 getting this g8f character to look exactly how I want it! Now let me load a base g8m character and slap on dicktator and dial it up to 100 and pose them in this pc+ room I got for $4 and start rendering with my Geforce 740 card!" The lack of quality of shows. But to be fair, I give every new user a 6 month grace period to get out of their system the whole "OMG I can make porn that I want to look at !" feeling we all have when we first start.

In a nutshell, I love 2D slightly more, but again it always comes down to quality. If an artist is lackluster at 2D, but better at 3D, I'll want to see their 3D art.