Renderotica

Quite possible, that people want that uncanny valley to persist.
Imagine, you're putting all your effort and skills into it, for finally creating that perfect photo real render and nobody believes it to be a render.

"bah, you're kidding me, It's a photo. Nice try, p*ss off"

Well, I don't like graphic novels and comics, so I don't consider them as more "legitmate" (if that's the right word) than photo-real?     And besides, what are you calling photo-real?  A real life family snapshot at the beach?  Those wonderfully photoshopped, fuzzy focused daz gallery images? Or, a Kim Cardassian picture on instagram?

Anyway, you'd probably call my images photo-real, but I'm translating what's floating around in my head, aka The Butchiverse, into something that some viewers may be able to relate to... real-ish looking people not necessarily behaving like real people.  And every now and then, I get things close to right.  My images are pure fantasy, just like the images that you like, but they're just not the subject matter or style that you like. 

I'll agree with your comments about 3d porn, it rarely looks good.  Every now and then I try to get my characters to have full on sex, but I usually give up,

Originally Posted by: davo

I'm curious and would like a healthy discussion on why people want to do so much "photo-real" renders.

I don't. I particularly enjoy non-photorealistic rendering, gives a much better feeling for the imagination. Years ago there was an artist here, went by the name "Samhal" -- did wonderful 'toon style renders. The thing was, they had life and personality, I think inspired by the illustration work of "Rebecca" - the famous "Housewives at Play" series. The thing of erotica is, its about feeling some kind of imagination, and diamond sharp renders without any personality are just dullsville.

Most of my work is non photo realistic, or some mix . . . I rarely do a straight render out of iRay, usually I want to tweak it at least a little, and sometimes a lot. That's where the feeling can be found, particularly with the kinkier stuff. I particularly admire your attention to Pichard's drawings, and you might take a look at Erich von Gotha some time. Some of his furniture is amazing.

Edited by user Thursday, May 13, 2021 6:22:09 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I almost always do some level of postwork to my images.  Photo-realistic?? Nah, but they can enhance the final image.

Postwork in Photoshop or Paintshop (my preference) can turn a mediocre/poor render into a decent image.  Try changing a render with weird colors to B&W and voila, you may have a good retro image.  Or, just a film filter or change of vibrancy, light/dark or color balance.  Darken the corners of an image.  Adding a red hue or other effects to body parts is hard in 3d rendering programs, but well within the wheelhouse of post work.  Brushes allow for adding things like drips, water effects, etc that are hard in 3d rendering programs.

Paintshop has some cool AI effects that transform an image into several sorts of paintings, and photo effects that allow for simulating different photo eras.  And, photo editing post work allows for cropping, frames, captions and more mundane things that can't be done in Poser or DAZ.  

Myself I prefer to use post work.  I used to use way too many hours trying for super-real renders and to get the light right...  In short I used to be a 'realist' for 3D renders, not preach but was trying to make the most real render I could do without too many overnights of the computer sounding like a vaccum cleaner and hoping the camera wasn't behind a wall...

Then  - I realized something:

A - take a photograph, make a film - even in good lighting the results SUCK unless you know what you are doing and how to adjust the thing.  Try it with an older "Film" camera...hehehe....

B - Real Life film and photography they both use a lot of artificial lights and they use a lot of artificial after effects for professional results.

C - these go back to the days when a computer that could vector draw a crude box took 10 minutes and cost $800,000 in 50s money.

Just look at the standard software photo-editing pack - the stuff Photoshop had back to version 1.0 and all the other computer photo softs had.  Gamma.  Color shift.  Brightness/contrast.  Negative.  Exposure...  These were all done with lenses and chemicals way before computers could hold even a thumbnail image for most of their memory.  Once they did become able to do this the first things the software people did is approximate (to laughter) the tricks the pros had been doing for decades again with chemicals, lenses...a million little tricks.

AND most movies that were classics of the past had sometimes ridiculous expense and attention used plenty of 'artificial' things even for stories set in the real world.  Real liquor during Prohibition.  Sick joke "Just tell me when to start filming...." and 20,000 horses are being literally stampeded off a cliff - director is going to kill the projectionist but ONLY because of the cost.  Sometimes they painted EVERY leaf on a thousand trees despite a black and white film.  Oh, and most "Night" scenes are filmed in the day or on a bright stage then the 'night' filter is added.

Thus I personally feel ZERO qualms about Poser or other software being "Stage 1" for an image - and I've recently been using Painter and clone brushes to try to re-do 50s, 60s "Sin Paperbacks".

Myself I start with neutral lighting then work filters - most of my work has been:

1 - Attempt to make a 70s "Grindhouse" style film grain - slight grain, slightly yellow shift and slight play on colors.

2 - Attempt to make an 80s "B-Movie" style - richer colors, more tv grain but subtler -  bright overlays for FX

3 - Attempt to make porn pics reminiscent of High quality porn magazines of the 80s and 90s.  Brighter colors, good contrast, ideally 'wet' effects on skin or shiny/oily.  Sometimes light grain for CYMK printing used.

4 - Again set a base image to paint over - these are simpler though I often then exxagerate the contrast so the paint brush picks it up better.

And I take these to the next level.  They didn't show "Hardcore" in porn you could buy most places in magazines until the end of the 90s and often Bondage was no-go though ladies would wear the gear, pose in a dungeon to imply - and Bondage +sex ...nope...  Likewise the B-Movies and Grindhouse had brief nudity, off camera sex save kissing, torture scenes were seconds... but they used the resources they had.

I'm not going to say I'm 'superior' to anyone this is just my opinion and why - matter of fact if I didn't have a lot else I'm doing and in a budget right now I'd have gotten like 10, 20 Raspberri Pi units and networked them into a parallel processing system (with a fan, cooler, air filter) to do "Batch Renders" I'd send from my main one.  But in another year might upgrade my current system to something with a LOT more cores vs 16 effective and not need to.  Might even play with DAZ again if Poser doesn't get its butt in gear since I do want to do the neat "Cow" girl morphs.

Tangent - thinking on this reminds me of a cartoon from Penthouse:

Panel 1 - Bob Guccione, a younger man in the 60s with a Hippie lady who's partially nude and playfully posing.  "So - baby, I took this old nylon of yours...  I stretch it over the lens and it creates a Soft Focus effect..." excited as much in his true calling of photography as he his his latest sexual conquest...

Panel 2 - Bob Guccione - an old man in the 90s..  Bright, harsh, clinical expensive photography studio.  He's photographing an anorexic body builder woman with silicone string boobs as large as her head and blatant scars from surgery since no one cares they are fake...  She's spread worhty of Larry's mag, and as lifeless in appearance as any mannequin..  He's stretching a CONDOM over his pricey camera - "You can't be too safe these days..."