Renderotica

First off: Hi KristinF, good to see you.

Secondly:

In my opinion, it's nearly as hard to get a 'certain stylized' look as it is to get realism, maybe harder.

And this isn't a new problem.

A huge influence on my artwork and particular 'kink' with this medium was Heavy Metal magazine.

I'm probably not alone in that.

And most people who are into scifi fantasy art, and people who know Boris Vallejo or Frank Frazetta probably are aware of it in some form and if you're not I recommend you take a dive, it's worth it.

But the point is Richard Corben's work like 'Den' in particular (though he had other comics like Sinbad though they weren't as popular).

He used a lot of air brushing in his paintings/drawings for his comics, that gave it a certain look, the skin a type of translucence and sheen.

It's a look that even Heavy Metal couldn't duplicate when they made their movie and had Den as one of the centerpiece stories in the movie.

They talk about it in the DVD commentary.

This isnt to say it's impossible to capture that look that Richard Corben captured with his particular technique, his 'lightning in a bottle' that only he had an eye for, but it isn't easy to do, it's always been that way.

And while I love the movie for what it is (John Friggen Candy voices Den for instance, which is awesome sauce em), it failed to capture Den's 'look',

So with that in mind, why not just go for realism, even if you fall short?

In doing so you might even create your own particular 'look' or 'style'.

Though in a counter argument with myself and in closing, maybe if someone dedicated themselves to render filters or postwork filters to achieve the looks of certain artists such as Frazetta, and if those filters sold successfully, prompting the enterprising vendor to continue making them.

/shrug

Who knows, I know I would jump all over a filter that rendered a look like Corben achieved, but I think it would be very difficult to do.

Edited by user Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:25:52 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

to OP

Soooo my 2 cents....

You got Davinci's 
You got Michelangelos' 
You got Vaghn Gohs 
You got Dalis
You got Piccassos'
You got Pollocks

Me, I go for surreal.
Realler than a 2d painting or drawing, which honestly I don't have the skill for.
Warmer and more animated than a statue or sculpture, I dont have the time for.
Weirder than a photo with a model and effects equipment, I dont have the money for.
Believable Illusions. Realistic Fantasies.
Cheap fast accessible and distributable.

Maybe they are looking for story telling in a Game Industry or MCU gig. Maybe they wanna show you what they imagined in a dream they had, or explain what they saw when they were intoxicated. Maybe they want to envoke a inspiration or reactionary emotion, for you or for them. Maybe they just wanna make money.

The psychology of art... "...mmm hmm, and how does that make you feel?"

That is a very intersting discussion and touches quite a few aspects that touches my sentiments in various ways, too.
First I must say contrary to most of you in this thread I have not contributed any art to this platform or other so far and actually the reasons are somewhat related to this.

Personally, I stumbled into the whole game when i tried to pick up on some cartoon graphic novels I scetched when I was young. So, I got me a Wacom tablet, Poser, Clip Art Studio and started to create dummy model poses to transfer onto digital paper.
Hardly started I learned there were "models" better suited and more "inspiring"  for that particular kind of art and  so DAZ was introduced to my hard drive. Faced with the unexpected and incredible options it could bring to actually recreate my past work in a completely new way I slipped from analogue to digital and finally into 3D. I am saying this as it completely proves what ??? has said about the history of Poser and DAZ.
Still, my go to is a recreation of my "adult cartoons" yet what can only be considered baby steps and drafts show a complete different look than the old Letraset and Copiic marker colored ink drawings - almost "photo realistic" one might say.

But that's the point: "photo realism" is about the presentation, not the content. You can depict creatures and situations not possible in real life but still make it appear as if they were photographed - which incvolves all possible and even impossible creative tricks like nylons or vaseline over a lens.

Most 3D artwork then seems rather a mere recreation  of real world porn:  "hard and white" close-ups on wide spreaded gens and mostly a predicatble plot (if any) on a "why is there straw all over the place?". Just with imaginary actors on an imaginary set.
So yes, that may be photorealistic, too. But that's not what makes it uninspiring. At least it does so for me. It's the lifeless presentation featuring actors in lifeless puppet poses.
Maybe that is the mentioned "porn is porn" statement. Yet, I do believe that one CAN still create erotic content that could be considered completely photo realistic but the question is if that is even  the point.

My 2 cents - Whenever there is a new art medium, there are those who will want to push it until they achieve a “photo real” look. This goes for sculpture, pencil, paintings – you name it. For some, representational art has to mean as real as you can get. Some have even said that my stuff is realistic looking, though I disagree and that’s not what I’m going for. I just make what I want to see.

Good discussion.  Why do people produce the art they do?  Who knows.  I'm sure there are lots of psychologists who might weigh in and might ask us to donate our brains for further study.

The notion of whether an image is photo realistic should consider the loads of horror images that are produced and sold.  Goblins, aliens, werewolves, ghouls, monsters, zombies, elves, fairies, futas, etc engaged in all manner of sexual behavior apparently tickles a lot of people's interests as I see lots of that regularly marketed here.  While much of it looks good, and may be technically difficult to pose and render, it is not, in my mind, photo-realistic as it depicts something obviously otherworldly.  

For me, a good image is one that conveys or elicits some sort of emotion/reaction in the viewer.  It may be horror, arousal, humor, outrage, peril, etc.   

I do not strive for high realism in 3D.
If I want to accurately depict a pretty girl, I photograph her.

For picture stories, I'm now also turning back more to the comic style.

Lot of good discussion here. What I find interesting is that folk who create photo-real images tend to like seeing graphic art images rather than photo real when browsing. When I speak of graphic art images, I mean rather that I like the look and feel of an image that looks more hand painted or drawn than "cartoony" looking characters. Kind of like oils or concept art of realistic people.

I have to admit, it's taken me a long time to find the medium/filters to use to get my art the way I want it.  Most folk who want to do a graphic art looking conversion of 3d renders tend to always resort to the more basic available filters in photoshop.  There are some other good processes and resources out there that are wonderful. I haven't found one that really does a perfect edge outline, but found one that works pretty good when combined with posers pen outline feature. 

I'd be really interested in seeing our artists here attempts at some good graphic art style work.  I really enjoy the work of IronHawk here at renderotica, that artwork is some of the best I've seen.

Another interesting comment I read here hit a nail right on the head about tattoos and how they detract from a good bondage image. The tatted folk tend to make the image less "non-consensual" and I fully agree with that.  In real bdsm photos I've seen, the tats were always a let down from an otherwise awesome scene. 

Davo

<removed> maybe to off topic sorry

Edited by user Wednesday, April 28, 2021 8:16:01 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified