[deadalvs]

today, i had a conversation about photorealism with a guy.

we looked at a few maxwell render gallery pix and he stated that too photorealistic isn't realistic anymore.

perfect glass, perfect marble, perfect IOR silver-gallium-arsenide-kryptonite ... does it disturb our well-trained eye of reality?

of course we want to sell our product, may this be an architectural render, cool design objects or jewelery. but does the mathematical precision of «perfect renderings» hold itself back from realism? (reality isn't perfect)

how do You see this?

is dirt needed in maxwell city ?

* * *

deadalvs

[tom]

Yes, some people agree but it doesn't seem like Mike agrees...

-©Mike Verta

[pluMmet]

I don't think your discussion was really about realism...it was about cleanliness


Reality is imperfect and takes much more work then a clean and perfect image

[ivox3]

A pristine or 'dirty' image might be called upon to sell an idea, product , architecture .......... We can do both ......so there can be no argument.



Just subjectivity to what you need to do at a particular time.

[Frances]

Well, I wouldn't want any of the stuff in these renders in my kitchen or bathroom.

[pluMmet]

Well, I wouldn't want any of the stuff in these renders in my kitchen or bathroom.

Dag, you have an in the house water closet. You richies don't know how cool it is to have the privacy of an outhouse. I never bother anyone

[deadalvs]

nice... go on ...

* * *

deadalvs

[RonB]

Too clean has always bothered me...art or not.

[-Adrian]

I think there's no reason for discussion here, we agree that imperfections are needed to make a believable image and since realism is what we want how could a render be too realistic, what does 110% realism look like?

Good ol' Stapler, still one of my favourites:

[deadalvs]

well, i just would like to talk about the general topic... i'm just curious.

of course it's clear that surface imperfections create more realistic images and that there are more efforts needed to create such maps.

i just want to learn about people's opinions about the «cg» character of pictures and whether they like it and why.

* * *

i'm interested why people render a picture for days which could be taken just outside of the doorstep. maybe it's too philosophic.

* * *

it would of course be just great to get a bunch of shaders (maybe as coatings) that mimic procedural dirt for people that are not so ambitious and talented as Mike is or it seems that others are here.

* * *

or just express the personal relation towards the term photorealistic.

* * *

deadalvs

[Frances]

One goal I have for my professional work is to try and incorporate more irregularities and imperfections that suggest "aged" or "handmade" more so than dirty or damaged. This is specific to my profession as a visualizer for interior designers. As I said, it's a goal of mine and my work is not "there" yet in that regard. It does take skill and time.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[deadalvs]

imperfections that suggest "aged" or "handmade" more so than dirty or damaged

which approach do You use here technically concerning maxwell render and texture preparation / modeling ?

* * *

deadalvs

[Frances]

which approach do You use here technically concerning maxwell render and texture preparation / modeling ?

Mostly through textures. Here is an example from a scene I'm redoing from a couple of years ago. These were both rendered with V1.1.

[kraemerJK]

I think this "argument" really can never be an argument. Working in ARCH visualisation and using this tool mainly to sell something that is supposed to be build somewhere, the dirt and irregularities would not amuse my clients. Guess the explanation : "Yeah, you know, that guy that does my renders, well, he is a sucker for detail, so, yeah, that grime around your windows will build up if you buy the house, but, you know, only in the future, but you will of course buy a clean one !"

So : Professionally : No dirt.

But the artist in me really likes dirt and stuff to make pictures seem realistic. So it´s down to the occasion I think. You can always argue that a clean image lacks some reality. But it depends on what you want to sell. Example : You are not buying a new, mud splattered Jeep because it is the realistic image of the car in use. You buy one that´s in pristine showroom condition. On the other hand : If you buy artwork, you go for atmosphere.

To me there is only one mistake that somebody can make while producing cg stuff : To be too dogmatic about it. Dirt can be great and Dirt can be devastating .....