Photoreal ~ what makes it?

[Tangled-Universe]

That's an interesting comment Kadri,

Funny that photographers do everything in their power to eliminate lens-artifacts like CA and that on the other hands people who have the ability to use absolutely optically perfect lenses want to put in lens-artifacts.

If you simply eliminate these two you end up with zero, so the key is probably not in lens-artifacts and the like, but in other aspects.

[FrankB]

Let's not forget that for the purpose of the contest, we're talking about PHOTO real, so it has to look like a photograph as much as possible. (Of a half-way modern camera and lens).

So in that sense, adding the imperfections of a lens is a must.

[FrankB]

Other issues are in-terrain-shadow objects which tend to look plain wrong as soon as you're dealing with either quite displaced surfaces or denser atmospheres than default. Not to speak about a combination of the two. Avoid that at all cost, you'll never get it to look photo-real.

Can you explain this differently? I don't understand what you mean by "in-terrain-shadow objects".

Thanks
Frank

[Tangled-Universe]

Let's not forget that for the purpose of the contest, we're talking about PHOTO real, so it has to look like a photograph as much as possible. (Of a half-way modern camera and lens).

So in that sense, adding the imperfections of a lens is a must.

Yes, that's true.

Other issues are in-terrain-shadow objects which tend to look plain wrong as soon as you're dealing with either quite displaced surfaces or denser atmospheres than default. Not to speak about a combination of the two. Avoid that at all cost, you'll never get it to look photo-real.

Can you explain this differently? I don't understand what you mean by "in-terrain-shadow objects".

Thanks
Frank

I mean objects which are placed in shadowed parts of the terrain.

They are either underlit or overlit or have an odd hue to them.

[FrankB]

right. Thanks for explaining!

[FrankB]

...
Is this realistic?
It has its part in storytelling etc. but realistic look is sometimes very subjective.
Giving people the look they expect and not what it should be too probably.
And that is what i hate about DOF and chromatic aberration...

Don't hate it, that's quite a strong emotion for an imperfect lens, which was innocently created this way

Richard was asking about what makes renders photo real, with an emphasis on the word "photo".
Of course a photo gives a different impression compared to seeing things with your own eyes. However, because a lot of our day life and memories are supported by photographs, we come to perceive that photographs are the depiction of what's real.
If an image, mostly a render, doesn't look like a photograph, something in me rejects it as "realistic looking".

Now, I hope you participate in the contest, Kadri! That's going to be an interesting challenge for you (like for everyone participating). Try to make it what you think looks real. If you go through creating a WIP thread, you can ask others how much they perceive your results as photo real, and take it further from there. Come on! :-)

Cheers
Frank

[cyphyr]

Yes this has long been a problem with Terragen, shadows within shadowed areas don't render well. Nor dose detail in shadowed areas (there's a thread about it somewhere). Soft shadows in the sunlight node do help as can multiple sun light sources and high GI settings but obviously this is not a desirable solution; the render times will sky rocket!. If the entire terrain is in shadow the renderer dose seem to be able to compensate to a degree and "find" the lost detail.

I've done a few searches on Google images to look for "Photoreal Landscapes" and there is not that much. Franks Cloud is the third image followed by a bunch of game, and Vue renders and f course "photos of real landscapes".

As you say Franck so much of our lives are recorded in photographic form that we have come to see the photo as a "real" representation of reality.

Hmm this is getting more philosophical that I was expecting ...

There are an awful lot of photographic styles, BW, sepia, high grain, high contrast, monochrome, the current HDRI and "Instagram" fads and I need not say, many more. I haven't checked but I would imagine there are Photoshop lens pre-sets for many cameras so in theory pretty much any render "could" be made photo-real.
I know that's not the point of the contest but don't you think it brings up some interesting discussions about the nature of reality and our perception of that nature. Ultimately the definition of "photoreal" will have to be subjective. As we have already seen we can disagree about this but in the end we will all have our own ideas about what is and is  not "photoreal".

Cheers

Richard

now back to those clouds ...

[Kadri]

Frank i thought about that "hate" years ago and i think it is because i have myopia .
People who have the same problem will understand me easier probably.
When i looked around me in the first years when i did not know i had to use glasses and everything was blurry-out of focus it was painful trying to see everything clear.
So when i see blurry or out of focus images the same reflex comes in and i see it more as a fault that has to be corrected then as a aspect of a photo.

Regarding the contest...uh...oh... i hate contests too! LOL!

Joke aside,  i have not an image in my mind at the moment that i feel to share .
But if i get that inspiration somehow why not

[FrankB]

Joke aside,  i have not an image in my mind at the moment that i feel to share .
But if i get that inspiration somehow why not

You could also start somewhere and see where it leads you. That's how I do it at the moment. It's probably not the most clever approach, but it's fun.

Cheers,
Frank

[Hannes]

Unfortunately I didn't have the time to read all the posts of this very interesting thread carefully, but anyway I have to post a comment.
There is not THE way to make an image photoreal. It depends on what you want to achieve. Actually it's photoreal. That means you want to create something that looks like a photograph and not what you would actually see in the real world.
It's a great exercise to take a photo and try to replicate the look as much as possible. And I agree that imperfections of the lens are essential. But of course DOF for example is very often overdone. If you have a panoramic wide shot with no objects close to the lens DOF would destroy the sense of scale and it would look like a miniature.
Too much grain may look artificial too and vignettes are imho an imperfection of very old cameras (?).
Some subtle chromatic aberration is my personal favourite. It can change the look of an image dramatically (sorry, Kadri .
Anyway I think reference images are the key to photoreal CG images. Taking the time to tweak an image in TG until it's really close to the real thing is really worth it.

[Tangled-Universe]

Chromatic Abberation is also a nice way to very subtly blur your image.

[Dune]

As I was reading this thread I also thought was Hannes thought (

Actually it's photoreal. That means you want to create something that looks like a photograph and not what you would actually see in the real world.

). I didn't realize the contest was really about simulating a photo, but if it's stated that way, it should be done. 'Realistic' is not the same as photo-realistic indeed. If you look at a landscape, your eyes wonder over the details, and you only see clear what you focus on, the rest is a blur, although you perceive it as a total (sharp) landscape in your brains.
And I also like the comments about all the types of photography... what photo-reality are we talking about? Instant camera, Ansel Adams' camera... philosophic indeed.

[FrankB]

As I was reading this thread I also thought was Hannes thought (

Actually it's photoreal. That means you want to create something that looks like a photograph and not what you would actually see in the real world.

). I didn't realize the contest was really about simulating a photo, but if it's stated that way, it should be done. 'Realistic' is not the same as photo-realistic indeed. If you look at a landscape, your eyes wonder over the details, and you only see clear what you focus on, the rest is a blur, although you perceive it as a total (sharp) landscape in your brains.
And I also like the comments about all the types of photography... what photo-reality are we talking about? Instant camera, Ansel Adams' camera... philosophic indeed.

Let's not over engineer this! Just a normal photo camera.

[Kadri]

But...but Frank "normal photo camera" ?   

[Tangled-Universe]

I think that you can't create a photoreal image if you don't have a realistic render as a base.
You can push it in extreme directions to make it photoreal but that would become obvious and would also conflict with contest rules.

So I think we shouldn't be influenced too much by this "photoreal discussion" as this is rather end-stage stuff in my opinion.
A purple carrot still looks like a purple carrot in B&W, so you have to get everything straight before adding in the photoreal look.