Photoreal ~ what makes it?

[gregsandor]

...you are making things more complicated that they need to be. Let's stop this now, as I can just continue to repeat my previous messages. ..

It isn't helpful to repeat what you've already said, as that is what confused me.  What I would like is clarification.  Say it in a different way.

The point I'm making (and I think the point of this thread) is that different people perceive photos differently.  Earlier I posted a photo-postcard used to advertise another real diner; that to me expresses the feeling I want to convey with a render for example.  It speaks of the time and history of the diner/highway era and conveys the spirit of the time more appropriately than a modern pixel-camera.  On the other hand, if I render in black and white, and hand color the render, apply paper texture and lettering I get the effect I want but out of the contest bounds.  If I simulate the blown out really saturated film look of the late 1950's, or the paler washed out bleached look of the 1970's it will have a different impact.  (Now that I think of it, that might be neat, to make a series of simulated photos from the diner's construction in 1953, to a camera of the 1960's, then have one with cars and film from the 1970's, and so on, a faked photographic history of the place...)

[cyphyr]

Oh dear, this thread has developed in an unintended direction, my apologies.

My intent was to discuss and share different techniques that we could use to create realistic landscape renders, lighting techniques, visual cues etc and not to get bogged down in the definition of "photo-real". However I admit I have been complicit in just that, trying to work out just what the amorphous concept "photo-real" actually is. Evidently it means different things to different people, and also it appears that a simple answer, "... so it looks like a photo ...", is insufficient simply because as any photographer knows a great deal of their art occurs within the camera it's self and it use. For the purposes of the contest I will continue to develop my image as best I can and if that is not deemed "photo-real", I won't mind, so be it. There are a lot of articles on the net about how to achieve photorealism on a small scale (worth googling for even in our context) but few if any that deal with this on a large scale landscape level so I think there is a worthy discussion to be had on the subject.

gregsandor makes a good point in reply to my post earlier about the difference between a dull snap shot and a dramatic professional shot. We do internally critique the professional one much more than the holiday snap. However making a CG dull holiday snap really would be a challenge! Not a very interesting one I'd have to say but incredibly difficult to achieve. I mentioned Ansel Adams towards the start of the thread and I would much prefer to try to emulate that kind of dramatic style. Much more fun.

Well hopefully we can move on now and actually come up with some helpful TG suggestions.

Cheers

Richard

oh almost forgot 

[gregsandor]

Cypher we need to define what we are talking about first.  Otherwise we would all just be looking for that mythical Terragen "Make Art" button.

[Kadri]

  

[Tangled-Universe]

Greg, perhaps for the coming hours/days forget this discussion to touch base with common sense again.
You and I understand perfectly that the postcard you posted doesn't fit the common sense description of photo realistic

Generally speaking everybody shares the same common sense about what's considered photo realistic and what's being looked for in the contest.
There are of course extremes at the boundaries of common sense and that's what this is directing.
It's pretty straight forward and yes there are always questions, which are fine, and speculation on how far you can stretch/pull the rules to see where they break.
That's with every contest, but I think it's both a waste of your time as well as others to discuss this in depth and through significant lengths to see where the aim/goal of the contest breaks by over-analyzing and meticulously picking apart every sentence covering contest aim/goals/rules and their interpretation.

There are a lot of GREAT prizes to win and it's a big opportunity to see and share workflow, knowledge, ideas, inspiration and so on from other participants.
I think it's better to focus and put energy in to that

Ok, game on!

 

We're trying to fix confusion and mis-understanding here as well as getting everyones noses into the same direction here Kadri.
So perhaps for the time being it would perhaps be more appropriate to refrain from kidding around in this specific topic and it will definitely be very much appreciated by us.

[cyphyr]

Bring back "Button 9"

I really like your idea of exploring the development of photography using the same scene over the last 50 years or so. Not sure if it will qualify but go for it anyway. I think we are talking about how to achieve realism in our renders, getting scale, lighting and detail right and believable. Possibly trying to chase down the definition of "photo-real" is unhelpful and we should just stick to "real". Although thinking about it trying to define "real" has occupied philosophers for millennia and it's unlikely we shall do much better than them in a few weeks. lol 

cheers

Richard

[cyphyr]

Replaced my previous comment with an image of a goat wearing a hat. There is no subtext.

[attachimg=1]
Richard

[Tangled-Universe]

I can give you links which define common sense for you if you like.
I don't feel like posting here anymore, because this is getting very immature.

[gregsandor]

Bring back "Button 9"

I really like your idea of exploring the development of photography using the same scene over the last 50 years or so. Not sure if it will qualify but go for it anyway. I think we are talking about how to achieve realism in our renders, getting scale, lighting and detail right and believable. Possibly trying to chase down the definition of "photo-real" is unhelpful and we should just stick to "real". Although thinking about it trying to define "real" has occupied philosophers for millennia and it's unlikely we shall do much better than them in a few weeks. lol 

Richard

I've laid out some of the scale aspects of my scene, hit me with yours.  I have a "real" environment, now I'm looking to learn how to make the rendered result resemble a photograph. 

The purpose of this thread is to

So what is it that makes an image photo-real. To simply dismiss it as "looking like a photo" is missing a point. "Real" photo's are manipulated either in camera or photoshop according to the desires and skill of the artist.

Are there tricks we can employ to fool the eye, to make the viewer "abandon disbelief", to make the viewer want to believe this is "real"?

LOTS of detail, great subtle lighting, accurate scale and models all spring to mind. Real world textures also.
...

I don't get why some would prefer to shut down discussion; either add to it or you don't have to participate.   

[gregsandor]

Cyphyr,

As I've collected reference images over the years for this scene I've come across a lot of those old postcards, I imagine they'd have them made up and would place them in local motel lobbies and similar places to attract business.  Anyone seeing one in 1957 would instantly recognize them as photographs.  I think some were painted or drawn too, but most seem to be photos.  So it really depends on what your target audience is.  A man of the time would have seen them as "modern" just as we do the things produced today.  So if you make a picture in sepia (as you suggested) then folks who grew up in the era when that was "modern" wouldn't think twice about it, and a guy who saw Kodachrome when it was new would respond similarly.

As for techniques in Terragen apart from the modeled scene, we can adjust the camera to let in more or less light, adjust the lens etc.  If we're going for a modern photograph I could simply render at 480 pixels and then blow it way up to get it to look like Google Streetview:  Crappy quality, but its the real thing!     

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=clarks+hill+indiana&hl=en&ll=40.252976,-86.699595&spn=0.001646,0.003484&geocode=+&hnear=Clarks+Hill,+Tippecanoe,+Indiana&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.252976,-86.699595&panoid=-695YyBTkKnVhipzBxtR2Q&cbp=12,29.69,,0,6.72

[cyphyr]

Umm I'm not trying to shut down the discussion, anything but, you must be referring to someone else.

Richard

[FrankB]

I will amend the rules in the following way:

"Each submission must strive for photorealism as best as possible. "Photorealism" means that the submitted render should look, at close as you can get it, like a photograph made of the scene by any modern camera with a general purpose lens. Submissions that attempt to emulate vintage photo realism, or the look of worn and bleached photographs do not qualify."

I hope that helps.

Frank

[gregsandor]

Umm I'm not trying to shut down the discussion, anything but, you must be referring to someone else.

Richard

I know you're not.  I was referring to the ones who were.  I'm genuinely interested in this topic, as I am very comfortable recreating real environments in TG, I made my first real-world scale landscape in Terragen v4 or something in the mid-90's.  What I want to learn here now is how to use TG2 to create renders that make those environments as real to others who see them as they are to me.

[cyphyr]

LOL
Actually that photo brings up a very good point, the lighting is almost entirely indirect with a very overcast sky, the shadows are very soft (look under the station wagon).
I've never had much success with overcast scenes, others have.
Is this the actual scene you're trying to replicate?

Richard

[FrankB]

On a related note, Greg, let's assume your scene is very accurately modelled like a real world place, that will not suffice to make it a winning render. You will want to have detailed models, non repeating texture tiles, etc, including realistic looking light and shadow, well rendered and shaded vegetation models as if taken by a modern camera and lens, and so on.

Ideally (although that can be hard) a normal, non CG artist, would look at the picture and confuse it with a photograph. Getting a place accurately modelled is a big step of the way, but it's not all.

Regards,
Frank