Guys, I really think that the evidence is clear: Renderings done with Corona are more easily recognizable as CGI than those made with Fstorm.
Really, tonemapping is not IT. Even if the Corona team re-works the tonemapping area, it may get better, but it's not it.
I was just at the Facebook pages of Fstorm and Corona.
It took me a while to find images in the Fstorm group, even by what it seemed the most inexperienced memebers, that didn't look like a photo.
Then I went to the Corona Facebook page. The fist image I found was obviously a rendering done by a not-so-experienced user and there was no way to tell my brain that it may be a photo.
See images below. I tried to take the worst images in the Facebook pages. I think the evidence is obvious: It's easier to make photorealism with Fstorm than with Corona. And I cannot believe that the discussion is about improving tonemapping to get the photorealism that you get with Fstorm by default. (Very clear to me with the image of the laundry room, made with Fstorm. It looks like a toy, but there's a realistic quality to it, with seemingly no effort)
It's like when we were having this conversation in the Vray forum just when Corona was released back in 2013 or so. The issue is not tonemapping.
IMO the issue has to do with the level of bias-ness: Both Fstorm and Corona are biased render engines. But the way Corona does the bias by default is not as good as what Fstorm does.
Even in this image, obviously with a lot of detail, I can tell that boat is fake.