Can you promise a client true photo realism?

[lupaz]

Hi there,

A client asked me to do a truly photo realistic image, really indistinguishable from reality.

Do you guys feel you can deliver?

I really never came across a rendering that I couldn't tell it was real or not, without it being an actual copy of a photo.

If you guys have a link to such work, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

Edit: I'm not talking about a one object scene or very simple scene.

[Frood]

http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/

Anyone knows where to access the older challenges?


Good Luck

[lupaz]

Thanks.
I remember being on that site before.
But to me the photos look especially fake, like they were chosen because of that.
They're also too small. It's easier to make a rendering appear as a photo when it's a small size.
They seem to be too simple too. Not easy to do, but simple. Both photos and renderings.
In the case of cars, the car may be rendered but the environment may be hdri, I suspect.

[Frood]

You are right in all imo but this just came to my mind.

"Photo" nowadays is usually heavily processed anyway in every aspect, the worlds are merging. There have much better challenges than this one btw. but I can't find the older ones.


Good Luck

[Noah45]

Easy, just get 'em drunk first.

edit (30+ yrs. business/art)

[lupaz]

This one I wouldn't be able to tell it's not a photo. Found on redshift's gallery.

[lolec]

Well.. look at an Ikea Catalog.  They've been moving to digital more and more. Last time I checked they said 80% of images were renders, this was a couple of years ago...  I bet it's close to 100% now.  And the images are not overly edited.

You probably come across photorealistic renders all the time, they are just so good that you don't even notice.

It's like CG in movies, people say they hate CG, but what they really hate is bad CG, because good CG is invisible.

Pretty much every product photo you've seen in the past years is a render.

I believe true photo-realism can be promised to clients, not by me, but it is definitely possible.

I remember CACTUS work posted on this forum : https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=16232.0

[Juraj]

It's a crap assignment because even if you would end up delivering something that could be 'objectively' (by majority of laymen or professionals) judged as pure capture of reality, your client could simply decide it is "not his" kind of reality. Anything creative, is heavily subjective, who here didn't have client who would proclaim upon perfectly correct, highly realistic floor something in lieu of "I think it looks strange/fake, can you remove all the reflections and make it look super flat and ugly ? I think that's what the floor should look like".
Or my personal favorite "I don't think the mirror is showing correct reflection, shouldn't it reflect the other side of room" (Well of course, I will tell my renderer software to go back to geometry class).

This is why you have in you contract a clause that prevents this kind of argument, establishing quality that follows the common industry standard and the acceptations of limitation of technology.
It's ok to promise the best based on your existing portfolio, but not be legally beholden to unrealistic objectives.

[denisgo22]

My Test for photo realism with Corona from simple Archmodels scene:)


This is a matter of subjective perception--
 In addition,in photography there are many camera types and post-processing tricks---
So there is no other option, as to do this by the reference photo picture , was sending by this very customer---
For always have an answer to all sorts of stupid questions //why it is so?//--
...Look at the reference you sent me. This is exactly like here/ :))
-------------------

[lacilaci]

"It's ok to promise the best based on your existing portfolio, but not be legally beholden to unrealistic objectives."

This!! Show the client your portfolio and ask if it is realistic enough. If they say yes, then you have a point of reference that is your own work. If not, then you might not want to promise anything.

[karklinskarlis1993]

It's a crap assignment because even if you would end up delivering something that could be 'objectively' (by majority of laymen or professionals) judged as pure capture of reality, your client could simply decide it is "not his" kind of reality. Anything creative, is heavily subjective, who here didn't have client who would proclaim upon perfectly correct, highly realistic floor something in lieu of "I think it looks strange/fake, can you remove all the reflections and make it look super flat and ugly ? I think that's what the floor should look like".
Or my personal favorite "I don't think the mirror is showing correct reflection, shouldn't it reflect the other side of room" (Well of course, I will tell my renderer software to go back to geometry class).

This is why you have in you contract a clause that prevents this kind of argument, establishing quality that follows the common industry standard and the acceptations of limitation of technology.
It's ok to promise the best based on your existing portfolio, but not be legally beholden to unrealistic objectives.

you will always have some great thoughts on different subjects,
thank you for your sights, really interesting to read!

here is old project by agyoutcast (even they are low resolution, they both somehow look fake and cg to me despite of their appearing "cleanness", i cant really distinguish them lol)
Kamppi Chapel


for me, as total rookie of this industry, photorealistic image is one with:
-perfect model scale,
-rich GI,
-great and detailed textures,
-lens imperfections - scratches etc,
-vignetting
-floating dust,
-lot of noise in darker areas,
-lens distortion,
-CA
-one with really damaged look.

i really doubt any client would ask this damaged looking-raw-photo-like image for any value and use for. all based on personal preferences, you should ask client what do they interpret as realistic. personally, i dont find realistic these toxical-clean looking furniture magazine artworks.

for me, this project by Sergey Baskakov, was one of the most realistic archviz looks i have ever witnessed
 https://www.behance.net/gallery/21833701/Noncommercial-project-House-and-nature

[lupaz]

Thank you all for the examples.

Ikea is a very good example actually. I wonder if they publish renderings in a full page of a magazine at 300 dpi though.

""It's ok to promise the best based on your existing portfolio, but not be legally beholden to unrealistic objectives."
This!! Show the client your portfolio and ask if it is realistic enough. If they say yes, then you have a point of reference that is your own work. If not, then you might not want to promise anything."

Yes, but I'm not really worried about the legal consequences of not delivering.
Also my portfolio not necessarily shows the best I can do.
I like the challenge and I'll take it.

It's being afraid of producing an image that some people may think it's not a photo without them knowing it's not a photo, especially after being published on a magazine as a spread ad at 300dpi.


Going back to the Ikea case, if the following are renderings, they're doing a great job. I don't think they are. But only they know.
Maybe we're lucky and someone on they're team read this and can comment...

[FrostKiwi]

Can you promise a client true photo realism?

Absolutely not, never.
The client and you both know it's CG. Now starts the pixel peeping, forgotten is composition and feel. The client will start not to look at the picture, but will search for even the smallest crack instead.
Something somewhere will always be found. "But see here, this 10x10 pixel grid is not realistic, you promised true photo realism."
It sets people up for unrealistic expectations and thus for a lot of potential disappointment.
Obviously not in the exaggerated way I wrote, but promising photo realism leaves too much up to imagination.
Managing expectation is a difficult thing in any discipline, but in anything CGI related it can take on a whole other level. Promising photo realism can lead to the worst kind of pixel fucking possible. Something, that can end in tears and lawsuit.
Obviously this will be a true rarity, but someday there will be that client, that points out you promised X in that E-Mail and he thinks you did not deliver and thus breached the contract. Good luck proving otherwise.

[lupaz]

Can you promise a client true photo realism?

Absolutely not, never.
The client and you both know it's CG. Now starts the pixel peeping, forgotten is composition and feel. The client will start not to look at the picture, but will search for even the smallest crack instead.
Something somewhere will always be found. "But see here, this 10x10 pixel grid is not realistic, you promised true photo realism."
It sets people up for unrealistic expectations and thus for a lot of potential disappointment.
Obviously not in the exaggerated way I wrote, but promising photo realism leaves too much up to imagination.
Managing expectation is a difficult thing in any discipline, but in anything CGI related it can take on a whole other level. Promising photo realism can lead to the worst kind of pixel fucking possible. Something, that can end in tears and lawsuit.
Obviously this will be a true rarity, but someday there will be that client, that points out you promised X in that E-Mail and he thinks you did not deliver and thus breached the contract. Good luck proving otherwise.

Well, let's consider a client who is not a crazy person.

I think what Alex Roman did 8 years ago in The Third & The Seventh could trick 99% of the commoners if published.
Even when you see repeated textures (very few), it just looks real. Tons of post-production I'm sure.
I wonder if a render engine will ever get this good right out of the VFB.

Some images of The Third & The Seventh by Alex Roman. A genius.

[burnin]

of course one can promise, it's simply an artistic style after all
you can go hyper-real, abstract, impressionist... whatever you're skilled with
it is artwork & that's what the client is commissioning for

if it's for science purposes that's another story with totally different level of mindsets, but again the work is an art form and you the artist 

clearly unaware minds create their own visions of reality, take artificial stuff all too literally

hope majority is aware that "an image of a horse is not a horse", but also "a white horse is not a horse"
:D

enjoy