If on object looks 'too clean' etc. in Real Life, it is futile to argue that it
is not realistic - it is real, therefore it is inherently realistic.
In CG that argument does not apply. If it looks too clean and people know it to
be CG, they automatically find it to be unrealistic - a failed attempt at
photorealism. You can argue all you like, that's what people feel. So it is
better to exaggerate irregularity, impurity, imprecision - all the things that
are assumed to convey a 'natural' look.
Photorealism and the impression of photorealism are often not the same thing.
It's up to you to decide which you're after.

Margus

Simen Kvaal wrote:
> 
> I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
> reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
> 
> I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
> imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
> comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
> [whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
> cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
> computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
> that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
> like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
> reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
> that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
> 
> This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
> (including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
> perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
> either.
> 
> Anyone wants to comment?
> 
> Simen.

Post a reply to this message