Danbooru

imply photorealistic -> realistic

Posted under Tags

This is pure devil's advocacy. The examples brought up are not against what taggers already perceive to be realistic: our baseline is still anime so anything with slightly more render and detail will be realistic.

We are not arguing whether

Have too many stylized qualities to be realistic so why bring that argument now. In fact people already expect there to be some sort of implication between them for photorealistic -realistic to be that massive.
Sincerely I'm more kinda trying to couple this tag with the rest of its family since it doesn't serve much purpose in its current isolated state when realistic dwarfs photorealistic by that much: there is more photorealistic works in realistic than photorealistic.

  • Reply
  • lllIllllIllllIll said:

    Have too many stylized qualities to be realistic so why bring that argument now. In fact people already expect there to be some sort of implication between them for photorealistic -realistic to be that massive.
    Sincerely I'm more kinda trying to couple this tag with the rest of its family since it doesn't serve much purpose in its current isolated state when realistic dwarfs photorealistic by that much: there is more photorealistic works in realistic than photorealistic.

    That is reaching. You cannot assume nor prove that people aren't tagging realistic and photorealistic together because they expect one to implicate the other. If anything, the wikis read as if the two are meant to be mutually exclusive, if anybody actually read them.

    I'm skeptical of the second claim, as well. I went through about 30 pages of realistic -photorealistic, I didn't see more than a handful of posts I would've mistaken for an actual photo even at a glance, much less when given any amount of scrutiny.

    Photorealistic posts don't have to be "realistic," they just have to look "real." Something can look like a photograph without looking like something that might actually exist.

  • Reply
  • I agree yet generally lean my assumptions on nobody reading wikis, I didn't and that was what I expected at least. The bottom line is that photorealistic still distracts from realistic.

    Perphaps, we also are more lax when tagging photorealistic as well by the looks of it.

    holup realistic doesn't have to be "realistic" or lifelike either see realistic pokemon_(creature), realistic mecha, realistic monster, realistic dragon, and the aforementioned posts

  • Reply
  • blindVigil said:

    Photorealistic posts don't have to be "realistic," they just have to look "real." Something can look like a photograph without looking like something that might actually exist.

    This is yet another case of our definition making zero sense in the real world. "Photorealistic" just means "so realistic you could mistake it for a photograph", there's no other subtlety or hidden meaning to the definition.

    It's absurd to expect anyone searching for these tags to learn the difference between realistic and photorealistic that we're using right now, someone who wants to see realistic pokemon or mecha is going to instinctively use realistic, not photorealistic, despite none of those subjects being able to exist in the real world.
    Any attempt at separation between the two is wishful thinking when nobody in this topic would ever suggest they're mutually exclusive concepts, if not for a note in the wiki that was written a decade ago.

  • Reply
  • 1