https://www.posetteforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=1829&p=45960#p45960
-----------------------------------
Endosphere
Thursday, 13 November 2025, 03:48 AM

Re: Skin Texturing
-----------------------------------
Whenever we think about texturing in Poser, we should always keep in mind what texture maps do, and what they [i]do not[/i] do. We don't want to make the mistake of thinking a texture map is good/helpful or bad/ugly when in reality we may be using good or bad lighting, or a lousy model poorly posed, etc. This may seem like a basic idea too simple to mention, but I think those who get caught up in textures and the high resolutions of today may sometimes lose sight of this principle.

 [img]https://www.posetteforever.com/files/posted_images/5475/lara_example.jpg[/img] 

In this example image we have the classic P4NW 'Lara Croft' by Phil Hokusai, a freebie made in the late 1990s. At the top, we have this figure in her original state (as she arrived in the downloaded file). She 100 percent uses direct object coloring on every aspect, and the singular texture map used by default on anything is the standard P4 Nude Woman texture that comes with Poser 4 (applied to Lara's body).

In the bottom examples, I applied some generic texture and bump maps to the figure and her props. I also changed out the shirt prop (which was not a poseable clothing item and was therefore unmanageable when posing the figure) for the standard P4 Women's Vest. Apart from that, in both examples the models are standing in the same spot in the same studio with the same lighting used (a standard key/fill lighting setup).

I think in the top long shot, most would agree Lara looks okay, despite her lack of texture maps. Maybe she looks a little more 'realistic' from a distance in the bottom example, but the effect is minor. On the closeups of the face, however, we really get an education on the effect of texture maps. Though in both examples we're clearly looking at a comic-style figure, if our concern is 'realism,' then the close-up using texture maps will almost certainly be closer to our artistic objective in that case.

Direct object coloring and a texture map have the same basic purpose: to manage the innate coloration of a model. The final presentation (the output render) will then feature coloration which is a blend of model coloring and lighting applied to the model. If our image depicts a long-distance shot of all the models present, we may not really even need texture maps, as Lara demonstrates in the examples. On any close-up, however, we will probably prefer the increased flexibility and control offered by use of a texture map, as direct object coloring reduces our control of color saturation to only the model's interaction with the lighting in the scene, or a natural scintillation of the model's geometry.

The job of a bump map is to add further detail and simulated physical texturing to the model. This again is something we may not need, or may not be noticeable, on a distance view, but can be very important in close-ups. For example, notice Lara's fingers and backpack in the bottom close-up. If we're after 'realism,' we might in this case say that the bump map contributed far more to that goal than the texture map.

Yet we hardly ever see anyone discussing bump maps, and many Poser artists are content to throw any old generic or default bump map (if they use anything at all  :sad: ) on everything without giving the matter the consideration it deserves, as the example here clearly shows. Thus in relation to the original questions of this discussion, we might all profit more (at least on occasion) by considering hyper-realism in bump mapping, rather than hyper-realism in texture mapping. I think this is called Diffusion in current versions of Poser, but as I noted, I know of naught but Poser 4, so maybe that's not correct.