Topic: Tag implication: realistic_feral -> realistic -> feral

The tag implication #69810 realistic_feral -> realistic is pending approval.

Reason: I feel like the realistic_feral tag should imply the realistic/realism and feral tags since realism is the focus when you're tagging that and feral is obviously present.

if, like, a Sonic character is in the same room as a realistically sized/proportioned dog should the whole post be considered realistic?

dba_afish said:
if, like, a Sonic character is in the same room as a realistically sized/proportioned dog should the whole post be considered realistic?

Yes, if the dog is drawn realistically. There is more to the realistic_feral tag than just size and proportions. If it is present, it should be tagged. There are plenty of examples of posts that are tagged as both realistic and toony because both aspects are present.

post #112536 is a good example of this.

What is the deal with realistic? The wiki says "For art that has realistic approach to its anatomy, proportion, lighting and so on." but also has examples like:
post #4126628 post #4679834
There ain't no way those have a realistic approach to anatomy, proportion, and lighting. People seem to be conflating it with detailed (or detailed_fur, etc). It also has posts like
post #5872265 post #5878342
under it. I think if "realistic" is to make sense as a tag, it should be something like "looks practically real", while many posts with the tag use different standards of realism that make it a hodgepodge of different things.

I also feel there's an issue mapping realistic_feral to realistic more generally. realistic_feral seems to largely be "2 zoo 4 me" for many people, with it being tagged on posts like
post #5915729 post #3802530 post #5717448
with the first one also tagged toony. In my mind, "realistic" and "toony" are diametrically opposed styles (with a sizable gulf in between, where many/most images can be best described as neither particularly toony or particularly realistic). While something can be detailed and toony, it can't be realistic and toony, since toony fundamentally lacks realism and vice versa. In that vein, something described as a "realistic feral" for people that want to avoid ferals that feel too-close-for-comfort isn't necessarily realistic.

Porn was not a variable in the decision to suggest the implication. Things like fluffy_hair imply fluffy and hair, for obvious reasons. I think that for the same obvious reason, realistic_feral should imply both realistic and feral. Misuse of the realistic/realism tag shouldn't have any affect on this decision. For people who don't want realism in their feral porn, they should - or blacklist the realism tag when searching for it.

firestar said:
Porn was not a variable in the decision to suggest the implication. Things like fluffy_hair imply fluffy and hair, for obvious reasons. I think that for the same obvious reason, realistic_feral should imply both realistic and feral. Misuse of the realistic/realism tag shouldn't have any affect on this decision. For people who don't want realism in their feral porn, they should - or blacklist the realism tag when searching for it.

That's the problem. The realistic tag isn't good enough for many people to filter out the kind of feral porn they don't want to see. If this implication goes through, it will result is many posts being mistagged with realistic both from current and future uses of realistic_feral. These uses of the realistic_feral tag should be considered when making this decision since it will result in many mistags; if nothing else, there should be a discussion and call for cleaning up realistic_feral before approving it, and making people aware that realistic_feral isn't to be used in some of the kinds of cases it has been.

watsit said:
That's the problem. The realistic tag isn't good enough for many people to filter out the kind of feral porn they don't want to see. If this implication goes through, it will result is many posts being mistagged with realistic both from current and future uses of realistic_feral. These uses of the realistic_feral tag should be considered when making this decision since it will result in many mistags; if nothing else, there should be a discussion and call for cleaning up realistic_feral before approving it, and making people aware that realistic_feral isn't to be used in some of the kinds of cases it has been.

At the very least it should still imply the feral tag.

watsit said:
What is the deal with realistic? The wiki says "For art that has realistic approach to its anatomy, proportion, lighting and so on." but also has examples like:
post #4126628 post #4679834
There ain't no way those have a realistic approach to anatomy, proportion, and lighting. People seem to be conflating it with detailed (or detailed_fur, etc). It also has posts like
post #5872265 post #5878342
under it. I think if "realistic" is to make sense as a tag, it should be something like "looks practically real", while many posts with the tag use different standards of realism that make it a hodgepodge of different things.

[...]

The issue is that the wiki of realistic is trying to cover multiple destinct meanings of 'realistic' instead of focusing on a specific form of realistic the tag should probably be disambiguated and new tags for the specific forms created if they dont already exist.

In regard to the first pair of thumbnails, those would fall under photorealism where the painting/drawing appears as if it where a real life photo or in the case of fictional things depicting them as if they were in real life. detailed fur or other coverings would always also apply here but not all detailed fur or other detailed coverings are necessarily realistic. The photorealism implication should be removed.

As for the second pair of thumbnails they seem to be concerned with anatomically correct anatomy or detailed anatomy in the sense of a human which might be better covered by tags such as muscular, athletic, slim or obese

one set is concerned with the artstyle that is photorealism while the other set is detailed or plausible anotomy from the standard of a human.

ryu_deacon said:
In regard to the first pair of thumbnails, those would fall under photorealism where the painting/drawing appears as if it where a real life photo or in the case of fictional things depicting them as if they were in real life. detailed fur or other coverings would always also apply here but not all detailed fur or other detailed coverings are necessarily realistic.

I don't think I'd call those photorealism since they clearly look like drawings, just with very detailed fur; they're not to the degree that they're "rendered so realistically that it is harder to distinguish from photos and reality". The anatomy is all wrong, and while the lighting is good, it too doesn't look like something that would be confused for a photo or reality. We agree that detailed/detailed_fur isn't necessarily realistic, but I don't see what else besides that would push images like that toward being called photorealism.

ryu_deacon said:
As for the second pair of thumbnails they seem to be concerned with anatomically correct anatomy or detailed anatomy in the sense of a human which might be better covered by tags such as muscular, athletic, slim or obese

one set is concerned with the artstyle that is photorealism while the other set is detailed or plausible anotomy from the standard of a human.

Right, which was my point. You can have three images that look nothing alike, one with inaccurate anatomy but "realistic" or detailed fur/scales/skin, and another with accurate anatomy but unrealistic fur/scales/skin, and another that could be confused for a real photo, all being described by the same tag. If it can't settle on something more consistent, it may be best to invalidate/disambiguate it in favor of more specific tags that are clearer about what they mean.

watsit said:
I don't think I'd call those photorealism since they clearly look like drawings, just with very detailed fur; they're not to the degree that they're "rendered so realistically that it is harder to distinguish from photos and reality". The anatomy is all wrong, and while the lighting is good, it too doesn't look like something that would be confused for a photo or reality. We agree that detailed/detailed_fur isn't necessarily realistic, but I don't see what else besides that would push images like that toward being called photorealism.
[...]

i do beg to disagree, specifically alot of silverfox art could fairly easily be passed off as 3d models with hair systems or studio photos of detailed dolls

photorealism also does not concern itself with proper anatomy(no fictional creature such as a dragon could count if that were the case).

this is art by the same artist post #5772994 this is obviously not photorealistic, we can immediately see the brushstrokes and canvas texture yet it would count as detailed fur.

post #5737611 post #5800140 post #5719884 post #5214983 post #2100274 post #1382751 post #1252304 these all are under detailed fur but are certainly not photorealistic.

ryu_deacon said:
i do beg to disagree, specifically alot of silverfox art could fairly easily be passed off as 3d models with hair systems or studio photos of detailed dolls

photorealism also does not concern itself with proper anatomy(no fictional creature such as a dragon could count if that were the case).

this is art by the same artist post #5772994 this is obviously not photorealistic, we can immediately see the brushstrokes and canvas texture yet it would count as detailed fur.

Silverfox's art, particularly the previous example image, gives strong digital fur brush indications. Even if it was 3D, the way the fur blends and blurs together creates a very "digital" aesthetic. Just because some of their art has more simplistic fur and less detailing doesn't mean their more detailed work is inherently photorealistic. For them in particular, they give their characters pretty big eyes and reflections, which creates a more tangible sense of physicality, but it still comes across as a digital creation rather than something that could be confused for a real photo. Not helped that a number of their posts are photo_manipulations, giving them a photorealistic look because they're literally photos with detailed characters painted in, that can warp peoples' expectations (they're more likely to call their non-photomanip work photorealistic because of their photomanips, compared to other artists' work despite being very similar).

Photo realism doesn't really concern itself with the amount of detail, but how well the details that are there comport to expectations of reality. As much as this
post #1937165
can be called photorealistic, so can
post #4675287

ryu_deacon said:
post #5737611 post #5800140 post #5719884 post #5214983 post #2100274 post #1382751 post #1252304 these all are under detailed fur but are certainly not photorealistic.

I'd contest some of them being detailed_fur. But even of those that are, just because something can be less detailed doesn't make more detail photorealistic. What makes
post #5792157 post #1079571
photorealistic, but not
post #2100274 post #1382751

Realistic_feral =/= realistic as used elsewhere. It's more about anatomy (is this a plausibly-shaped animal, or is any resemblance more symbolic like with Pluto_(disney)). It's a terrible name, but a useful tag imo because people do actually want to search/blacklist using this criteria.