Photorealistic 3d-renders

[aartturi]

I sometimes do 3d-renders which are sometimes very much photorealistic and might not be distinguished from a photo without a very much trained eye or very specific knowledge of the subject. That's why I've been wondering how should I categorize the images I do by that way?

It feels little strange to put them into the photography, but yet still it feels little strange to put them into the illustrations since the rendering basically is photography of 3d-objects and they can look exactly like photos. It just is simulation of the camera.

[Ussnorway]

Adobe doesn't have much time for 3D and isn't up on trends ... That said, a 3D rendor is a "digital image" or "digitally created image" depending on who you ask

[aartturi]

I think we need some clear guidelines of this issue. Of course it is a "digitally created image", but basically almost all images nowadays are made digitally with digital cameras. Most of the time you also do very much photoshopping into your digital photos before you release it, so the colors for example could be completely different in the final product, items added or removed and basically every pixel altered somehow. After which steps it's not anymore a photo?

I think the line goes roughly where it anymore doesn't look like a photo. But that's the problem with 3d-images also, because they can look as photos.

[Ussnorway]

a photo is the raw image i.e, as the camera sees it... once you edit that in Photoshop, Lightroom etc yes it too becomes a "digital image" and yes someone with 3D skill + time can make better 'real' images or at least as good as you get from cameras

few people have the skill, take the time so its still assumed 3D is less than real

mark your images as you want... if they sell then you are correct