We need a pseudorealism tag.

Currently we only have Realistic and photorealistic. With the following wikis:

Realistic

Art with a more realistic approach to its anatomy, proportion, lighting and so on.

Use photorealistic for posts so realistic they could be mistaken for photographs.

photorealistic

Posts so realistic that they could be mistaken for photographs except upon close inspection.

If these were used correctly it would lead to everything from "more realistic" to "incredibly realistic but not photo like" getting in the same category. Instead what we get is that exact problem combined with things that cannot be be mistaken for a photo getting tagged under photorealistic presumably to separate them from the quality found in realistic such as post #7258069 post #7215833 which should be in realistic or could only be mistaken for photo from the thumbnail post #6758023 post #7139579 (I am going to assume "upon close inspection" doesn't just mean "click on it")

Having three "tiers" instead of two allows for realistic to be for posts like the above and photorealistic to be used for its actual purpose.

Just going through realistic pokemon leads to there being no difference between things like post #625045 post #3344899

This is a large change and I will be away for a few days so I will be leave you guys to maybe try and think of a name. In the meantime here are some examples of what requirements for the different "tiers" could be.

Pseudorealistic: post #3344899, post #1199784

Realistic: post #625045 post #7258069 post #7215833 post #6586213 post #6758023

Photorealistic: post #6692616 post #153488 post #6221469

I disagree.
We don't need a pseudorealism tag. We only need the tags to be correctly used... which is where the actual problem lies in and it's the subjectivity of these tags.
There is no concrete definition for realistic and photorealistic and some builders think that the wikis for those tags are wrong.
Realistic and photorealistic have been misused A LOT. Take a look at post #403342. This was tagged as photorealistic before I fixed that error. A bunch of stuff like that is tagged under photorealistic and therefore, the tag was misused.
Again, there is no clear definition for photorealistic, but we could say that it's an artwork/post that can be mistaken for a photo without a closer inspection. One very good example of that would be post #2645115. For now, this is just my opinion, but a post should not be tagged as photorealistic if it isn't at least on the same level of shading and style as post #2645115.

yooyoruteien said:
There is no concrete definition for realistic and photorealistic and some builders think that the wikis for those tags are wrong.
Realistic and photorealistic have been misused A LOT. Take a look at post #403342. This was tagged as photorealistic before I fixed that error. A bunch of stuff like that is tagged under photorealistic and therefore, the tag was misused.

I would agree that we don't need a psuedorealism tag because in my opinion realistic already covers that. My rule of thumb is that if you mistake the thumbnail as a photo then it should have the photorealistic tag. For instance post #5048939 at full size reveals it's traditional art, but you'd give pause while scrolling amd assume someone uploaded an off-topic photo.

As for OP, post #3344899 looks like Don Bluth art, not really realisic the Ho-oh looks more realistic but is just a fantasy inspired piece. I'd sooner tag painterly on them.

I believe the best use for a pseudorealistic tag wouldn't necessarily be for things like what are being suggested right now, but rather for art that blends realistic and anime stylings (things like big anime eyes + otherwise realistic facial structure with noses, think live action Alita). This is common in work by Chinese and Korean artists that are currently tagged under realistic such as post #7486193, post #7486254, post #5417613 and post #6549397. I know the realistic tag as it stands right now is more of an approximation than 100% accurate, but I've always felt a bit iffy about adding posts that look like this to realistic.

zetsubousensei said:

I would agree that we don't need a psuedorealism tag because in my opinion realistic already covers that. My rule of thumb is that if you mistake the thumbnail as a photo then it should have the photorealistic tag. For instance post #5048939 at full size reveals it's traditional art, but you'd give pause while scrolling amd assume someone uploaded an off-topic photo.

As for OP, post #3344899 looks like Don Bluth art, not really realisic the Ho-oh looks more realistic but is just a fantasy inspired piece. I'd sooner tag painterly on them.

I would say

Thumbnail looks like a photo but the full picture clearly isn't = realistic. Eg, post #6758023, post #5048939
Thumbnail looks like a photo and the full picture could be mistaken for one as well = photo realistic post #7443381, post #6221469, post #2645115

HeeroWingZero said:

I believe the best use for a pseudorealistic tag wouldn't necessarily be for things like what are being suggested right now, but rather for art that blends realistic and anime stylings (things like big anime eyes + otherwise realistic facial structure with noses, think live action Alita). This is common in work by Chinese and Korean artists that are currently tagged under realistic such as post #7486193, post #7486254, post #5417613 and post #6549397. I know the realistic tag as it stands right now is more of an approximation than 100% accurate, but I've always felt a bit iffy about adding posts that look like this to realistic.

Another point for this being posts with more realistic proportions compared to the anime artstyle such as post #6719733 or post #7170972 (nsfw), especially the latter. (More realistic but not "realistic" given how skinny she is on the torso compared to her legs)

Perhaps we should have a realistic_proportions tag those? Or at the very least a pool.