|My collection of favourites|
I've noticed a generally cold reception towards photomorphs within the Furry/Anthro communities. The general consensus is that they fall into the depths of the uncanny valley. My preferred medium is photomanipulation, so I'm trying to figure out whether it's at all possible to avoid the uncanny valley.
To provide some background, I believe the base of my images really dictates how I categorise my work, and I always start off with a human model with the aim to make them more animalistic. The result is that I see my work and thus every other photomanip that starts off with a human base, as being zoomorphic (humans with animal characteristics) instead of being anthropomorphic (animals with human characteristics). Perhaps this fundamental difference in preference immediately starts me off on the wrong foot in terms of appealing to the traditional anthro and furry communities.
I don't know if it's the realism that makes it creepy or whether its just a difference in preference of appearance and/or anatomy (striking the right balance between being more animalistic or more human). Determining the right balance of anatomy and appearance is subjective and differs from one person to the next. Should there be human hair? Should the eyes be human or animal? Should the muzzle be present? Are human hands acceptable, etc.
Regarding balance, where does the uncanny valley begin and end? Any insights into what factors make certain photomorphs uncanny rather than at what point a photomorph becomes uncanny would be greatly appreciated!
-- Animal end of the scale --
-- Human end of the scale --
Further to the above, do you think that realistic drawn or painted art suffers from the same levels of uncanniness, if not, why do you think that is?