Pro-grade realism needs massive datasets, but honestly, many cheap models lack the texture you're after... they just look SO waxy. Curious about one thing: whats your actual budget? I've had issues with tools being not as good as expected. Maybe check Adobe Firefly, but unfortunately, the sub costs can bite. Be careful with those 'free' sites, they're often a waste. Is $20/mo too much? gl!

Curious about one thing: are you running this locally on your own GPU or looking for a cloud site? I once wasted $30 on a sub my rig couldn't even handle lol. 1. Leonardo.ai is great; the free tier is huge, or about $12/mo for more.
2. SeaArt.ai is actually cheap for high-res realism. Lesson learned: basically, check your hardware specs before paying for anything!!

Regarding what #3 said about "Totally agree with the above! Especially about FLUX.1..."

• I would suggest a cautious approach before you commit to any one platform. The thread has touched on some solid points regarding hardware and texture quality, but there is a lot of nuance in how these models handle skin. Basically, the summary so far looks like this:
• Texture realism usually struggles with over-smoothed post-processing on certain web platforms.
• Anatomy is improving with newer model architectures, but hardware overhead is significant.
• DIY setups offer the most control but come with a higher technical learning curve. If you are aiming for that professional-grade look, I have a couple of questions to narrow down the best path:
• Are you planning to run these models locally, and if so, what are your hardware specs (specifically your GPU VRAM)?
• Do you have a preference for a specific workflow, like needing a simple interface versus being okay with more complex, modular systems? Be careful about jumping into a subscription without knowing if the underlying model allows for raw, unfiltered output, or you might just end up with more waxy results anyway.

TL;DR: I chose a secure paid service after being too worried about viruses from local setups, and I have been really happy with the skin realism for months now. Honestly, I was in the same boat when I started. I spent a whole weekend trying to figure out how to install those complex local programs but I got totally freaked out by all the sketchy download links. I'm pretty protective of my computer so I ended up just going with a reliable paid site instead. I've been using it for almost a year now and the peace of mind is worth every penny tbh. I remember the first time I generated a close-up and actually saw tiny imperfections and pores instead of that waxy doll look... I was so satisfied. It was such a relief to finally get professional results without having to be a computer genius or risk my hardware. Staying with one platform long-term really let me figure out how to get the lighting just right too. I dont have any complaints so far, it just works.

Yo, I totally get that frustration. Been chasing that perfect realism for years and honestly, most tools still feel like they're trying too hard to be 'pretty' instead of real. If you want skin with actual pores and zero waxy sheen, you highkey need to check out FLUX.1 [dev]. It's the current king of anatomy—hands and eyes finally look human without needing fifty fixes. If you want the absolute best results without the headache of local installs, try running FLUX.1 [pro] through a web UI. In my experience, it handles complex lighting way better than Midjourney. But if you're serious about professional-grade stuff, the learning curve for Stable Diffusion XL is worth it just to use specific models like Juggernaut XL. It's basically the industry standard for photorealism right now. Just remember to prompt for 'raw photography' and 'unfiltered' to get away from that 'dreamy' AI look. It’s a game changer, fr. Good luck! 👍

Totally agree with the above! Especially about FLUX.1 [dev]—the way it handles human anatomy is a massive step up from the older stuff. Basically, that waxy look you're hating is usually a result of over-smoothing during the diffusion process, where the AI prioritizes 'clean' pixels over raw texture. It's a huge reliability issue when you're aiming for pro-grade stuff, right? If you want consistent, safe results without the steep learning curve of Stable Diffusion or the risk of downloading sketchy models from unverified sources, I highkey recommend Midjourney v6.1. They've really nailed the skin physics lately. Honestly, if you're still seeing that 'AI glow,' try using the '--style raw' parameter; it forces the engine to be less 'opinionated' and much more photorealistic. Plus, if you're chasing that 'wow' factor, running your base renders through Magnific AI is the absolute secret sauce for adding pore-level detail. It's pricey, but the output is basically indistinguishable from a DSLR. Gl!

Saved for later, ty!

jumping in here with a quick question before i give any solid advice... are you planning to do a lot of high-res upscaling or just looking for the raw output to be perfect? honestly, i think the whole waxy look often comes down to the upscaler settings rather than just the base model. not 100 percent sure on the latest benchmarks but iirc you really need to look at:

• vram usage for high-bitrate textures
• whether the engine supports tile-based diffusion
• the actual iteration speed when you turn up the sampling steps i'm kinda curious what your hardware specs are tho because that changes everything performance-wise. some of these newer engines are absolute resource hogs and might not even run right if youre on a laptop or older card. basically, need a bit more info on your setup to see what would actually work without crashing your system every five minutes or taking an hour per image.