Since my name has been referenced on several posts, I'd like to offer a personal perspective. NOT about my decks or any other specific decks, but about the general subject of CGI.
I do find it frustrating when I read how people dislike CGI produced tarot decks, with an all encompassing sweep of an entire genre. People will like or dislike any tarot deck and they are free to voice their opinions and tastes, but to dislike something because of the medium (they think) is used seems a very rigid criteria and to be honest suggests a misconception of the process involved. I can understand why certain works have given the media a bad rap, i.e. poorly Photoshopped images of your uncle Harry wearing a wizards costume pasted onto a photo of the local park and then titled "The Hermit" isn't going challenge lets say the more demanding members here. Equally the ease of applying a "artistic" filter to a photograph with the push of a button that anyone can do may suggest a similar ease to all aspects of the medium. And of course there are all those staring eyed Barbie looking 3D figures...But that is a layman's generalization based in part on examples of poorer execution and does not fairly consider that its a medium that people are still learning to use. (I'm embarrassed by my own earlier CGI work).
Nevertheless I for one don't approach my digital work to make it look like it was a "real" photo, or a "real" painting as an earlier post described. I produce it to be just a realistic "image" in its own right, just as I did in my earlier days with airbrush, paint brush and physical pencil, its merely my preferred tool at this point. Its also a tool that has been used to create an infinite variety of styles in the hands and minds of numerous creative people. I can't be bothered to do so at this particular moment, but I'm pretty sure that I could provide images (not mine) that you would be challenged to determine wether they had been produced using CGI or traditional media. But the real point is why should it matter so much anyway, why not judge the image for what it is, like or dislike it for what it is, not how you assume it was done, or how easy you assume it was to do, and as such categorize it as not "real" by some nebulous "arty" subjectivity. From cave paintings to CGI, art is about communicating a concept, a message, a story, an emotion. At least thats how I've approached it anyway, particularly regarding Tarot, and I believe I speak for other designers as well. You don't have to like it and I'm more than aware that many of you don't. Or it may not "touch" you, or it may lack any other number of qualities you need from a tarot deck. But such criteria will apply to any deck no matter how its produced. I feel its misleading to even describe CGI as being computer generated images, because in fact they are generated by humans...... using a computer. Just as you wouldn't describe a Da Vinci or Picasso as oil generated. They are vastly different styles using a common denominator of medium....