p.6 #1 · "Professional" Photographers , sold artwork hanging in buildings and Nikon D800E
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The second CGI of Bif's examples (with the snow) also shows shadows from the railings in the front, as well as highlights, but the building appears back lit. I think if you look closely, shadow/ direction of light issues can be seen with most (which would horrify an Architect).
I have noticed a number of these inconsistencies as well on his website, esp. when you enlarge the images.
Still, his work is at a higher level than the industry standard and Bif's timelines are a bit unrealistic, given the renderers I have been working on for the past while. also, his work is more photorealistic than required; I know this may sound strange, but in the conceptual stage, we generally want the image to look like a rendering and attach the "artist's interpretation" to it to allow for future changes
The studios we work with also use the same software by the way.
p.6 #2 · "Professional" Photographers , sold artwork hanging in buildings and Nikon D800E
They're only unrealistic for a person who is underprivileged, unprepared, or unskilled.
If they have their chops in several apps, a decent rendering setup (24 node farm + fast workstation), and all the libraries they need then my estimate is entirely realistic. CG was my profession for about 20 years 8 of which I taught the subject in addition to working in the field. His work is not higher than than typical of an advanced newbie. I will agree that it's higher than archi-viz industry expectations. But only because most expectations are so low and as you say there's still a lot of people who actually want that too clean over-specular CG look associated with renderings from 10 to 15 years ago.
p.6 #3 · "Professional" Photographers , sold artwork hanging in buildings and Nikon D800E
All that being said, I find those renderings a bit devoid of life. Now, perhaps some young fellers that are kids now but will one day join the AEC industry, and they will be used to using digital imagery even for built work as for whatever their motivation or belief may be, to their way of thinking there would be no discernible difference for the creator of the work (all parties) nor the intended market they would utilize it for.
But to my thinking, using renderings to illustrate built work doesn't doesn't make that much sense, short of perhaps some financial considerations. As photo-realistic as some of those examples may seem, the are very sterile, the additional manipulation of contrast, color, textures, etc. to somehow add a notion of "organic-ness", aside.
Bif, you have good resources and know the market, show us a rendering of something already built, ostensibly commissioned by the owner/architect/contractor - not existing buildings modelled as an exercise or proof-of-concept/marketing by a CGI artist. Something with realistic-looking streetlife, or environs. I would like to see what the CGI market can provide - at a price, of course.
p.6 #4 · "Professional" Photographers , sold artwork hanging in buildings and Nikon D800E
sirimiri wrote:
But to my thinking, using renderings to illustrate built work doesn't doesn't make that much sense, short of perhaps some financial considerations.
Well lots of times you would have to physically move buildings and trees out of the way to get the shot via camera.
That and artistic interpretation are probably the main reasons for it.
p.6 #5 · "Professional" Photographers , sold artwork hanging in buildings and Nikon D800E
Bifurcator wrote:
That and artistic interpretation are probably the main reasons for it.
Isn't artistic interpretation overrated, though ?
After following this forum for a long time now, I came to believe it's all about lens rendering, bokeh and in-camera jpg engine .
How can photography skills and experience in post processing play such a big role ?
p.6 #7 · "Professional" Photographers , sold artwork hanging in buildings and Nikon D800E
Tomser wrote:
Isn't artistic interpretation overrated, though ?
After following this forum for a long time now, I came to believe it's all about lens rendering, bokeh and in-camera jpg engine .
How can photography skills and experience in post processing play such a big role ?
wait? we talk about in camera jpg engines on this forum, how'd i miss that?
obviously it's 3D-ness or lack there of that makes a photo good or bad.
