Here we go again!
Here we go again!
Modeling and rendering is solid but a little generic. Play with point of view or introduction of subject matter.
This is photo-realistic but it is a shot taken by a bad photographer. It is "photographed" without thought to compostition or the quality of weather or light. You have made a great effort and you clearly have a good grasp of materiality but it has not made something that is compelling.
I think the piece achieved the intent to show a urban character, but if the lit high-rise is considered the hero building it could be conveyed better. The work feels conflicted about illustration vs photorealism, a common problem w/ arch viz these days I think. The entourage feels a bit cut and pasted also. Good detail however.
This was not an easy piece for me to evaluate. That is mainly because I am SO familiar with this space. This view is around 7th Avenue and 50th and I know this too well it's the same spot I stood New Year's eve for twice in a row. The amount of detail you've done here is amazing because its certainly has the midtown feel there.
Now since this is an arch-vis presentation the evaluation of this image requires a different kind of mindset. The primary question though is what is the subject matter? Is it the Leahman Brother's building? or the one beyond it which is looks like the Reuter's building. You certainly have done your homework here if you don't actually reside in NYC. Overall the piece works more as an illustration than as a photorealistic piece. It lacks the tonal range or the dynamic response as expected of film to work as a photorealism piece. As you know the H&D curve of film compresses the tonality in a certain way that is why we can tell it is a film image or has that film-look. My suggestion is to experiment in Photoshop's Curves to see how this look is acheived. This will enhance the image a lot more. You can then stragetigcally lighten and darken some elements to emphasize/de-emphasize them. Right now if feels that the image has had an overall fill-flash effect to it on the middel tones as well as on the shadow areas giving that subtle artificial snythetic feeling to but not a lot just a hint of it.
Also the perspective and the camera angle can be improved a bit. Based on the field of view this works out to be a 24mm if not a 28mm lens perspective. Surely you can move the cemar a bit tot he left near the edge of the sidewalk to show more of the space and maybe pull back as well half a block. This would give the image a better sense of space and will have more presence.
It is really hard to evaluate a space specially if you are familiar with it and this is something you have to watch out for since most clients are familiar with the space you are working from specially if they are interior space. You also do have to watch out for how painting or photography works and how these media lends itself to presenting scenes. A good tone mapping is always in order to present the subject matter well. The thing I like about it is,how it captures the light in the city well and how that light behaves in midtown, it is directional as well as diffuse at times depending on the time of day and season. This part works well for you.
Last edited by Arnold Gallardo; May 3rd, 2005 at 09:18 PM.
_ _ ______________ _ _
Visual Content Creator
Author:'3D Lighting: History,Concepts
The elements are all there, but I have to agree with Matthew - there's a distinct difference between a good photograph and a bad one. Certainly, I think there's enough skill exhibited in this image, but perhaps for the next round, consider the subject and composition the top priority.
The birds are nice touch, but be careful when adding unnecessary whimsy. It can also be distracting and work against you.
Overall I have been very happily surprised at the high quality of the images done for this competition, this picture being a perfect example.
On the downside, I would say that this sort of image would not likely be usable for a 'regular' rendering. Its got too much non-architectural character. But its got a stylized reality that I WISH could be used in architectural rendering more often. The other big issue is the road surface--its way too rough. Yes, I drive in New York City, and yes, it takes a Jeep, but we don't need the disaster that is NY roads shown so vividly. The foreground lights are too shiny, better as more graphic shapes. Lights are directional symbols, reflections on them point in other directions, which doesn't help. Perhaps this picture is too much a re-creation of a photo, but it easily pulls together all the difficult elements. It would be nice to have a building that was more clearly the 'subject' of the rendering.
While there are a few issues of contrast with some of the people, overall they are just right. The right number, and they walk out into the street in complete denial of their mortality. (NY cabs don't have brakes). The sky is the right sky, and it melts the background well. All too often in renderings, all structures are clearly rendered and have clearly cut shapes, but in reality, as well as painting, things blend, become less distinct without getting camera blurry. This pictures shows how its done.
But the genius part? The birds.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)