Worried for the future.

[chrisdrake]

I have just got back from an autodesk seminar, and it is very worrying that an architect, with little cad experience, can produce a 3d model and render it. Where does that leave those of us who rely on skills and not qualifications?

[nisus]

Let the world be crowded with amateurs... it needs professionals to...

 

rgds

 

nisus

[STRAT]

doesn't worry me one little bit. there's a difference between a newbie architect starting out with cg knocking out rendered images, compaired to a seasoned cg artist.

 

As allways, it's not your tools but how you manipulate them. Full time arcitects wont have the time to build up years worth of experience to do excellent cg imagery like most of us here who aren't as quallified.

 

[ November 26, 2002, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: STRAT ]

[chrisdrake]

What about advances in software, user interfaces etc?

[STRAT]

same answer as before.

 

it may be easier for an architect to render things with advances in interface and so fourth, but imagine how much easier again you'll find it?

 

besides, you still have to be able to manipulate the software properly to render great imagery.

 

architects generally dont need to do this and havent the time anyway.

[kid]

I wouldn't worry about it.

 

There's people who said the same thing about GI/Radiosity, that it just makes creating great images a point and click affair, but I've seen plenty of seriously bad images done with GI/Radiosity renderers...

[mbr]

I am a 'newbie architect' (well, almost, not licensed yet), 2 years out of school. I am not worried about it at all. All of my friends are architects, but none have spent (or care to) spend the time to learn the programs, buy the goodies, learn, learn some more. I personally am optimistic about the profession. There is a growing understanding of CG, and it's being applied to everything from medical research and vis to litigation presentations. So as the technology grows more advanced, we will have faster, more effecient tools, but there will be more and more work. The quality will become higher and higher, too, so those that have a good 'eye' will do better than a CAD monkey cranking out a rendering in an afternoon.

Also, have you ever tried to explain how GI or Radiosity works to an architect?! It'll put things in perspective. No worries, the future is bright ; )!

[Ernest Burden III]

Since at least the late 80's I have been asked if I am worried about my clients simply getting computers (most of didn't have them then) and doing their own renderings--putting me out of work. I never worried about it much--until this year. My response to those questions has always been that I can always do better renderings than they could, and I would always be ahead of them with computers, which has worked pretty well up 'till now.

 

I think that the landscape has changed in the last year or two. For the first time ever I find that most of my clients have the same software I have and at least one person that can use it with basic proficiency. They would still prefer to have professional renderings done, but less often. More and more of the time they are happy enough with basic images done in-house. That is a threat.

 

The next problem is that architects seem to have a hard time distinguishing a great digital rendering from a mediocre one, and are therefore partially blind to one of the selling points of people like me--quality work. That is another threat.

 

Finally, there is a growing background noise coming from low-cost rendering factories in countries that do not have the pay standards we see in North America and Europe. I cannot fault people in developing countries from developing skills and marketing them aggressively, nor can I fault a client that wouldn't know quality work if you hit him with it from buying on price. The work can be delivered from China as fast as from my town. Another threat.

 

What to do?

 

Sell service and quality to those that can appreciate it. Become a boutique rather than a super-store, develop a look that is your own and market it as aggressively as you can, provide additional services like presentation design. Find the gap between what the client can do or buy on the cheap and what he needs to get his project through--and fill that gap. Figure out how to show the client the gap and how you fill it.

 

That is what I am trying to do now.

 

Originally posted by STRAT:

there's a difference between a newbie architect starting out with cg knocking out rendered images, compaired to a seasoned cg artist..

[Paul Griger]

No worries mate.

 

A tool is only as good as it’s user.

 

The same points came up when pneumatic tools were starting to be used in construction, “What about the craftsmanship?”

 

I’m sure the same Q was brought up when CAD was introduced in architecture, “What are we going to do now that any hack can draw a good set of plans?”

 

But the missing element from computers in that scenario is still talent and an artistic eye, among others. And today, yes, there are builders that do in-house designing with some cheapo CAD software, but that still doesn’t take the desirable architectural jobs from the talented architects.

 

And I feel the same is true for rendering. Sure the tools are great, but the tool’s effectiveness is still contingent upon the users skills and talents.

 

I think if there is any threat it is the one that Ernest brought up. Farming out jobs, and typically not better tools, always has the potential to hurt another worker. Right or wrong, it’s the global market that we are faced with. And one of the best ways to protect yourself is what Ernest mentioned.

[Christopher Nichols]

I actually think it is a good thing... Here at Gensler, we have a lot of people that model...

 

They model, they design in 3D, and they do a lot of other things. What they can't do is make a good rendering. They know that and leave that up to us.

 

The cool thing is that I don't model as much as I used to... and trust me... after doing this for 9 years... modeling has stopped being a challenge... So I get to take the design and turn it into a great image or animation. The art comes in the texturing, the lighting, the composing and compositing. When you take someones model and turn it into art, it is just as amazing to them as if you did it from scratch.

 

With that said... I will be going back to modeling starting next week... but that is a subject for another thread.

[Alfredo Tapia]

I’m afraid I’m just an architect , but I find CGs are a powerful tool that saves me a lot of time, helping clients, and even our team to understand a particular idea and to take decision around it. Therefore we like the idea of generating them in-house to have as much control on them as we can, and we require and encourage that every member of our design team could deal with CGs in a proficient way. Anyway, I am not saying CGs artists are going to disappear as a profession, but some changes should be taken, as it is clearly described in Ernest Burden’s post.

 

Well just an opinion….

 

Regards.

[John Dollus]

Don't worry. The only thing consistent in life is change

When the project calls for an artistic representation, they will call you and when you need a highrise, you will call them.

 

John D

[chrisdrake]

Im sorry, I didnt mean any offence to Architects.

Does anybody here do product visualisation as well as Architectural? I think this would be the perfect time to diversify.

[Chris_A]

Keep in mind that 'industrial design' is generally way ahead on the 3D curve and that it's very easy for them to create physical prototypes.

[andyp7]

Hmm, I first thought about this when i started out with cg in 1999/2000. Things have changed since then but not THAT much, I will agree that alot of architects don't distinguish well between a good 3D image and a great 3D image. But I dont think the profession is in danger.

 

It boils down to this, If architects are using more in house people to do their 3D stuff then what will happen is there will be more jobs available for Cg artists to work for architects as oposed to just cg production houses. I can see this as being a good thing and a bad thing.

 

However there will always be a need for the more professional images that just can't be matched by an architect who has lots of other comitments than producing a 3d image of the project. Producing a 3D image of a large project is not a thing that can be rushed, it takes time and effort and if you skimp on texture work, lighting or modelling it will show in your final renders/animation. The skill to create good CG stuff will always be high, the worry is a little exaggerated. Take webdesign, pretty much everyone or anyone can go about designing and building a website but there is a difference between a novice website and a professional one and there always will be.

[lucho]

Hi!!!

Well i have just one thing to say about it:

Is not the tool...Is the brain who use it

Think about it.

[Jim Mann]

The next problem is that architects seem to have a hard time distinguishing a great digital rendering from a mediocre one, and are therefore partially blind to one of the selling points of people like me--quality work. That is another threat.

 

I agree, the problem with working with architects is that they are designing with your image and so tend to focus upon the images you create in terms of how their design works rather than what the image is telling you about the building as somehwere that people want to buy, live in, work in etc. In my experience, in-house work was always burdened with this. Whilst we were able to produce some great images, they never went as far as they could. As a consequence, if the architect is happy that the building looks great then thats enough. As for animations...forget it.

 

I am an architect but have chosen to follow an entirely CG path for the past four years. I could and did use 3D in the design process and it was a great help but there is always a ton of other stuff to do like details, tenders, correspondence, planning, drawings. Consequently, the pressure was always there to move on from the 3D and get on with the contractual stuff.

 

At the end of the day, putting together decent 3D work takes time and this is something that architects don't necessarily have. In-house can do plenty of stuff under difficult conditions but extrenal 3D guys should always be able to offer something extra in terms of service or content. Like Ernest warns, the biggest single threat comes from countries like China or Eastern Europe. Not just because they are cheap, but because some of them are producing superlative work. Aside from staying ahead of the game in terms of quality, service and client relationships will become increasingly important. Anybody who has tried to contact Dell technical support since it relocated from Ireland to India will understand how valuable good customer service is...or rather was!

 

Jim

[Life Style]

I agree that CG architectural rendering as it is known today is on the way out, but I think there is actually great oppertunity as a result.

 

It must be the job of the renderer to stay ahead of what an Architect can do, namely animation.

 

With the power of computers allowing easier production and the speed of the internet allowing greater distribution, animation will be the next wave of design visualization. A project architect will never have the time to produce a set of working drawings while creating a cinematic version of the design ideals.

 

Just be happy you're not currently studying you're watercolour techniques in order to join the team at Gehry and Associates.

[Chris LeBlanc]

Call me an optimist, but I am not worried, here's why...

 

The two potential competitors are in-house modeling becoming easier, and overseas firms. I realize some clients will inevitably go one, or both of these routes. However, the majority of your local clients probably will not.

 

Keep in mind who your clients are. The majority for me are small to mid sized local firms. If you primarily work for clients over the internet and can't offer any personal service, then you are more likely to lose some of them. But this type of client is less stable to begin with. However, if your clients are local and benefit from having you nearby for flexibility, peace of mind, etc... then they will be less likely to do either.

 

I have lately been trying to broaden my market by offering more types of services (ie. conceptual for schematic design, simple interactive presentations) as well as targeting all scales of firms. I have found smaller firms to be some of my best clients, and small jobs are often my most rewarding.

 

When more 3D modeling is done in house, several good things happen for us. Clients are already thinking of 3D and presentation, instead of waiting to the last minute and calling the old hand renderer (which many still use) Also, when I am provided with a 3D model, my clients typically are able to afford higher quality work, or I can charge less for a great rendering... and they can afford a great rendering more often.

 

While I think all architects should be using 3D for design presentation (and therefore including this work in his fees) usually these images do not cut it for press release. Even if the architect can produce better results given enough time, he is not interested in working for free. And rather than 'nickel and dime' the client for a couple thousand more in fees, it is often more convenient and respectable to offer to get a professional artist. Clients are already accustomed to this relationship, and it can help keep the architect from being 'used' to create marketing material.

 

 

Chris

[Sawyer]

I think it would be an interesting poll (if it hasn't already been done) to see what the ratio of local work people are getting. Most of the work I get is here close by I don't really use my web page for advertising just for portolio. I am a relative small timer but as Chris mentioned I benifit from 1 on 1 contact, office visits, site visits and stuff like that.

 

The real undercutting I see is the young drafter who does poor qualtiy in house 3d for $14 per hour. Competing with cheap in house is tough. But there are people who pay more for something they really respect.

[Jim Mann]

I think it would be an interesting poll (if it hasn't already been done) to see what the ratio of local work people are getting.

 

Thats an easy one for me to answer, since I escaped London 2 years ago I haven't had a single client within 100miles of me. Instead, all my clients are in London, Manchester, New York and Hong Kong. That said, I do make trips to London on a regular basis and wish that I could do the rounds in New York and Hong Kong as actually going and getting to know the clients and vice-versa really makes a difference.

 

Incidentally, what counts as local these days?

 

As for who is polishing off all the work in Nottingham...Dunno. Anybody? Dibbers or the other guys in Sheffield/Leeds? Maybe its those pesky developing-world studios that have even got Ernest worried?

[Iain Denby]

As for who is polishing off all the work in Nottingham...Dunno. Anybody? Dibbers or the other guys in Sheffield/Leeds? Maybe its those pesky developing-world studios that have even got Ernest worried?

 

I have done one or two in Nottingham for Nottingham based Architects.

 

A agree about the face to face thing, but interestingly, probably half my clients I have never seen or met before and it works well.

 

You know what, I just wonder if this thing with Companies moving work over to China etc might backfire soon. I refuse to deal with calls from these call centres, and I don't know anyone who welcomes it. Some companies might turn their back on this kind of thing.

 

Having served my apprenticeship in traditional media, one thing that CGI has brought about, is a greater awareness of the value of visuals to sell a scheme, to a point now that it's become a norm to have one done (in house or outsourced) rather than a luxury. So whilst it seems everyone is architectural visualiser these days, there is more work about.

 

Most of my work is in the North of England, but I suppose that's partly because I haven't yet pushed my services down in the London area.

[Susan]

I've seen so many worried commentaries on the status of all jobs moving to "offshore" sites due to cost, that I wonder how long it will be before "free trade" buckles. How long will it be before pressure comes to bear on governments to slap some sort of tariff on work done overseas to level the playing field and protect domestic jobs? Would that be something that you would all see as desirable in order to protect this profession in North America? I can certainly see the logistic difficulties of slapping a tariff on work that is transferred electronically. Logisitics aside, philosophically and pragmatically, is this something that we would want? Just curious as to opinions.