What do you tell "misguided" architects in order to help create renderings for them?

[adrianlombardo]

I design (and render) buildings professionally, but sometimes I am asked to help make renderings for co-workers, as the office illustration "specialist". This co-operation can be frustrating even when helping my best friends as it seems many designers don't understand the most basic elements of illustration. Some of my colleagues think that as long as the design is great and rendering "realistic", the result will look great.

 

They typically start by giving me a bunch of instructions - how they imagine the rendering. 9 out of 10 times they make several huge mistakes, among them:

- Including too much information (The entire landscaping + building + background+foreground+++)

- completely ignoring composition, including depth, light and leading the viewer into the image

- Focusing on details that are important to them, but detrimental to the composition.

- Not giving the "illustrator" any flexibility

- Leaving focus points/contrasty areas at the edges of the frame

- Not making any preliminary visualisations to prepare and help make the design better

- Nitpicking on the tiniest of details that do not affect composition etc - for hours - while I could instead spend my time on a new rendering or improving the composition, lighting etc.

- Not being happy with the result, then trying to improve it by making tons of pointless local adjustments while the real issue is either their design or bad composition.

 

I always start by asking the following (politely):

1. Let me (help) pick the vantage point (And time of day, which they don't seem to understand the importance of)

2. leave me some wiggle room

3. Be prepared to alter your design if you see that some things aren't working that well

4. Making a good rendering is no easier than taking a good photograph, even if the 3D model and rendering software is 99% realistic.

5. No lens flares please. Also, I rather not add cutouts of kids with balloons and business guy on unicycle. They do not add "atmosphere", they only add balloons and unicycles.

6. You've seen my previous work - trust me on these tings.

 

Is there anything else that you tell designers before/while making renderings?

[philippelamoureux]

The last work I was asked to do, the designer wanted me to make a visualisation of a dock bridge connecting a beach resort and a floating restaurant. Guess what, they wanted a single, relatively close-up shot (human's eye view) of the bridge but with the buildings on both sides visible. The whole thing was 200 feet long maybe... lol How do you make something decent out of this with 1 shot!!! These kind of projects are just meh.

 

 

I agree 1000% with you. The renderings on my portfolio are very minimalist. Just the building, a nice angle and a mood. No 2d people, no birds, no lens flares, no bloom, rarely dof unless something spectacular has to be shown off. Minimalist post-prod as much as possible too.

 

 

I'm just starting getting paid jobs and I'm afraid my way of doing things might not please everyone and I don't have enough reknown to impose my style yet hehe!

 

 

The portfolio, the fun part is almost over.... now time to work on other's projects :-/

Edited July 19, 2016 by philippelamoureux

[Chris MacDonald]

The two main things that I find architects get caught up in is:

 

Super wide angle view - fit everything into one shot.

The lack of understanding of colours, and how colours are changed by lighting. A typical conversation might go something like this;

 

"That cladding should be a silver/grey, why is it orange?"

"That's the sunset you asked for reflecting off it"

 

and

 

"Why can't we see inside the building?"

"It's a bright sunny day, this is how it would actually be... Look out of our office windows at that building over the road, see?"

"Can you make it brighter anyway?"

"I can but it will look awful"

 

*makes change"

 

"This looks weird, why does it look weird?"

"I told you it would"

 

and

 

"Why are the walls and ceiling pink?"

"That's light reflecting off the bright red carpet you wanted"

"Well, it wouldn't really be like that in real life, can you change it?"

"Yes, it would."

"I don't think it would"

"You don't believe in reflections?"

Edited July 19, 2016 by Macker

[numerobis]

"Super wide angle view - fit everything into one shot." and then... "why does it look so distorted?"

[John Dollus]

I design (and render) buildings professionally, but sometimes I am asked to help make renderings for co-workers, as the office illustration "specialist".

 

If they are dictating all of that to you, they are viewing you more as a "technician" than a "specialist".

[Scott Schroeder]

I'll leave this link here....

 

Very interesting research using MIR's work and where architects look versus your average Joe. Answers most of your questions you posed.

[Nic H]

i wouldn't be frustrated - its your job to do those things and help the architects in your studio make the design work look good and communicate their ideas.

 

it does my head in when arch vis 'artists' fall back on things like 'it wont look like that in reality' or 'that's not how reflections work' where is the artistry and problem solving in that?

 

if the interior activity of a building being visible in mid day sunlight is what they need to show then you need to be able to come up with a technique that shows that in a pleasing way

 

we work in a service industry - that's what the money is for

[Chris MacDonald]

i wouldn't be frustrated - its your job to do those things and help the architects in your studio make the design work look good and communicate their ideas.

 

it does my head in when arch vis 'artists' fall back on things like 'it wont look like that in reality' or 'that's not how reflections work' where is the artistry and problem solving in that?

 

if the interior activity of a building being visible in mid day sunlight is what they need to show then you need to be able to come up with a technique that shows that in a pleasing way

 

we work in a service industry - that's what the money is for

 

I never said I couldn't do it, I said that it looks shit or that it won't look like that in reality. I'm not fond of encouraging people to chase designs that when realised will look nothing like what they thought it would, and what the client thought it would. It has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of skill, or a lazy attitude towards work (as I believe you are implying?) and everything to do with simply not wanting to lie to people about what they are getting, and taking far more pleasure in producing images that look great AND just like the real thing.

 

I mean, why else would we use render engines that strive to simulate the real world?

[James Vella]

I read a brilliant article today on educating and taking creative control for your clients vision . Wish someone told me this 5 years ago

 

http://www.creativebloq.com/web-design/new-years-resolutions-you-should-have-made-1156557

 

Heres a preview

"I spent the first 10 years of my career saying things like, "If I could just do this work the way I know it should be done...” and convincing myself that someone else was keeping me from making better choices. I'll often be reviewing work with another designer and they'll say, "Well, if I were doing this...” I stare back at them in astonishment until they realise what they've said. What is this strange gene that makes designers handicap themselves?

 

Stop designing the compromises you expect to have to make. Your fear of being wrong wins out over your fear of having to convince someone you’re right. Your client is in your head with you. Telling you to make the photo smaller, the logo bigger, paginating the multi-page article. You're choosing the typeface you think your client will like, not the one that solves the problem best.

 

How horrible for a client to have gone out and found a good designer and then get handed work that looks like something they would have done. Clients deserve your best work, not their best work. Really good clients, the ones I want you to work with, would rather be challenged than pandered to.

 

Always design the best choices. Compromises will always come later on down the road. With much argument. And after much salesmanship. But if you’re coming to the table with a compromise in hand, even before you've tried selling your best work, you'll end up losing the client’s respect – which you were so naively craving anyway.

 

You can't design in fear. Don't throw the fight before a punch gets thrown..."

Mike Monteiro

Edited July 20, 2016 by redvella

[harryhirsch]

I am with nicnic on this....the job is not to simulate the real world or argue with your clients, the job is to satisfy your client. He want to see inside the building? make it happen. Architects are busy and The client of the architect is a normal person that wonders about grey dark windows.

He wants everything in one shot? Give it to him and get rid of the distortion with PS.

The architect wants a rendering that represents his idea, not a 100% accurate simulation of the reality.

 

'''They typically start by giving me a bunch of instructions - how they imagine the rendering. 9 out of 10 times they make several huge mistakes, among them:

- Including too much information (The entire landscaping + building + background+foreground+++''

 

...how can you have too much information?

 

- completely ignoring composition, including depth, light and leading the viewer into the image''

- Focusing on details that are important to them, but detrimental to the composition.'''

 

...Most architects do not know about things like composition in renderings. You should ask them to provide this informations, You are the specialist.

[Chris MacDonald]

The architect wants a rendering that represents his idea, not a 100% accurate simulation of the reality.

 

My job description says nothing about massaging someones ego and making them feel like their design choices were right. It's no different to arguing that you should make a building look a couple of floors shorter than it is to get planning permission, just because the architect didn't realise just how big it would look from the street.

 

At what point does something go from being aesthetically pleasing to simply trying to pull the wool over someones eyes?

 

There seems to be two schools of thought going on here:

 

1) These issues are annoying and it's your duty as a professional in your line of work to highlight that you don't necessarily agree with the architects ideas for your image.

2) You're an artist and as such you can do what you want, because the client is always right and it's your job to pander to them.

[Scott Schroeder]

The architect wants a rendering that represents his idea, not a 100% accurate simulation of the reality.

 

I would argue that the 2 ideas are becoming mutual these days. It feels as if renderings are being held to higher standards than the actual construction documents since renderings are almost always seen earlier and earlier in the project.

 

We deal with this on a few levels when doing certain types of public work. The city's architect will want something to look a certain way and want that rendering before the schematic design phase so they can start fundraising for the building with naming rights and such. Fast forward to opening day and we'll get a call from an angry architect stating that people are mad that the building doesn't look like the rendering they saw 3 years ago. We have to explain that A)Design inevitably changes over time, B)Your fundraising wasn't as big as you thought and you cut $25 million from the budget, so things like high end shiny finishes had to get cut to painted drywall and C)When we told you that the design changes are major enough that you should probably release another round of renderings you rejected it and didn't want to pay for it.

 

You have to pick your battles wisely with these topics. For the most part, I will do the requested items because I like money and I like getting paid. Money overrules my sensitive artist side. I will complain about it, a lot. I might even complain on forums about it. However, at times when I feel that making the requested change will adversely affect the image so much that it will open up a never ending cycle of comments as the client now hates the image but can't figure out why they hate it, then I will fight to not make the change.

 

I keep this quote at my desk at all times to help remind me when to fight and when to let it go,

"Many [clients] simply don’t understand what you can and cannot do with an image. There is so much talk about technical topics and things like camera angles, but no discussion about the visualization intent. Most people forget that images are an emotional media, and there are limits to how much intellectual ideas you can communicate. It is very common that our clients say, “Ahh, I love this image! But can you move the camera up a bit so that we see the space in front, and remove the clouds and put some lights inside.” They forget the reason they loved the image in the first place was that we didn’t do those things they ask." -Trons and Mat Anderson, founders of MIR.

Edited July 20, 2016 by VelvetElvis

[RyderSK]

I read a brilliant article today on educating and taking creative control for your clients vision . Wish someone told Always design the best choices. Compromises will always come later on down the road. With much argument. And after much salesmanship.

Mike Monteiro

 

I like this, very close to what I do. I neither pander to client, nor do I pretend to be creative snow-flake in artistic bubble (dreaming of 50mm shot that doesn't show crap, but has nice DOF). With good communication you can sell to client the best solutions, educate him and secure quite a lot of creative freedom.

 

Micromanaging often comes out of client's insecurity about your quality of work. (Not necessarily current artist's fault, could simply be bad experience. And I don't mean CGI quality but if the image follows the brief and purpose). Every designer is pedantic and obsessive about his work, but they happily trust you with executing the vision if you show you simply know what to do.

Some artists fail to do that, hide for week away, work on best floor shader, choose camera that doesn't show the design properly and start the whole nitpicking phase on themselves.

 

Of course it's not clear-cut. There are always some ego-cases, and relationships where this might never work well ( out-sourcing, in-house artist like your case, etc... ). I lack these kind of issues for lot of reasons, but one of them is only working for clients who chose me first and were interested in exactly the kind of work we do. That's bit hard to manage in in-house position where your colleagues seem to more happen to use you ( it might have bit in common with the whole "don't work for friends, family,etc.." ).

[Nic H]

I never said I couldn't do it, I said that it looks shit or that it won't look like that in reality. I'm not fond of encouraging people to chase designs that when realised will look nothing like what they thought it would, and what the client thought it would. It has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of skill, or a lazy attitude towards work (as I believe you are implying?) and everything to do with simply not wanting to lie to people about what they are getting, and taking far more pleasure in producing images that look great AND just like the real thing.

 

I mean, why else would we use render engines that strive to simulate the real world?

 

But its not about reality or showing what it would really look like unless its verified views - its about coming up with a solution that utilizes your technical and creative skills to help the client show what they need to show. Render engines being based somewhat on reality doesn't mean we strive for that?

 

and since you mention it - you do sound difficult to work with

A strong draftsman AND creative snowflake !

A renaissance man!

A fedora wearing master of reality!

 

 

;-)

 

Cheers

[Rich O]

1. People in windows

2. Lights in windows aren't going to be visible with the level the rest of the image is exposed at unless it's a dark day/hour

 

Those are my two main peeves

 

Also agree with trying to show everything at once. Fine, if it's going to be viewed on a canopy with three projectors. Not so much if you need to see it at 16:9 ratio on a monitor or paper without crazy distortion.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Richard7666