nejck

Digital Tutors came really handy for me... Granted, I had the basics down thanks to Greyscalegorilla

I think this is a good advice Stay cool, have fun and have those cool renders ready just to impress a little more

@george sandoval I don't want to hijack this thread but would you mind sharing that website? Seems interesting to me... Thanks!

That's kind of pretty much how I think as well but think about it. If you are super proficient in Sketchup and can model a fairly complex building in it in just a few hours compared to modeling it in full old school 3D in c4d then it might be very beneficial To each his own!

No problem at all, hope it helped If you are going at it freelance style then it really doesn't matter what you use as long as the result will be good. Yeah, clients might send you Revit files for this, SKP for that, DWG for something else but in the end you'll probably convert it into an app that you're most comfortable with. I think thats how most of us do it anyway... If you'd like to work in a studio then things might be a little more complicated. Studios have established pipelines that you need to fit in, not the other way around. That means if a studio uses 3ds max or Cinema 4D + Corona renderer + PS then thats more or less what you need to bring to the table. That is usually true for bigger studios while the smaller ones can be more adaptive and can actually (in some cases) benefit from people using different software but as long as it fits into the general pipeline. Lighting wise, even with C4Ds built in renderer you can afford to think like a photographer. You should get acquainted with GI and from there on forward its putting theory into practice. With the advent of PBR renderers (Physically based rendering) you are actually "forced" to think solely like a photographer as old school 3D lighting tricks aren't even applicable anymore - that is for the most part at least. The point is that when doing arch viz you will learn to think like you are out there on the field with the exception that you can bend the rules to whatever you see fit. Softboxes, extra lighting and all that comes into play more or less like it would in real life. I'd actually look into How To tutorials (Ronen Bekerman's website etc...) and start some courses (Digital Tutors, SOA...) if you feel like you're really confused about it. In general though, I'd recommend that every artist dabble into a different software than the one he is using only just to see how things work. It can apply to C4D 3ds Max Modo or V-Ray Corona Physical Renderer... It is hard to grasp it when you are starting out but if you do check how your workflow works in a competing software product you might just have a better sense of the general 3D process and how, taking into the account the pros and cons of specifc software, it mostly comes down to you as an artist. Do this once you become really good and super comfortable in your favorite app first though

Well uhm, yeah, pretty much what you said. If I start the model from scratch then I do the whole DWG merging thing and if not then I import it using FBX since the models are prepared in 3ds Max. That means I spend some time cleaning the objects so that I can optimize them (weld) and later on bevel them. This can be quite a lengthy process but if you are doing high-res renders it's totally worth it. There is also the xref thing that I like to do. Whenever the model I get from the team is not modeled in its entirety and I want to start lighting it and put materials on it then I just load it into C4D like an xRef. It works with FBX just awesomely and then I just update the file once the team has added something substantial to it - the materials I've applied all stay the same, including the lighting. To me xRef in C4D is super powerful. Then there is the render agnostic stuff you need to do, like export all the needed passes and stuff like that. Once everything is saved and ready I go into Photoshop to run the final mile. I guess it doesn't matter what software you create the models in. The guys I'm working with find 3ds max to be OK for them so they just export the FBXs for me to use. I think Peter Guthrie models everything in Sketchup and then brings it in 3ds max. It's one of those things that are totally up to you and your preference. Personally, since I have a bit more than basic modeling knowledge, I like to keep everything inside C4D. It is the fastest way for me to work. If I was really good at Sketchup and prefered C4Ds rendering abilites then I'd probably want to start in Sketchup. Just beware, if you are working in a studio environment then know that having a good workflow will help you. Exporting files from say SKP to C4D only to realize there is something basic wrong with the model and importing it back to SKP can be really time consuming. Depending on the situation xRef might help you in this kind of a scenario. How about that?

Hello! As far as I know the workflow can be pretty much the same. You merge your DWG files into C4D (watch out for it not to create too many objects which clog down the viewport) and start snapping splines / polygons on top of them. If DWGs aren't importing as they should or cause you issues then you can try another format. I usually don't model buildings from scratch so someone else might have a more clearer answer for you in which case my post is a cool topic bump

Hello there and welcome I'd say its important to stay grounded and be open to (constructive) criticism. Everything else you will get with practice and hard work. Was a joy to read this intro. Whatever software combo you end up using it is mostly going to be dependant on you and your skills. 3ds Max, Cinema 4D both have their pros and cons and honestly I've seen amazing work in one and the other. Your masters is not that bad actually, you can apply quite a bit of theory from cinematography / color grading to your arch vis, 3d stuff (I'd guess). Post-Production is sometimes predominantly used by certain artists to create imagery but I think its still best doing as much as possible in 3D. Just remember, some folks do PP in After Effects / Fusion / Whatever and not only Photoshop - depending on what you prefer. Lighting in itself can be what sets you apart from the rest of the field. I mean yeah, doing everything top notch (modeling, materials...) is a must but quality lighting can really make it shine and make it more interesting. Just check out some of the more known arch viz artists, they all have super interesting lighting going on (even if its subtle). So yeah, those are some of my random thoughts. Hope you find arch viz more fun and just try not to be too hard on yourself starting out. Then again, don't be too arrogant / blind folded too I know... It's hard haha!

Might be a weird thing to say but you have tried adjusting the exposure is PS right? EXR are 32 bit files so they need to be handled accordingly...

Hmm, seems like those might be splotchy GI bounces. A good way to see if thats that is to make a small region render with a higher sampling / GI preset. It might also be you are having some light leaks in the geometry, maybe it is worth double checking that as well PS: Welcome to the forums!

Hello there and welcome

I've just found out there is a tool called nMaker which can do seamless tiling textures in Photoshop. Check it out at http://www.nmaker.com.br/tools.html . What's cool is that if you find these tools useful is that you can donate to the original author

These are looking cool but of course, there is always room for substantial improvement. I would suggest getting into the basics of physically based rendering (V-Ray, Corona) as that appears to be the easiest way to obtain realism in your renders. The renderer itself won't give you magical results as it is a combined "effort" of great models (attention to details, so called imperfections) and lighting, texturing work. To get that going you will probably need to divulge yourself into some reading but luckily there are a lot of tutorials and courses available online. A good place to start might also be the Allegorithmic PBR guide (https://www.allegorithmic.com/pbr-guide) if that is not too advanced for you yet. Oh and this doesn't mean that you can't do photorealism with standard renderers and photoshop compositing but it might be a little easier with the before mentioned (mostly) unbiased renderers as the PBR engines themselves produce physically correct results from the get go - you just need to learn the rules of material creation in such programs

Well I haven't tried it yet so I am not sure if it has the seamless option but... There is a demo available

I think that Allegorithmic has a seamless tiling option in the bitmap2material package. Not a 100% sure about it so feel free to check it our yourself. https://www.allegorithmic.com/products/bitmap2material Hope it helps!