Pechara

Any Lightwave users out there who might be interested in doing some contract work building furniture. I'm looking specifically for lightwave users. Drop me a line. Got a few projects in the pipe now that I need help on.

I think if you mention that you worked on these projects or for these clients while employed by your past employer, you should be ok and not be breaking any ethical bounds. I have seen that before on architects sites and its usually made clear.

I contacted 2 companies in the Portland OR area to get costs. One photogrpaher uses a real helicopter and flies to location, the other used a mini remote control unit. Both could do it in my time frame but the mini remote control was 2x more (700$) while the real helicopter / photographer in the sky was about $300. I have done this 3 times last year, 2 times in Oregon and once in California. All 3 used real helicopters and cost at or below $300. I consider that cheap if you think about the prospect of modeling the grand canyon.

Have you considered just using a pro photographer from a helicopter and "insert" the 3D part into it? I recently had a similar project. It was a far cry from a complex model such as the grand canyon but why re-create the perfection of nature when you can photograph it for a few hundred $. Seems like a quick option on a tight timetable and budget. Here is my example, boring project but its a real one! [ATTACH=CONFIG]41199[/ATTACH]

You will get all kids of drawings. Some clients "clean up" the drawings and some don't. It would not hurt to understand the construction drawings as this will make you a better modeler. There are building standards that apply in all countries and if you miss the small details, the architect will be able to tell your level of understanding of architecture.

Why not just use some geometry for the lines? I guess this depends on your application of the model... Perhaps a combination of texture and hard geometry. Post some examples of what you are doing.

I agree with Wrender, also the blue sky effect seems like an overkill. Overall a nice rendering. The horizon seems a bit high... might just be an optical illusion

That was the clients request. All the staff had to be partially "covered". hehehe that was a fun project. That rendering was used for an add that ran in Playboy...

Wow, you are right. Waaaayyyy too much...

Here is one more. I think the football players look good from a distance. Its a old "people for people" models i re worked.

yeah, but why render in the shirts?

I would not call it 100% art. Its more in the commercial art end of the spectrum than the art, art end. Although painters do get hired to paint portraits of their patrons so, I can see your point. I personally don't look at my work as art, art. Its more of commercial art, somewhere in between a advertisement and a painting. It seems a master painting holds its value and often gains value not only financially but also the subject matter. I'm afraid most of our work serves only as portfolio pieces after they have served their purpose at the meetings, advertising, and once the buildings are built. I cant imagine that 99% of the work we all produce will ever see inside of a gallery, museum, or a wealthy art collectors halls. just my $0.02

Here is what it looks like currently, not quite done with it...

try here, free stuff: http://archive3d.net/?category=28

Well, I just decided to take some basic humanoid models from my collection and tweak them to look like High School Football players. You can only see them from far away so they looks ok. Thanks for all your advice, legal or not