Asking for opinions about sunlight through windows

[jking]

Many years ago, when I used to design homes for very wealthy people in California, I learned the following general rule:

Most people that spend millions of dollars on their homes, furnishings and fine art do not

want them ruined by exposure to the sun.

 

I was taught that the owner's rare, expensive possessions should be protected by the use of north facing windows, extensive roof overhangs or window coverings that could be drawn closed (having the adverse effect of requiring adjustment). Also, reflected ultraviolet light can cause damage.

 

I see so much superb work by the artists that post on this site. I also cringe with embarrassment when I see streams of sunlight blasting down on a $ 10,000 sofa or rug, or a teak hardwood floor. I understand the dramatic and beautiful effect that this type of light gives to the rendering , but I wonder if the artist or designer is ever nervous about these potential questions from the owner "You aren't suggesting that I mistreat my possessions this way are you? If you have to show me your design in a way where I put my investment at risk in order for it to be appealing, how appealing will this design be as I will actually use it?"

 

Other things that I would never show a client that was paying me (what they pretended to be) a lot of money to illustrate:

 

1. Ferrari parked under a pepper tree or flock of, evidently, habitually roosting pidgeons.

2. Driving of 1955 Corvette convertible in the rain.

3. Ice skating with infant child in arms.

 

Though I have given a cynical perspective of this issue, it is largely because I am very troubled by it.

Has anyone else thought of this? How do you reconcile these problems?

[Tim Nelson]

How do you reconcile these problems?

I think there is probably a pill for that!

 

Honestly I have never thought of such problems before, and even now that you point them out I think 99% of the clients I have ever had or will ever have would not think of those things either. It's called artistic license!

 

Besides I don't think I would ever put a Ferrari in a rendering anyways.

[DavidR]

It's an interesting point. Today at work, we were looking at a really good Vray rendering of an aircraft interior with dramatic sunlight, when one guy said that if it had been rendered in Maxwell, it would have been all reddish because it would have to be ~7am or 8pm to get the sun in at that angle. With Vray, we don't have 'physical sky', so we do what we think looks good -artistic license- and Maxwell shows us what it would really look like. To get similar interior lighting with Maxwell (using physical sky), the direct sun would be coming from very high in the sky. Both great tools, but one lets you bend the rules more.

[Sawyer]

What about passive solar gain? Where sunlight comes in through south facing windows bounces on the floor and warms the room? I am working on a $2mil home that uses passive solar in it's design.

[DennisHolland]

I guess an owner of a $ 3.000.000.- mansion could use a new set of furniture every 5 to 7 years. That is how long it takes to damage the fabrics (even longer for wooden flooring). So let there be a happy sun shining in now and then. life is short as it is....

 

Dennis

[IC]

Relax it's just visualisation. Nobody (and nothing) gets hurt during the making of these images.

 

I think if anybody needs to take this into account it would be the client and/or the architect. What can a renderer do but let sunlight enter the windows, as they are already designed?

[Fran]

Andersen and other high-end windows have built-in UV protection. If you are designing a space for the purpose of providing exposure to direct sunlight, this type of window will offer substantial protection for expensive new furniture and accessories.

 

The Rembrandts need their own spot out of direct light. It is the architect's job to determine specific needs of a client and their museum collections.

[mbr]

I am not sure that I've been in a home that did not have direct sun on some of the furniture - it's simply a matter of practicality. Will if fade? Sure, over time, but do you want sunlight or not?

 

If you look at any architecture publication, you'll see that the photographs look identical to the best renderings - ie washed out whites, strong sun beams, etc. It's also a matter of practicality to get the photo to look good - exposure. For the interior to be bright, the highlights will washout some.

 

The Ferrari/Corvette are great points, though. I find it amusing when someone puts in a McLaren or that Audi concept car that's everywhere (and that I really wish they had made). Those cars, and even the Ferrari's, are a little out of place in most renderings.

 

 

Passive solar rocks, btw. Saves gobs of money. Drawback is that there will be areas that are hotter than ideal. That requires tons of direct sunlight to hit some absorbing material, like stone or concrete.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

I agree with some of the replies that have been posted here. Most of the furniture that is used in renderings, are repro's, and not a investment. IMO the psychological and refreshing effect of having large windows would out weigh the daylight damaging the furniture. Now, as Fran pointed out.. if you have art that will apreciate, then you need to take that into account. I could even see limiting the damage that is done to a wood floor, but I would think if the wood floor is properly maintained, it would last a long time.

 

But, as you have stated, you have worked on houses where this has been a problem.