What is the most important skill for architectural visualization?

[Alison K. Rathbun]

I am currently pursuing an associates in architectural graphics at the local community college in hopes of getting into architectural visualization work. I already have an associates in 3d computer animation and have worked for the past 8 years as a graphic artist (mostly in the area of graphics for video).

 

My teachers at the college are enthusiastic for me, but otherwise know little about the field of architectural visualization. The program they teach is designed to train me as an architectural drafter. They tell me again and again that hand drafting skills are very important; and while I can understand that might apply to an architectural drafting position, I begin to wonder how important it is to a visualization artist.

 

Should I expect to work as a drafter before moving into the architectural visualization field?

 

Which skill is more important to architectural visualization: Drafting, hand drawing skills, or computer graphics?

 

-Alison

[STRAT]

 

Which skill is more important to architectural visualization: Drafting, hand drawing skills, or computer graphics?

 

all 3 are most important. the 4 most important thing is a good backround knowlege/basing in architecture.

[RobMc]

I think perhaps that it's the understanding of technical drawings that they are getting at. If you can produce good 2d drawings, then you'll be able to read them clearly too.

 

I learnt hand drafting skills back in my apprenticeship (1990-1994) then never used them again. It's all CAD these days. No clients that I've worked for have ever given me a hand drafted drawing. But I've seen plenty of bad cad dwgs though.

[mahorela]

most arch viz job advertisements I have read mention that an architectural background is preferred.

[Darrin Sabin]

Learning a bit about CAD production will help, but you want to check in with yourself from time to time to make sure that you're doing what you want. Getting out of the trenches can be a struggle once you're in a firm's production machine.

 

It's fairly common for a small-med sized firm to hire on a 3d guru that also knows some CAD. That way they can minimize their risk of potential overhead while there is no billable 3D work. Gotta be careful here. You could end up in a lose-lose situation. If you prove to be a good worker on the boards, project managers will try to hold on to you for every project and you'll never get a chance to develop your 3D skills. You're also likely to find yourself surrounded by other CAD vets that have been aching for a change of pace and see themselves as the one who should be doing all the fun 3D work.

 

My advice...

Soak up as much practical production experience in school. Work as an intern somewhere to see how the system works. Teach yourself everything you can on 3D. Get a few killer images together and re-apply as a resident 3D guru, but never mention a THING about knowing CAD.

 

If you'd rather go straight into 3D, find a place that already has one or two 3D folks in-house and work as their support. You'll get better faster and bypass a lot of the politics. You'll learn what you need from the drafting side and when your dept head decides to start their own company, you can choose between going with them or taking over.

 

I'm starting to sound too preachy, so I'll just add one more general bit of advice to anyone just starting out. Visualize, visualize, visualize. Not 3D or anything, but in your career. I know it sounds corny and you've probably heard it before, but it's easy to become paralyzed with the unknown. Taking that next step is frightening for even the most confident professionals. The more you see yourself over and over doing what you want, the more focused you'll become in making decisions. Even the subconscious ones. Oh GOD, I sound like Tony Robbins or something.

 

You'll do fine. Posting this thread shows that you're serious about each step of the way. Be sure to keep us informed.

[Alison K. Rathbun]

Thanks to all who replied. I'll admit I have been getting a little discouraged… I’m a graphic artist taking classes in a technical architectural drafting program. And all I want to do is take some blueprints and make pretty pictures.

 

I'm pretty quick at learning the 3d stuff, (I've dabbled in more than half a dozen different 3d programs over the years) and I want to learn more about creating photo-realistic imagery. Some of my work can be seen on my website portfolio at: http://www.dragon3d.net

 

I enjoy drafting, both by hand and in AutoCAD but I definitely don't want to make a career out of it. My impression of architectural visualization is that the drafting comes in handy for modeling the building in 3d but that you aren't expected to make construction documents from the drawings.

 

-Alison

[Alison K. Rathbun]

Ah, blast it! It seems that there is something up with my hosting service.

 

For anyone interested in my portfolio site, and the above link doesn't work I have a mirror site here:

 

http://home.comcast.net/~alisonkay/

 

Couldn't load the Quicktimes on the mirror but everything else is the same.

-Alison

[Brian Smith]

I strongly believe knowing how to read a set of CAD drawings, is the most important and fundamental part of starting a career in 3D visualizations. CAD drawings is where 99% of your projects will start and if you can't figure out what you're looking at, it's hopeless. But it's more than knowing which lines represent the walls and which represent the ceiling above, etc. It's equally important to know enough about architecture that you can put a set of drawings together yourself. I think anyone trying to start work in 3D visualization without spending at least a year in an architecture firm as a CAD drafter is at a serious disadvantage. Not saying it can't be done, but it sure makes life easier. Even if I knew every facet of Max, I would be lost if I didn't know how to read a set of drawings.

 

Brian

[Justin Hunt]

It is not the be and end all to have an architectural degree drafting course. It is however vitally important to be able to read a plan, elevation etc.

 

If you want to get into the design end of 3D then it will be a good idea to have that behind you. If you want to get into the "high-end" photorealistic stuff, I would say you would be better off doing a photography/ cinemaphotograph course instead.

 

Any one can learn how to model, but there are very few who know how to light and render a scene. True Rendering skills are in great shortage in this industry.

 

It has been the artistic eye that has landed me jobs around the world and not once has the lack of drafting/architectural degree lost me a job.

 

JHV

[Matt Clementson]

One other thing I add to all of the above - is a keen interest in photography can help a lot. 3D visualising is essentially recreating a photo - if you know how to take good photos then those skills of composition and lighting will help you an awful lot.

[Devin Johnston]

I have found that a majority of architectural firms that are looking for a 3D guy also want him/her to have a degree in architecture. There are exceptions of course for those who have a proven track record in the business and despite their lack of degree can read plans, sections, and elevations and know how to produce beautiful images. Having said that I must point out that there are plenty of people out there with architectural degrees that know basic 3D that are going to be looking for the same job as you. You have to ask your self what makes you better than those people, what do you have to show that sets you apart from them. Because you don't have a degree you’re only shot at getting one of these jobs is going to be an exceptional portfolio of architectural work. My advice is to start modeling and rendering architectural buildings that you find interesting, teach your self how to do this and use CGA as a reference for the quality of work you want to one day produce for a firm. This is going to give you your best chance at getting one of these jobs and holding on to it.

[Juan Altieri]

i think have a good taste for design and a very critical eye to see how the real things looks like.....

[landrvr1]

Photorealism is not the be all, end all of architectural visualization.

 

It's an obsession that has consumed a whole great big bunch of renderers, and is a real shame. There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of folks that can make their scenes photorealistic, but about 1% of those folks actually come up with interesting, creative, and innovative ways of presenting their work. Given enough time and practice, anyone can pretty much master the photorealism that so many people hold to such a high standard.

 

By all means, learn the techniques so that you too can produce life-like scenes. But take care to also put just as much effort on coming with cool and creative ways to set yourself apart. Developing a personal style is about 1000% more important to me than making sure my vRay living room looks just like the one in that nifty tutorial - and thus, just like everyone else's living room.

[Fran]

By all means, learn the techniques so that you too can produce life-like scenes. But take care to also put just as much effort on coming with cool and creative ways to set yourself apart. Developing a personal style is about 1000% more important to me than making sure my vRay living room looks just like the one in that nifty tutorial - and thus, just like everyone else's living room.

 

You set yourself apart when a designer trusts you to visualize their design and it conveys the intention of the designer. Period.

[landrvr1]

You set yourself apart when a designer trusts you to visualize their design and it conveys the intention of the designer. Period.

 

Making sure the client's needs and requirements are met is the first rule of any business, and goes without saying. If you can't get that part right, you shouldn't be in business in the first place. You're suggestion that it's the only thing that sets yourself apart, or the only thing that matters, is just plain wrong and I couldn't disagree more.

 

SOM. Gensler. Perkins & Will. HOK. etc etc etc. Any serious architecture and design firm is going to first expect that someone is going to deliver on time and get the designer's point across. Goes without saying, really. They pull together a stable of folks that they know can deliver. After that, it's absolutely positively 100% ALL about the style of the individuals involved, and what might be the best fit for that particular project.

 

Having worked as a designer at 3 out of the 4 firms above, I can tell you that each one gets a ton of viz people that call them searching for work. Without question, they select and work with those individuals or firms who set themselves apart by their visual style. They don't look at the endless resumes, DVDs, and websites and first ask themselves 'Gee, I wonder if this firm is going to convey my intentions properly?' or 'Will they deliver on-time?' They select firms that blow them away. American. Chinese. Indian. British. Whomever and wherever doesn't matter.

 

Photorealism is about #525 on the list of priorities as well. In fact, I've not once heard an associate say 'Let's use these guys because, damn!, they make their stuff look just like a photo'. The fascination with photorealism ended about 5 years ago for most of the major architecture firms.

 

My clients know that I'm going to convey their intents and goals. If they want to show how 4 offices can be converted into 8 because of their flexible planning approach, they know I'm going to show that in my animation. It's HOW I choose to show that flexibility that totally sets me apart from my competition, and why they keep using me over and over.

 

I've taken a look at your website, and your work is great. Superphotorealistic. If that works for you, and you're making money and having fun, than more power to you. I'll stress my original point again, however, and it had zero to do with business practices and everyone to do with the art and craft:

 

Photorealism is not the be all, end all of architectural visualization.

[STRAT]

Photorealism is about #525 on the list of priorities as well. In fact, I've not once heard an associate say 'Let's use these guys because, damn!, they make their stuff look just like a photo'. The fascination with photorealism ended about 5 years ago for most of the major architecture firms.

 

of course, that differs from client to client / architect to architect.

 

in my past and current possition i'm constantly asked for photorealism. photorealism is close to top of my personal list.

[RobMc]

I've always found that clients wanted super realistic images (although my work is mainly for yacht designers not architects).

 

Some like to develop a particular style to their renderings, but all based around the most realistic images you can produce.

 

At the end of the day our images are always used to convey the design intent to the customer. I've found that in the past, when the yacht designers used to use artists to paint watercolours, they could get away with so much less realism because the mind fills in the gaps that the painting leaves - but cg images tend not to be seen like that and the clients take what they see in front of them as being 'set in stone'. This is the main reason (that I have found) for the need for ultra realism.

 

Maybe architecture is different. With yachts you are dealing mostly with individuals who are spending their own money and what to see the absolute best for it, where as with a building the client is probably a board of directors who don't feel so passionately about what they see? (thats a question by the way..)

 

landrvr1 - you've really intrigued me about the images you produce, but couldn't see any image posts or a website. Can you direct us to some of your work?

[Fran]

Making sure the client's needs and requirements are met is the first rule of any business, and goes without saying. If you can't get that part right, you shouldn't be in business in the first place. You're suggestion that it's the only thing that sets yourself apart, or the only thing that matters, is just plain wrong and I couldn't disagree more....

Photorealism is not the be all, end all of architectural visualization.

 

I never said that photorealism was required to convey a designer's intent. Perhaps I should have used more words or bigger words or something.

 

[ETA] And I have set myself apart. Whether you think so or not does not matter to me in the least.

[josephus]

Should I expect to work as a drafter before moving into the architectural visualization field? Which skill is more important to architectural visualization: Drafting, hand drawing skills, or computer graphics? -Alison

 

I wonder if Alison is getting a bit bewildered at this point. There is such a wide scope of opportunity in arch viz, both in terms of the type of architecture, whether residential or commercial, industrial, etc, and within those main areas a large range of levels of work, and then there is also a great diversity in the clientele who will the ones requesting the work, such as arch firms, developers, investors, etc.

 

My requirements as a 2 man residential arch office for a 3D guy/gal are going to be different than a large corp type arch firm doing high rises, and again different from a developer or investor.

 

It all depends on where you feel like you're going to fit in. My suggestion to you is to go visit some companies in your local area (architectural firms large and small, developers, etc) and ask them these same questions. Who knows, you might end up with a job offer coming out of it. :D

[Brian Cassil]

IMHO the most important skill that one can have in doing architectural visualization is the ability to grasp the design concept and express that in a creative way, perhaps even expanding on it. It really is at the heart of what landrvr1 is saying. All the technical and artisitic skills are in support of this higher goal.

[Fran]

Brian, I agree with you and Scott in those aspects. However, my training and experience is from a purely technical aspect and not a design aspect. So my familiarity is with the literal more than it is with the conceptual. In spite of my attempts at realism, I do feel my work is more than the sum of its parts and that I bring more to the table than just a set of skills.

[Justin Hunt]

First and for most, wheather you are doing photorealism or conceptural images is understanding the designers intent, and that starts with the brief.

 

The ability to workout what "I don't know what it looks like, but it doesn't look like that" is the greatest challenge in the conceptural/ design development side of visualisation.

 

Photorealism is decidedly easier, mostly its a matter of getting a few settings right. Bringing that photorealistic image to life and giving it a personallity of its own in the hardest and most challenging aspect of "High-end" visualisation, and there are very, very few who can do that.

 

I work in both ends of the spectrum. Mostly conceptural stuff 9-5 and photorealism 7 till late. Before I make one click on the project I talk with the designer. We discuss as much of the project as possible, from the deliverables, the design and even what the client had for breakfast. Once we are on the same page, then I am fully perpaired to develope thier ideas into images. I am aware of what will and wont work for that client or designer.

 

JHV

[Justin Hunt]

Brian, I agree with you and Scott in those aspects. However, my training and experience is from a purely technical aspect and not a design aspect. So my familiarity is with the literal more than it is with the conceptual. In spite of my attempts at realism, I do feel my work is more than the sum of its parts and that I bring more to the table than just a set of skills.

 

Fran, you sell yourself short, I consider you one of those who can give an image personallity.

 

JHV

[josephus]

However, my training and experience is from a purely technical aspect and not a design aspect.

 

Fran, I know this is off the topic, but are you using Viz? If you are, any recommendations re: Viz? We're a small 2 man arch firm and like to do our own renders, and badly need a better renderer. We've been using FormZ Renderzone until now. The modeling is not an issue since we use both Archicad and FormZ, but need rendering solutions for very high end interior still images, good exterior still images, and animations. For the high end stills I had purchased Maxwell during beta version (I'll never do that again), and am frankly not sure if it's ever going to work right, but it looks like Vray could take care of that very well, but for my "good" exteriors and animations I need a renderer that not only produces high quality but is very fast...i.e. less than 2 minutes per frame.

 

Btw: your images have a very pleasant soft, stillness about them.

[Brian Cassil]

In spite of my attempts at realism, I do feel my work is more than the sum of its parts and that I bring more to the table than just a set of skills.

 

Any good artist does just that (and from the little bit of your work I'm familiar with, I think you are a very good artist), whether it be conceptual or photo-real.

 

The challenge is two fold: First to find out as much about the project including the client and designer as one can, just as Justin has described. Then to fill in the gaps that are inevetiably present. To do this you have to get inside the designers mind, not only to build on the missing design elements, but also to create a composition that supports the design at it's best. Lighting, diagram, shadow, etc... all these things to support the "story" that will best illustrate this particular design.

 

It's not about conceptual style vs. photorealism, both require this most basic and most important skill which really boils down to communication and interpretation.