Ricardo Eloy Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Hi, folks! This is not the kind of work I normally do, but since I've been asked to do some residential interiors lately, I thought I might as well learn who to do it. I'm saying this because for me this is a whole new field, a lot different from the offices I do everyday. The client is different, and so are the demands. Also, I found particularly frustrating this "show the whole place in one shot" thing, but... Well, this is probably going to be a wip for the next few weeks (no real client, just me). The scene is quite heavy, so I decided to start doing the lighting without furniture. Then, when I got happy with it, I started tweaking furniture and stuff. Any suggestions on lighting, design or anything are most welcome. Shoot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Nice work Rick. Has an ethereal feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imgumbydammit Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Very nice..read someone somewhere complaining about how "artistic license " was a missing element in arch viz.....plenty of examples here to counter that I must say Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Very nice..read someone somewhere complaining about how "artistic license " was a missing element in arch viz.....plenty of examples here to counter that I must say Steve What examples might those be? As far as I can tell, the only artistic license here comes from the cut-away rendering approach. Everything else seems to be very literal. The stark, white, modern interior is becoming cliche in cg architectural renderings. It's all about what models and props you have downloaded for free, or which collection you have purchased. And the Vray fur rugs... Nevertheless, Rick, I don't see anything wrong with the rendering. In fact, it is technically very good. It reminds me of some of Alicja's work. I do have a couple suggestions: 1) The camera is so close already to a 1 point perspective, you should just go for it. Are you really gaining that much by with the 2 point? Doing a 1 point would really emphasize the panoramic quality and help with the cut-away method. 2) Right now the light is much more intense on the front side with the missing wall. I wonder how it would look if you reduced or eliminated that light, so the more intense light is coming from the window openings that we can see and the intensity fades as it gets closer to the opening. So then some of the furniture may actually take on more of a silhouette against the bright background to bring in some additional contrast....Or that might not work at all, but it might be worth a quick try. I wasn't trying to be negative about the image at the outset. I just think that we see a lot of these types of renderings, and you should find something to set yourself apart from the others. Go crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 you should find something to set yourself apart from the others. Go crazy! How would that set him apart from the rest of us? I like the light, airy quality of the render. But it is a little 'light' in focus. It shows everything equally. While that's good for saving the client money at the expense of interest, I would like to suggest another approach. Do a series of pictures, but not just the sitting area, the TV area... Try doing some detail shots for some of the room focal points where you only show a small part but in such a way as to imply the rest., perhaps with reflections. Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Do a series of pictures OR that, hehe. This particular job from Zuliban comes to mind. http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/16842-apartamento-1618-a.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 OR that, hehe. Holy poop, that guy's good. Yeah, kinda like that. This is amazing: Rick--you can do this! Study and learn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Hunt Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 In stead of going 1 point how about swinging to the right and intowards the dining area, this will give more depth. As to the lighting, at the moment its too evenly light, thus loosing interest. Play up the lighting in each area and down in between. Add more contrast. I like the colour tones, nice and calm and piecful. Just desaurate the green plants by 10% or so, they are pulling the eye to them instead of the space. JHV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imgumbydammit Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 What examples might those be? ! OUCH !!! My comment was simply praising the good (IMHO) work I see here and in the galleries ...... Thanks for all the kind words though Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 My comment was simply praising the good (IMHO) work I see here and in the galleries Ahh sorry, misunderstanding. I thought by "here" you meant Rick's image and I wanted to know more about what you meant. Not that Rick's work isn't good too, I just thought it was typical and he could do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 What examples might those be? As far as I can tell, the only artistic license here comes from the cut-away rendering approach. Everything else seems to be very literal. The stark, white, modern interior is becoming cliche in cg architectural renderings. It's all about what models and props you have downloaded for free, or which collection you have purchased. And the Vray fur rugs... My clients are very specific about scene content, color choices, textures and accessories. Most are very specific about the views they want, what time of day, etc. In spite of all that, I feel that my hand is still on the work. I haven't had one single designer say, "Hey, throw in that Barcelona chair" or "Can you make the walls whiter?" They give me a photo or a pencil sketch of a chair they've designed and let me have at it. A good design that is well-represented will stand out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I haven't had one single designer say, "Hey, throw in that Barcelona chair" or "Can you make the walls whiter?" They give me a photo or a pencil sketch of a chair they've designed and let me have at it. Then you are very fortunate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Eloy Posted June 28, 2006 Author Share Posted June 28, 2006 Thank you guys for the input! I was actually surprised to see so may replies in such a short time. Fran: thank you for the kind words! About the furniture and design, you're right. One thing I discovered doing this type od work is that the clients are really specific about everything, from camera angles to the color of the book covers you put there. What I'm trying to do here is to find out how to do it better and faster, since they normally ask for 6 or 7 images at once (different ambients, I must say). Steve: Thanks, man! Tim: thank you for the comments. Specifically about the camera, I'm using one of the most common angles for this kind of stuff in the local market. As I said, I've done a few of these inthe last weeks and one thing that bothers me as hell is this "show everything at once" approach. The one-point perspective is often refused by the clients, they claim it doesn't look good in print. I disagree and would probably go for it myself, but I really need to learn how to make this kind of limited renderings interesting. The lighting is also another thing I'm learning here. I normally go for more dramatic lighting, more contrast, etc. But in this kind of work, as Fran mentioned above, the clients are very specific, and one thing they complain a lot is about the furniture being too dark. The say they need to see all the colors, all the details. My first apartment was refused many times before I realized the lighting was an issue. The image was looking good, full of contrast and depth, but the client didn't like it. Finally, I placed another light source behind the camera and my client finally smiled. Go figure... Ernest: when you say it lacks focus, you're absolutely right. Also, it means I reached my imaginary client's goal . The local market uses this kind of approach, while I would prefer doing a series like you mentioned. Of course, I will do this image "my way" in the next couple days, specially because it has so many details I would like not to missed. This piece will probably have half a dozen different shots, let's see how it turns out, then. Justin: I agree about the plants. Will work on them. BTW, another version. This time, only artifical lights on. Nevermind the bg, it's just a generic night bg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 ...and my client finally smiled. And that is sometimes the most difficult part. So congrats. on that. I like the night version. It helps with the contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlytE Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Zulibans renders are the most realistic I have seen to date.... of any piece of software. If photorealism is what you are trying to achieve, I dont think you can get any better. The only exception to this that I can recall are some of the renderings of the 'spiral stairs' which were so photographic they were marketed as such. Cannot remember who did them though. On a more relevant note I think archvis is kinda like a varying fashion trend. One month you see alot of vray white interiors, the next month you see alot of maxwell dusk shots, the next month its shots of moody living space etc. It does seem to flow in packets... either way rick I like your render and whether its similar to others that have been done or not, it is still high quality. Well played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Nice rendering, Rick - I would like to see some more contrast, but as you point out: This is exactly what the clients want. Good job. About Zuliban: he is brilliant - the best! Only one I can think of that comes close (not that photorealistic though) : Dimitriy Kulakov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Warner Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Do a series of pictures, but not just the sitting area, the TV area... Try doing some detail shots for some of the room focal points where you only show a small part but in such a way as to imply the rest., perhaps with reflections. I'm going to disagree with Ernest on this one. While Zuliban's work is AMAZING, I don't get the sense of overall space that I do with Rick's image. I think the way Zuliban has presented the closeups would work very well in animated format, but not as standalone images. And from a client standpoint, I don't think I'd be overly excited about an image of a fruit bowl with a lightswitch in the background. Unless it was part of a larger composition. Which of course would cost me more money. So since I'm a cheap client, I'd go for Rick's version. Also, I haven't seen a lot of renderings of this style (showing the entire scene in one view), so I kind of like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now