how the other half lives...

[Ernest Burden III]

Today the mayor of NY City proposed a plan to develope lower Manhattan--beyond the obvious World Trade Center site, which is undergoing a design competition right now--plans to be revealed Dec 18 from 6 or 7 short-listed teams, to be narrowed to three and then to select one, then to abandon that one and do something altogether different. Look for a lot of CG work to be shown. I was going to be working on one of the projects, but it wasn't working out so I didn't. The city provided very good 3D models of all of lower manhattan to each team, so renderings should be good. We'll soon see!

 

OK, I got off track there. Today's news was about other sites in the same area as the WTC. The city showed a large number of renderings. From the look of them, I peg them as the un-mistakable work of Canadian renderer Michael McCann. The city posted full-res scans.

 

McCann is one of the best there is in traditional media, specificly watercolor. He just paints. Typically, he makes his clients get the perspectives set up for him, and he just shows up and paints like a madman. I have heard that he requires first-class travel and accomodations and commands a daily rate that I would normally get for a week of work (or more)--and no paid hotel and meals. But when you look at his work you will see why many of my clients are sometimes happy to pay way more than I or most renderers would charge to have him do renderings.

 

My usual complaint of his work is that he basically does the same painting over and over--but even if that's true, its a damned fine painting. Very few CG renderings have come close to the quality of presentation seen in this collection. I like some more than others, but even the weakest would be a true test to match in CG for feel and appropriateness to subject.

 

McCann renderings

[ingo]

Thanks for the info Ernest. Well, i appreciate that you like this guy's paintings, but to me they look just average. It looks like someone painted 30 picts in a hurry, because as you mentioned they look very similar. I miss an attention to detail and the difference in material, he does this only per color, and in my eyes massiv material like bricks look to me nearly the same as glass.

I've seen in your paintings more attention to detail and of course i've choosen you to paint this pictures And of course quality versus quantity, instead of his 30 pictures i like to see five of yours, really. I think Micheal McCann stopped learning a few years ago and just lives from his name now, instead of looking at all the new cg things and get something out of that.

 

Just my humble opinion

 

ingo

[nisus]

Hi Ernest,

 

Tnx for the links. I think those renderings look great, but personally I don't sense much difference in atmosphere in them. I mean that a park should feel different than a shopping street, which is only the case in the airport terminal imho.

Anyway, I really appreciate the works of artists without an undo and I adore it to see them in a high resolution so that they form a good source to study techniques.

Do you yourself have some high resolution images online for us to check out? I definately would like to see some details of your work.

 

rgds

 

nisus

[ingo]

Hi nisus,

 

nice to see you sometimes in the forums too I think our biggest advantage of working with a computer is that we are forced to learn something new. If you want to be competitive you have to learn all the nice new things like GI now, compared to just doing your work manually.

 

ingo

[Sawyer]

Ernest,

 

My take on these picts is this (granted I did not look at 'em all). They are really really pretty, but not quite what I look for in Arch renderings. As far as paintings go they do not quite go far enough for me to say "wow that pops!" But at the same time they are lacking the detail I want to see for a product description like a rendering of a building. I think traditional work really works alot better for a lot of things than most 3d stuff (atmosphere, overall prettyness etc...) but what is lacking is the concrete idea. I know that when I do a rendering it may be lacking the subtle traditional qualites of a painting but I am showing off the design. I am selling a product with a higher level of accuracy.

[Ernest Burden III]

I think that there are many things CG renderers can learn from the work of McCann. I agree that he seems to have stopped advancing his work years ago, but that's his problem. What makes his work so sought after and why do clients love it so much?

 

The lack of detail and simplicity of color application drive me crazy, too, especially as I try to do my best work only to see my clients spend piles of cash on McCann renderings. Can't they see the difference? I have come to the conclusion that they CANNOT. The 'pretty picture' aspect of the work wins over all else. So the lesson is to make sure your images are appealing images no matter what. Getting every material right and getting every detail is fine, but not at the expense of the picture as a whole. In the end, the accuracy of my work is mostly a matter of pride for myself, it does not hold much weight as a selling point. I have seen renderers like McCann and Leb Woods get such minor details wrong as the number of floors on a building...yet the client doesn't care, the renderings look great.

 

There is one project in particular, Aspen Highlands, that I renderered about five years ago. The result was what I consider to be the finest set of renderings I ever produced (as opposed to one-offs, I guess). A year later the client got McCann to do a new set of renderings of the same project. In the office they have the McCann renderings framed, and mine are nowhere to be seen. Mine were more detailed and accurate, and his were probably laid out using my 3D models. But his are on the wall. This client still hires me all the time because I am more flexible, cheaper and cooperative, but given enough time and money and they go back to worshiping at the alter of McCann. Go figure.

 

So take what you can from work like these McCann examples. But whether you like them or not, rememeber that he is probably the highest paid renderer on earth right now.

 

I miss an attention to detail and the difference in material, he does this only per color, and in my eyes massiv material like bricks look to me nearly the same as glass.

I think Micheal McCann stopped learning a few years ago and just lives from his name now, instead of looking at all the new cg things and get something out of that. ingo

[John Dollus]

I know what you mean. Steve Parker did a watercolor for an HOK justice center here that won all kinds of awards including the informal category award from AIP. It is a pretty picture for sure but the contractor took a look at a rendering I did of the facility and called over the site supervisor because he realized they had something wrong on the construction site. It would have cost them thousands to fix the problem had they caught it later, but my rendering just sat in a cubicle after that. No award, but great personal validation.

 

John

[matt_vinoir]

it sounds a bit weird calling him a renderer doesn't it?

 

DOes he get someone to construct the model so he can ge the perspective? Sounds a little laszy if that is the case!

 

The watercolours really aren't that exceptional, i'm capable of good watercolours but everyone wants a digital viz at the moment!

[Ernest Burden III]

McCann does not do perspective layouts. He expects the client to have them ready for him when he starts. He does draw in a lot of entourage, trace up the layout to WC paper, etc.

 

Sometimes I wish I had thought of it. Painting is wonderful fun. He just paints. I could be a much better painter if I was able to concentrate on it exclusively. And I could, I would just have to borrow his business model.

 

In digital, how you make the model has too much to do with how the final comes out to leave it completely to someone else. And I really enjoy the process of finding views, which is lost when you tell your client to do it for you.

 

But I do take exception to the comment about it being weird to call him a renderer. A rendering is the final image, how it is produced is not the point. I don't want to get into setting rules about what is and isn't 'true' rendering.

 

And if everyone wants digital why is McCann so highly paid and booked up?

 

I do not mean to be his defender or critic by posting the link to his pictures--just offering a look at work that is important to our field by virtue of its high-visibility. I plan to study them to see what works and what doesn't and find ways to improve my own work, digital or traditional, accordingly.

 

Originally posted by matt_vinoir:

it sounds a bit weird calling him a renderer doesn't it? The watercolours really aren't that exceptional, i'm capable of good watercolours but everyone wants a digital viz at the moment!

[John Dollus]

Clients around here prefer the watercolor presentations much more than digital. But then, there is really a lack of high design here as well which, I feel, is much better for digital due to the detail. I can't remember the last time I did a visually interesting project.

(working on a teddy bear now which is pretty fun).

[ingo]

Hi Ernest,

 

And if everyone wants digital why is McCann so highly paid and booked up?

 

I do not mean to be his defender or critic by posting the link to his pictures--just offering a look at work that is important to our field by virtue of its high-visibility. I plan to study them to see what works and what doesn't and find ways to improve my own work, digital or traditional, accordingly.

well, he should look at your picture to improve his work . As said before i dont like his work nor his attitude, and he is at least only one of thousands around who do that work. This is the same thing with buying yourself a new Porsche, later your neighbour wants to have one too, your new client too... nobody of these wants the car because its of good quality, they only want the car because you have one. So lets start the ACME-digital hype....

 

ingo