Watercolors

[Paul Griger]

Well boys and girls [whatever happened to CGArch’s one girl?], here it is.

 

I’ve crit’d everyone else’s work without ever posting squat myself, but this is about to change.

 

My company does strictly architectural plans in the past, but I have been pushing to get into CG Arch work.

 

We finally got a customer that paid us to model the exterior of a 2 family condo, and then render the front perspective. And as a bonus, they wanted it in watercolor [less worries on my end I feel].

 

There are two versions of the front. The first image gave me the feel like it was located in a tree nursery. Unfortunately, it’s not, so I redid it, less the many trees.

 

So fire away boys, I need to get more work like this in the future! It’s so fun and easy compared to doing plans! No one can sue me over faulty structural work, engineering, or bad dimensions. So I need your brutally honest, unadulterated, and most discerning opinions! There are a few things that I already don’t like about the pics and I’m curious if others pick out the same items. I want to be known as the company in the area who has their shat together for rendering!

 

And without further ado:

 

 

TIA~

[Ricardo Eloy]

Good images, Paul! Specially the second one (tree nursery, hahaha!).

This is a very specific rendering style, not too realistic, not too much of a painting, either. What soft used here?

The one thing I'd point is the boundary style you adopted. A little over, I guess. You could try doing something a little more regular, instead of simply drawing a curve line around the main object, got it?

Show also a little more of the ground, and add some props like car, people, benchs, you name it. They'll make your image more fun to see.

 

[]

Rick

[Ernest Burden III]

Originally posted by Paul Griger:

>And as a bonus, they wanted it in watercolor

 

So where's the watercolor?

 

>so I redid it, less the many trees.

 

First pic too many, second, too few. The first is overpowered by the trees, and also by their size. The second has a too symetrical tree placement. Neither look very natural. Also, the tree in front of the house was a nice break.

 

The framing, as mentioned, does not help the picture. More foreground is needed to give the house a solid-looking base to sit on. It can really help to introduce some foreground elements, like bushes, tree of cloud shadows, a car, playful poodle (no dogs! and no kids holding baloons!). These weight the image properly, as you have a very static, frontal view. If just a lawn, darken it at the base.

 

Try to angle the view a bit more, either from the left or right. I see why you cannot give one side too much more emphasis over the other (two front doors) but even a little more perspective would help.

 

The life in the windows is good, but could use more contrast, more dark. That will punch them better.

 

The brick and roof tone are too similar. Would the materials reaaly be that close/ Even so, it makes a better image if the planes seperate themselves better.

 

Speaking of materials, the roof material tiles badly, and needs more contrast plane-to-plane, even if you have to do it in Photoshop.

 

Finally, in both images the trees that defend the left and right edges cast dark shadows on the two paths to the front doors. This should be softened on the pats, or moved closer to the trees (even if not accurate to sun angle) so that you leave a visual pathway into the picture and the house. Lead people in, point the way.

 

Ernest Burden III

[Paul Griger]

First off, thank you all for your kind words and honest suggestions:

 

Rick,

 

What soft used here?

Modeled in ArchiCAD, rendered in Art*Lantis [we’re upgrading to C4D soon!]. Touched up in Corel Photo-Paint

 

The one thing I'd point is the boundary style you adopted. A little over, I guess. You could try doing something a little more regular, instead of simply drawing a curve line around the main object, got it?

Yes, I see what you mean. I’ll rework that.

 

Show also a little more of the ground, and add some props like car, people, benchs, you name it.

I’ll see what I can appropriately add in.

 

George,

 

Is it the wide-angle camera that makes the shadows appear inconsistent? Eg the far right and left hand trees seem to have shadows at different angles.

It does appear that way, doesn’t it? I’ll try backing off the light to lessen the angle. It may be too close

 

The tiling is noticeable in the roof texture.

That’s one thing that really stood out to me also. Rather apparent and should be changed

 

Ernest,

 

So where's the watercolor?

It’s funny you say that because that’s the same thing my wife said when I showed her the pic. She’s really more of a traditional artist than myself [i have almost zero experience with it] who has worked with oils, watercolors, etc.

 

She took one look at it and said, “That’s not a watercolor!” then she explained how watercolor behaves when you work with it [more bleed, lighter colors, etc.]. I guess it’s not really a watercolor then

 

The second has a too symetrical tree placement. Neither look very natural.

Yes, I can see the symmetry now that it is pointed out in the 2nd shot.

 

Also, the tree in front of the house was a nice break.

I thought so too, but then I thought the client may not want to block the structure. I’ll have to see what they prefer.

 

More foreground is needed to give the house a solid-looking base to sit on. It can really help to introduce some foreground elements, like bushes, tree of cloud shadows, a car, playful poodle (no dogs! and no kids holding baloons!). These weight the image properly, as you have a very static, frontal view. If just a lawn, darken it at the base.

That’s more comments on the foreground. I guess I should really look more closely at what I can add in.

 

Try to angle the view a bit more, either from the left or right. I see why you cannot give one side too much more emphasis over the other (two front doors) but even a little more perspective would help.

Yes, I agree. The client picked out this specific angle though, so I think that I may be stuck with it.

 

The life in the windows is good, but could use more contrast, more dark. That will punch them better.

OK

 

Speaking of materials, the roof material tiles badly, and needs more contrast plane-to-plane, even if you have to do it in Photoshop.

Yes, agreed

 

both images the trees that defend the left and right edges cast dark shadows on the two paths to the front doors. This should be softened on the pats, or moved closer to the trees (even if not accurate to sun angle) so that you leave a visual pathway into the picture and the house. Lead people in, point the way.

Good point. I didn’t really consider that, but after reviewing the pic I understand what you are pointing out.

 

Thanks all for your helpful suggestions. I’ll rework it and see what I can do. I’m not an expert with the post-op program [Corel], but I’m learning new tricks so I’ll see what magic I can work.

 

Thanks again!

 

[ August 06, 2002, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Paul Griger ]

[Paul Griger]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for your suggestions on the watercolor pic I posted.

 

I was able to start some of the adjustments, but then the client walked in for the final CD burn before I expected, so I didn't get as far as I wanted.

 

I was able to start on some of the suggestions of adding more lawn in. I didn’t add any objects in the foreground, but I did have time to darken the foreground.

 

I redid the border a little. I wanted to add evident “watercolor-type” brush strokes coming off the image, but I do not know my program well enough yet to do that.

 

I also tried correcting some of the evident tiling in the roof and the lawn. I also tried adding some contrast between the roof planes where the valleys meet.

 

And I lightened the shadows defending either side of the home.

 

I still see how I could incorporate more of the suggestions [contrast the roof and stone materials, windows need little work, rearrange background trees, etc…], but time didn't allow it. the client is tickled pink and has paid me in full, so I guess that concludes my first "rendering" project.

 

I look forward to your future crits to improve my work. You certainly helped enlighten me to some items that I wouldn’t have thought of on this first project.

 

thanks again.

[Ernest Burden III]

Originally posted by Paul Griger:

I was able to start some of the adjustments, but then the client walked in for the final CD burn before I expected, so I didn't get as far as I wanted...the client is tickled pink and has paid me in full, so I guess that concludes my first "rendering" project.

 

And so it goes. We could all do really great work were it not for our clients standing in the way.

 

I think you made tremendous progress from the last post to this. Often the difference between a good rendering and a great one is very subtle.

 

Now, I would still suggest that you do the window work, in Photoshop, before putting this one in your book. It should not take long to select the windows and play with the contrast (use adjust>curves) a bit. I think it will make the picture all the better.

 

Ernest Burden III

[Paul Griger]

I can handle the windows edit.

 

"god is in the details", even in rendering i suppose.

 

thx

[Ricardo Eloy]

That's great, Paul! You see, now you can add your client's logo or any other information the final poster might feature, and I think that when you put that in the commercial folder, it'll fit just fine!

The new boundary works much better, really makes it feel like a painting, not a CGI. Nice job!

 

Rick

 

[ August 08, 2002, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: Rick Eloy ]