Atrium Conceptual Stage

[Tommy Burns]

Hi all

 

Here's the project I am working on at the moment (Max 2008 and Mental Ray). I am looking forward to finishing this one and wondering what you guys think any pointers? It is a mix of Existing and proposed (I hadn't time to put shadows/Reflection on the people, rush job for the planners)

 

Thanks

 

Tommy

[Tommy Burns]

No one got anything to say?

[JonRashid]

I like it mate. Looking forward to seeing what you do with the lighting etc. I like the shaded people in preference to the usual cutouts that have lighting that bears no relation to the environment they have been put in. It's one of my pet hates.

[alfienoakes]

Conceptually I like it.

 

Would like to see a little more "brightness" from that atrium.. especially as it looks like a lovely clear day up there.

 

Light should really be flooding in, and the sky should be lighter.

 

The people look fine. You can get away with no shadows etc when they are ghosted like that.

 

When you post your images, you would be better off keeping it to say, 1024 x 768 (ish) and keeping the compression to a minimum. When you enlarge that image its way to big, and way to compressed.

[Tommy Burns]

Cheers Andy/Jon

 

I see what you mean by the brightness now that I look at it from that angle.

Will keep that in mind for the next image I have to do. I think it might look better with some clouds in there also.

 

quote "When you post your images, you would be better off keeping it to say, 1024 x 768 (ish) and keeping the compression to a minimum. When you enlarge that image its way to big, and way to compressed."

 

What I do with my images which are usually 3000x2250 tifs is open them in PS save as a jpeg and turn the quality down to 1 in order to get below the file size limit for a jpg here. What am I doin wrong?

 

Thanks

[Stephen Thomas]

What I do with my images which are usually 3000x2250 tifs is open them in PS save as a jpeg and turn the quality down to 1 in order to get below the file size limit for a jpg here. What am I doin wrong?

Use photoshop's Save for Web feature to resize the image down to say 1000px wide then adjust the quality slider to reduce the file size. Doing it this way you really shouldn't need to go below 85% on the jpeg quality.

[Tommy Burns]

Thanks for that Stephen I just did what you said although I'm not to sure what the difference is? Can you see a difference what am I missing?

[Stephen Thomas]

Thanks for that Stephen I just did what you said although I'm not to sure what the difference is? Can you see a difference what am I missing?

Not too much in this case when viewed at the same scale. Just generally good practice, large images take longer to load up for people viewing and the quality difference may be more apparent on a different image.

[Claudio Branch]

 

...any pointers?

 

 

I really like your image.

 

However, I notice that your GI doesn't look very smooth. It's a bit splotchy...

 

Also, have you considered putting a small brilliant orange element in there somewhere? Something complementary to all the blue tones...

[Tommy Burns]

Thanks Claudio

 

I think the splotchy parts you are seeing are on the existing cladding at the side the light green panels? This is actually the way the building looks well near enough, it is a blend material on it. I thought about putting colour in it but wasn't aloud. The attachment was the way the image was sent out seemingly this is good when going to the planners??

[Claudio Branch]

Thanks Claudio

 

I think the splotchy parts you are seeing are on the existing cladding at the side the light green panels? This is actually the way the building looks well near enough, it is a blend material on it. I thought about putting colour in it but wasn't aloud. The attachment was the way the image was sent out seemingly this is good when going to the planners??

 

 

Oh, I see it now.

 

I realize that alot of the time we are not "allowed" to add creative elements, but I do it anyways...

 

...usually just for own portfolio.

 

[alfienoakes]

Not too much in this case when viewed at the same scale. Just generally good practice, large images take longer to load up for people viewing and the quality difference may be more apparent on a different image.

 

Also, the image was 3000 ish px wide.. When you consider most people will work at around 1600 px wide, then you are confronted with an image that is at least twice the width of the screen, and really poor compression quality..!

 

As stef says, use save for web, it just keeps the compression at a better level when the image is a 1/4 the size. the second image is better to look at once its full size.