ronll Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Is it just my imagination or are we starting to see a return of more traditional architectural renderings? i.e.: http://www.djc.com/ I wonder if we might be seeing a little backlash to over-realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Paske Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I don't think they ever went away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 When presenting work as concepts some of our clients actually prefer a looser sketch rather than photographic realism because it then isn't a fixed idea/design and lends itself to change/development from both sides. That said I just give them a 3d visual and tell them to shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horhe Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I don't think they ever went away... Exactly what I was thinking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronll Posted March 11, 2009 Author Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) Nice work Scott. I still really enjoy seeing that kind of artistry. As for DJC not crediting it, that is a long standing issue I've had with them. They regularly publish my work on that page and almost every time I have to email Maude (the editor) and she is usually really nice about adding the credit. Unfortunately, they can only add it on the web page and it has already gone out to thousands in the hardcopy paper version. PS I looked at it again and noticed it is credited to others, perhaps the A/E firm or the developers. That is another issue I have with credits. Quite often my work will get credited to my client, yet if I make a fuss, I risk pissing off a good client. Edited March 11, 2009 by ronll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Paske Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Thanks for sharing Ron - and what is new Vince? Staying warm? Cheers, Scott Not today Scotty I can't believe how cold and windy it was today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaPixel Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I can remember when the realistic rendering option was the longer and costlier option for clients, but nowadays, realistic is the defacto baseline option - quicker and cheaper and ironicly the artistic options are taking longer and are costlier. But yes I would agree that in general, the loose artistic styles are more often prefered then the realistic. The realistics tend to create a "concrete expectation" that this is exactly the way the product will look like and lend themselves to more scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaPixel Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Hope I didn't strike a nerve if I did Scott. You do great work and all of your "2 cents" makes perfect sense. I should have been more "case specific" with the defacto remark. Pixel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronll Posted March 11, 2009 Author Share Posted March 11, 2009 I see they have corrected the credit on line now, but as it's a daily rag, the victory is short-lived. I also notice that after me heranguing on them for years, they at least try to credit the top image everyday, but there is seldom a credit for the other images on the page. In all fairness I should say that DJC has always been fair and courteous with me on this issue. A few years ago I did some renderings for a very high-profile project and my images were published in a book on the project. The publisher had contacted me several times to ascertain proper credit and copyright issues. I made it clear to them that they were welcome to publish my images as long as the credits were printed under or beside each image. They said they planned to have a "credit index" at the back of the book. I said no, credit them at each image, and they very clearly agreed to do that. Of course then the book hit the stands with my credits in the credit index and not with the images. They finally agreed to a cash settlement with me after a few threats. But to this day I have no idea of the marketing value that was lost to me over the incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAllusionisst Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) In my experience, developers want photorealistic and architects are more apt to go with artistic stylings. A good example of a thriving traditional artist is Anita's sample second image down. She has a loose sepia quality to her renderings and is in high demand around Seattle. I think we as artist probably like artistic qualities to our work, but a lot of clients and the market in general expects realistic and polished imagery. I think the average Joe on the street is more impressed with a photo-realistic image than a stylized one and the public in general is pretty sophisticated in their expectations which actually hurts the traditional artist from what I have seen. Glad to see traditional artist thriving, the ASAI's tradtional entries are always great to see. Edited March 12, 2009 by Russell L. Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmccoy Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 At the firm I work out, we do both types of renderings. It really just depends on who we are presenting to. We have a very talented artist that does digital watercolors all of the time. Our workflow for the non-photorealistic images is to start with a 3D Massing of the design. Render out the massings of the desired view. Then trace the white model renderings by hand, adding the various "fluff". Then scan them in and color with photoshop. Using this method we can create some great looks to show clients. Given enough time they begin to look like works of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 They have emailed back and said that they will also print a correction. No apology, no commitment to improve practices. Typical I suppose. Since the publication is geared toward A&E and not A&E visualization, it seems appropriate that the designer is cited. I don't require or expect to be given credit for my work by my clients or anyone they authorize to use the images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 We have a very high demand for non-photo realistic work that is produced from the digital models developed by the design teams. Very high. I wouldn't say that there is necessarily a return to hand renderings as much as there is a need of emotion and story to be present in a rendering. Emotion and story are easier to create and usually more forgiving when using hybrid or npr techniques. This means that these types of images are usually more successful when it comes to convincing people of the project. It allows their minds to fill in all of the details, and to build on the story you are telling. It avoids getting caught up in minute details, and allows for a broader focus on the entire project. I fully expect to see this area of our market to continue to increase. It is a case where less information is actually more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M V Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I think 'hand rendering' has evolved in tandem with computer rendering and we are seeing more and more hybrid work. Personally, I have steered clear of the photoreal stuff because there are just so many people out there doing it, and doing it really well. There are many clients out there looking for the warm and fuzzy traditional looking renderings, but want the advantages that being 100% offers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timillustrator Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I know of a case in England where the photoreal illustration was submitted as part of a planning application, the building was built and the architect got in trouble with the Planners because the cladding "did not look like the approved image" or something similar. If the image had been rendered in, say, watercolour that wouldn't have happened. In some cases it is better to submit something more impressionistic in case the client should change their mind later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M V Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 We have a very high demand for non-photo realistic work that is produced from the digital models developed by the design teams. Very high. I wouldn't say that there is necessarily a return to hand renderings as much as there is a need of emotion and story to be present in a rendering. Emotion and story are easier to create and usually more forgiving when using hybrid or npr techniques. This means that these types of images are usually more successful when it comes to convincing people of the project. It allows their minds to fill in all of the details, and to build on the story you are telling. It avoids getting caught up in minute details, and allows for a broader focus on the entire project. I fully expect to see this area of our market to continue to increase. It is a case where less information is actually more information. Nicely said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morri Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 I nearly always use pencil drawings for planning applications, everybody likes a pencil drawing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihabkal Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 mais oui. I like it, Art Associates, my ex-employer, do the best ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Hart Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 We are working on a new add-on for SketchUp called NprTools. (Non-Photorealistic Tools) The idea is to add some soft and Sketchy shadows - as well as other things for artistic rendering from SketchUp. Take a look at these two images: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 The value in hand rendering is not in the fact of it being hand-drawn, any more than there is anything inherently valuable in a rendering being computer-generated. The value of a hand sketch is in the added layer of meaning that comes from having an artist who understands what he or she is drawing and interprets it in a way that helps the viewer understand it better than they would from a more literal presentation. Computer NPR can be very convincing, but only when you stop and think about what you are doing when you draw and paint architecture and then find 'rules' behind it that you program into the rendering application. I've had some success doing that, but nothing that replaces the original drawing methods in quality. Except maybe for one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M V Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Hand rendered and NPR rendered images have a soft, inventive, warm feeling that you just don't really get with photoreal stuff. Ernest's work is proof of that. There are only a handful of illustrators/renderers out there producing photoreal ART and not just technically perfect renders. Let's not lose sight of our main purpose regardless whether we are producing real or hand renderings, we are making artwork, just like Hugh Ferriss and the others that came before us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pechara Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I would not call it 100% art. Its more in the commercial art end of the spectrum than the art, art end. Although painters do get hired to paint portraits of their patrons so, I can see your point. I personally don't look at my work as art, art. Its more of commercial art, somewhere in between a advertisement and a painting. It seems a master painting holds its value and often gains value not only financially but also the subject matter. I'm afraid most of our work serves only as portfolio pieces after they have served their purpose at the meetings, advertising, and once the buildings are built. I cant imagine that 99% of the work we all produce will ever see inside of a gallery, museum, or a wealthy art collectors halls. just my $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M V Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I would agree that I don't think our stuff will end up hanging in the Lourve, but how many art, artists achieve that? We showcase our work in shows, critique each others work and as your said, in most cases it is commissioned. Sounds like art to me. Go the ASAI website and look at the entries / winners of the Hugh Ferriss award this year - this is art and we should strive to make all of work artistic and inventive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadmunkey Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I would agree that I don't think our stuff will end up hanging in the Lourve, but how many art, artists achieve that? We showcase our work in shows, critique each others work and as your said, in most cases it is commissioned. Sounds like art to me. Go the ASAI website and look at the entries / winners of the Hugh Ferriss award this year - this is art and we should strive to make all of work artistic and inventive. Nice post, and I love the renderings on your website. 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