French Cafe

[innerdream]

Still a few things to do. CC welcome though.

[Horhe]

Looking nice. Give some chamfers to those rails, so they can catch some specular. Looks like a romantic shot, hence it is missing a red item IMO. Or not

[innerdream]

Good suggestions thanks! I got the rail from the Google Sketchup library so I'll have to see if I can modify it?

 

Here's an update.

[Sketchrender]

slightly off the point, but......

 

Have you ever seen the start of Amile, the french film, there is a shot at the start where there is a table cloth with the wind blowing under it, and it is making the wine glasses dance .

 

May be use the cloth modifier and wind to add a little motion and mood to the image and soft shadow of a evening french golden evbening summer, and colour, i agree lots of golden and red.

 

Throw a red cardigan over the back of the chair, and add colour to the chair.

 

The rail looks like it hiding something, gravel and leaves on the ground to the front. angel the view to the left or right .

 

 

 

 

phil

Edited June 22, 2009 by philip kelly

[innerdream]

Thanks Philip!

 

I'll have to think about your suggestions, there's a danger in my mind of making the items in the scene a focal point when it should be about the architecture. I haven't seen that movie but always wanted to.

[Ernest Burden III]

I would suggest separating the fence from the chairs. There is no visual room to 'be' in the cafe, in fact it's almost in prison. Also, get more of the pergola and use it's shadows to paint light and leaf shapes on the tables.

[innerdream]

I would suggest separating the fence from the chairs. There is no visual room to 'be' in the cafe, in fact it's almost in prison. Also, get more of the pergola and use it's shadows to paint light and leaf shapes on the tables.

 

You're right about the rail, I moved it. Thank you!

Edited June 22, 2009 by innerdream

[innerdream]

With some not too cheesy red.

[Tim Nelson]

You're right about the rail, I moved it. Thank you!

I think you went the wrong way..?

[innerdream]

I think you went the wrong way..?

 

The rail was about 30" from the tables, now it's more like 5'. Are you referring to the height Tim?

[Tim Nelson]

The rail was about 30" from the tables, now it's more like 5'. Are you referring to the height Tim?

I guess I am referring to height, yes. It seems like when you moved the railing back, it is crowding the chairs even more and looks worse. In this case I'd either try to lower the railing or raise the camera to give the tablle & chairs some breathing room.

[innerdream]

I guess I am referring to height, yes. It seems like when you moved the railing back, it is crowding the chairs even more and looks worse. In this case I'd either try to lower the railing or raise the camera to give the tablle & chairs some breathing room.

 

I see. It doesn't really bother me. I think from all the years of building physical models for me it's more important to be accurate in terms of dimensions and let the chips fall where they may. I can see when things are fudged and it bothers me...I'll be seeking help for that just as soon as the economy turns around.

[Nic H]

i reckon you need to get some textures onto it. The stucco, glass, metal railing (model some edges in, or use vrayedgetex to get highlights), timber, furniture, tablecloth (could do with a cloth sim as well) are missing textures

 

the lighting is a bit yellow as well, could just be the white materials that are making it look that way however. maybe angle the chairs differently.

[Ernest Burden III]

I see. It doesn't really bother me. I think from all the years of building physical models for me it's more important to be accurate in terms of dimensions and let the chips fall where they may.

 

So this is a model, then?

 

You are producing an image. It should work as such. I'm all for accuracy, but a picture does not exist as a 3D object, it exists as a 2D arrangement of shapes, tones, patterns, etc. Make that right.

[innerdream]

So this is a model, then?

 

You are producing an image. It should work as such. I'm all for accuracy, but a picture does not exist as a 3D object, it exists as a 2D arrangement of shapes, tones, patterns, etc. Make that right.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, I don't agree with you. There is no right or wrong way to approach an image. If it's leaning towards a photorealistic approach then let it be that way. That's my opinion.

[Ernest Burden III]

You're entitled to your opinion,

 

Well, you asked for CC. I guess photorealism includes mimicking bad photos, too.

 

It is important as an artist to consider the medium. A 3D physical scale model is different from a full-size mock-up. A picture of a 3D model is different from a 3D model. Or so my opinion goes.

[innerdream]

Well, you asked for CC. I guess photorealism includes mimicking bad photos, too.

 

It is important as an artist to consider the medium. A 3D physical scale model is different from a full-size mock-up. A picture of a 3D model is different from a 3D model. Or so my opinion goes.

 

Now you're just being a little prick. If you want to give CC on photo composition I'll listen but if your going to be condescending then take it somewhere else. I have 32 years in this profession Ernest, show some respect.

 

Nice cropping there Ernest. Maybe you should not be giving advice on photo composition on second thought?

Edited June 23, 2009 by innerdream

[Tim Nelson]

Now you're just being a little prick. If you want to give CC on photo composition I'll listen but if your going to be condescending then take it somewhere else. I have 32 years in this profession Ernest, show some respect.

 

Nice cropping there Ernest. Maybe you should not be giving advice on photo composition on second thought?

Just cause you've been doing something for 32 years doesn't make you good at it. Speaking personally, there are new kids on the block who can render circles around me. I would suggest you take your own advice and show some respect to somebody who was only offering their opinion when asked to do so. Name calling is childish and inappropriate. I don't know what that tiny thumbnail was about but Ernest happens to be very good at composition.

[innerdream]

Just cause you've been doing something for 32 years doesn't make you good at it. Speaking personally, there are new kids on the block who can render circles around me. I would suggest you take your own advice and show some respect to somebody who was only offering their opinion when asked to do so. Name calling is childish and inappropriate. I don't know what that tiny thumbnail was about but Ernest happens to be very good at composition.

 

I did show respect, I just didn't agree with his opinion and he couldn't handle that. He became condescending. As for the the thumbnail, if you know how to crop a person you don't cut them in half, it's bad composition. By the way, that's 32 years in the Architecture profession, not as a renderer, that's why I come here for advice which I have no problem with if it's not opinion based.

 

There are opinions and then there is sound constructive criticism backed up by tested principles, I happen to know the difference.

 

Thanks for all the help guys.

Edited June 23, 2009 by innerdream

[Ernest Burden III]

Now you're just being a little prick. If you want to give CC on photo composition I'll listen but if your going to be condescending then take it somewhere else. I have 32 years in this profession Ernest, show some respect.

 

Nice cropping there Ernest. Maybe you should not be giving advice on photo composition on second thought?

 

Are we having fun yet?

 

You must be right, because I only have 30 years of daily image composition. I have also done architectural models, though not extensively.

 

I was addressing the composition, which I had judged to be what you were asking for CC about. Your response was that you were only really interested in the accuracy of the model, not whether you had chosen a good view angle, were telling a compelling story, had a balanced color scheme, appropriate entourage, believable lighting, etc.

 

You are right that there is no right or wrong way to approach an image, but there are conventions of composition that help us produce good images. Being 'photoreal' means nothing on it's own. 'Photo' does not equate 'good photo', it simply refers to a medium.

 

Now, to the cropping on the Boston image. Yes, it is uncomfortably tight. The issue was that I had to remove two large buildings, one of them being the Hancock Tower. Showing more 'frontyard' would only make the point of the missing context all the louder. My concern was opening the door for viewers to question the entire image due to the removed foreground buildings. So I cropped up tight.

 

What was your reasoning behind having the railing hit right at the visual line of the chair seats and also at the bottom edge of the tablecloth? That was the sort of issue I was addressing.

[Ernest Burden III]

I did show respect

 

 

Now you're just being a little prick.

 

That's respect?

 

He became condescending.

 

I did. I apologize for that.

[innerdream]

I was addressing the composition, which I had judged to be what you were asking for CC about. Your response was that you were only really interested in the accuracy of the model, not whether you had chosen a good view angle, were telling a compelling story, had a balanced color scheme, appropriate entourage, believable lighting, etc.

 

You are right that there is no right or wrong way to approach an image, but there are conventions of composition that help us produce good images. Being 'photoreal' means nothing on it's own. 'Photo' does not equate 'good photo', it simply refers to a medium.

 

 

 

What was your reasoning behind having the railing hit right at the visual line of the chair seats and also at the bottom edge of the tablecloth? That was the sort of issue I was addressing.

 

The design is what it is, the materials are set, the lighting is physically correct and so is the camera, there won't be any entourage. Again these are opinions of what you would like to see not what is actually in the design.

 

As for the the railing issues I am aware of those and they could not be addressed successfully and still capture the essential elements in the shot, that is without making the model incorrect which I am against.

[Ernest Burden III]

The design is what it is, the materials are set, the lighting is physically correct and so is the camera...

 

The lighting and camera remain physically correct even if you move the camera and change the time of day for graphic effect. I was thinking you were going for a graphic effect because of the use of a centered one-point perspective. Those create strong symmetry and usually a tunnel effect, but in this case a very horizontal composition. The major force is side-to-side. That's why I suggested the shadows be cast down upon the table, to break up the horizontal highway. Separating the fence top from the chair bottom also does that by allowing some visual 'grounding' beyond the plane of the table/chair front.

 

There may not be a camera position that does what you want and what I suggested, but it's worth a try. Same for the sun/shadow angle.

[innerdream]

That's respect?

 

You deserved it.

 

I'm giving it another pass but there's going to be trade offs.

 

Thanks for the tips.