Photorealistic question

[Susan]

I personally don't do any Photo realistic work and while I generally don't like it, I have seen some extraoridnarily beautiful work here.

 

There is one thing that consistently bugs me, though when I look at such work, particularly large outdoor scenes. It seems to me that absolutely everything in a Photorealistic scene seems to be at the same level of "focus" and detail. That just isn't reality. We don't "see" this way. We just can't make out the little leaves in those trees way back there.

 

I personally think that is one of the reasons that, for me, it just doesn't "work". Is there some sort of rule against fuzzing or blurring and maybe changing the hue to something more blue or purple on background trees and people? Midgournd entourage adjustments would be good too.

 

As artists, these are important tools to have in order to improve a composition. It's not just traditional media that exploit these tools but Photogrophers also adjust the focus to lead one to the focul point of the composition. So how come CG renderers are not picking up on this?

[Susan]

I should also mention that the fading should also be applied to materials on structures that recede into the background.

[Fran]

Hi Susan,

 

There are tools for creating haze and fog based on the distance from the camera. Also there are depth-of-field (DOF) features in most rendering softwares. I've seen it well-used and really badly used. DOF at rendertime usually dramatically increases render time and those who use it tend to opt for faking it in Photoshop or some other image editing software.

 

As "photo-real" suggests, I tend to go for what a camera might see as opposed to what the human eye sees, and that's my personal style choice. But my work is 99.9% interior spaces that are usually somewhat small. Use of DOF might seem a little gratuitous if it isn't done just right.

[Jim Mann]

Susan,

 

My feeling is that blurring is a phenomenon of the camera lens and not necessarily something that we perceive with our own eyes. From my window I can make out individual leaves on trees 100 metres away but then when I look at something nearer, that is then in focus. I don't look at the same two things at the same time so I don't ever register either as being blurred. If you were painting from scratch would you add blur. To blur or not to blur is surely a matter of preference.

 

Aerial perspective on the other hand is perceptible, when I have a scene with sufficient depth I do begin to apply it.

 

Jim

[Susan]

Actually Fran it is your work that I am most taken with. It is phenomenal. Certainly for interiors I do not see the need unless it is some cavernous structure leading into infinity.

 

 

Jim, it is really atmospheric perspective that I am referring to and not just blur. But as you said, the eye focuses on one locus at a time. Yes you can see the details of the trees in the background if that is what you choose to look at but they will not be in focus when your attention is on something else such as a central structure. That is really the point. Why divide the attention? And then, yes please do apply some atmospheric perspective as well.

[STRAT]

as Jim says, the distance effect or depth of field is a camera effect. like lense flair. we see it in a photo and take it as natural. but it isnt. our own eyes dont act exactly like that.

 

put your finger out a foot or so in front of you and look at it. notice how the backround kinda blurs out? now look at the backround and notice how your finger splits into 2? thats how our eyes work and a camera doesnt. but we take a camera lense as natural these days.

[Susan]

I don't want to belabour the point, but it is not because of a camera that we are used to seeing things this way. This is one of the precepts of classical painting. Artists are taught to compose a scene with very deliberate tactics to create a focal point and lead the eye around the image. It is considered a failing in classical Art Classes to render each item with equal clarity because it does not lead one to the focul point adequately and it's as though the artist has not really made up his mind what the painting is about.

 

 

What I'm getting at is that there is too much emphasis on the technicality of slavishly trying to recreate reality, and not enough artistry. I don't believe that Photorealistic renderers are just trying to be technicians and not artists.

 

By the way, I only see one finger when I'm looking into the background but it is indistinct.

[Fran]

...Artists are taught to compose a scene with very deliberate tactics to create a focal point and lead the eye around the image. It is considered a failing in classical Art Classes to render each item with equal clarity because it does not lead one to the focul point adequately and it's as though the artist has not really made up his mind what the painting is about.

...

 

I know what you mean. I found it to be really fascinating when I studied Art History. At the beginning, I was aprehensive about such things because, being a technician by trade at the time, I thought I was too literal-minded to pick up on things like that.

 

That reminds me of a render an architecture student posted on another forum. He was trying to establish a focal point by blurring everything else. A lot. My comment was that the viewer shouldn't be inflicted with eye pain if he looked where he wasn't supposed to. Fortunately he has a good sense of humor.

[rparq]

Hi to y'all...

 

well...

this is tha way I think:

when a client, or maybe just a single person walking at the park, and this person or tha client, just look at the Outdoors, getting a real view of the project.. he will never ever ever look for just one point of the project, i mean, he will never ever look just to the real project, walls, roof, or stuff like that...

he needs to see more than that.. its interesting if the client can see all of tha "side around" the house (the project) so he can get a better impress of the contest...

if you just kleep "bluring" an image around teh picture tryint to the the real reallity show our eyes give us..

i hinkt theses "blur works" become a mess...

i mean...

its better if you can see all around the project, behind it, above, as you were moving your yeses.. you dont never look as a statue.... we are always moving the target, thats why i prefer not getting a reallity show bluring everything..... this is the point a want you folks to understand....

our eyes are moving... so the focus is.

 

well...

whos against me?

 

See ya....

[kid]

...Is there some sort of rule against fuzzing or blurring and maybe changing the hue to something more blue or purple on background trees and people?...

there's no rule against it, but there's a big difference between blurring in the sense of depth of field, and culling discernable detail based on distance. the human eye has a focal range of 6m to infinity - all objects further than 6m away from us are always in focus (6, if i remember correctly). so in exterior renderings there would be no blurring of the background in a D.O.F sense, but yes, the discernable detail would be much less. detail would finally reduce to overall massing of values and hues, and even the range of values of hues would diminish- but this is definatley not the same as applying a gaussian blur filter of 16.0...

 

The reduction of detail over distance and the employment of aerial perspective are our most powerful weapons for giving a sense of depth when painting, more so than linear perspective i'd argue. not that you need to be a painter to know of these weapons if you're a very observant person, but it may be a case of not many arch vizzers not being fully aware of these phenoma...or maybe not knowing how to successfully achieve them with their given toolset...or maybe choosing to ignore them, exactly to reduce the sense of depth...i dunno?...

[sonny]

i think you have got some points although not all those who renders realistically forget about the artictic principle in composition of the image like the lighting emphasis, focus of tha main subject and blurriness of the the background etc. These could be achieve by using the dof as mentioned earlier, global illumination or light attenuation and exclusions if render time is of great concern and also the use of fog and other atmospheric plugs can simulate realistic environment.

[Fermi Bertran]

We are talking about architectural visulaization, aren't we?

 

While Art may appear on any human work, it is most uncommon and difficult to achieve. and it is not in architectural renderings where I look for it.

When we start using the adjective "artistic" I certainly start to be nervous... that would lead us towards a discussion to define "art" and "artistic" in the first place, and I see that's not the question here.

 

Another term that makes me nervous, is the word "Photorealistic"... but this has already been discussed in this forum I think (if not it can be discussed later)

 

The main goal of architectural visualization is in my opinion comunication, either if it is among architects (that will allow for a greater degree of abstraction because architects are suposed to have great preparation to understand other architect designs) from the architect's to their clients, more concretion needed, or from developers to advertise and sell their product to the final user, the even greater concretion usually needed. And too often, not to say almost always, there are dealines and budgets to cope with, so when a work is considered good enough for it's comunication purposes, real world makes jump on to the next one, because stop to make it better it's simply unaffordable.

 

Of course there can be exceptions, but if any they are most uncommon, and yet most welcome.

 

As for the how tos, never mind, let's be ecleptic here, anything that serves the purpose ( of making appealing images ) is allowed.

[Jim Mann]

Yes you can see the details of the trees in the background if that is what you choose to look at but they will not be in focus when your attention is on something else such as a central structure.

 

Same thing happens when looking at an image. You focus upon elements within the image pretty much one at a time, exploring the scene with your eye. The image is physically a flat plane but you work around it as if it is a scene with depth.

 

Re the focusing beyond your finger when held just 300mm in front of your face, I see two - its a two eyed thing. Just out of interest, were you ever able to see the 3D image within those magic-eye images?

 

Jim

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

I don't want to belabour the point, but it is not because of a camera that we are used to seeing things this way.

...photography, not snapshots is what photoreal rendering is/should be about to me. when a good photographer sets up a shot, he is studying his composition. what it is going to do when he frames it. how is it going to be preceived differently. how he needs to frame it to control what the viewer feels. thinks, and sees in the photo. ...he is going to use special lenses to do it. he is going to spend hours in the dark room trying to acheive special effects. dodging, burning, special timings on exposures, ect.. ect...

 

good photography is not an easy art by any means. when i look at 'photo'real renderings, i am looking for the same qualities that a photographer tries to acheive with his photos. to many of the photoreal renderings try to imply what the eye would see, and that is hard to nearly impossible in a still image. your eye is constantly moving, focussing, and refocussing.

 

in photography, like painting, you need to choose the subject of your photo, and make that the main focus of your work. you will use the special procedures above, and several others, to acheive a work of art. there is a process and a check list involved, but neither garuntee you a good rendering.

 

the largest problem i have with most so called photoreal rendering is that if they were a photograph, they were shot with a cheap 35mm disposable in the hands of someone just wanting to document a building.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

sorry if i re-iterated any thing that was mentioned on the second page of this thread. i did not notice that it carried over before i posted.

[Fran]

Architectural visualization has a duality about it in much the same way that Architecture has itself. Is it art or science? Well, I agree with the argument that the practice of architecture is both. Is a visualizer an artist or a technician? A good visualizer is a nice balance of both. I don't personally think that someone else's design should be subjected to my artistic interpretation, it should be foremost a technical one. However, the image cannot help but be influenced by my style or my ability (or inability) to perceive space, light and texture. The ultimate goal for me is that the viewer is looking at a design and not a render.

 

The prudent use of atmospherics in exterior visualization can do much to enhance the realism or "acceptability to the eye" of a scene.

[Fermi Bertran]

Architectural visualization has a duality about it in much the same way that Architecture has itself. Is it art or science? Well, I agree with the argument that the practice of architecture is both. Is a visualizer an artist or a technician? A good visualizer is a nice balance of both.... snip

 

Hi Fran

 

I think I could easily agree with you... but then thigs would be too easy :-P

 

Architecture can be art, but it seldom is, 99% (to say something) of architectural production is ####!!! (don't want to offend anybody), never mind the marketing machinery their authors use to sell it, it will be very difficult to judge, and only the pass of time will tell.

 

My point was to go away from that discussion (art/no art) respect acrh visualization, and make it more practical. Susan brought a good question, she said she was uncomfortable with what she called "photorealistic" renderings and wondered why a step further was not taken and we did not usually introduce sense of depth and took better care of image composition. My answer is we don't make better renderings because our market does not ask us to do so, when marked asks better images, we'll do our best to produce them or else we won't get any jobs....

 

History is there for us to learn from it, Art history too, even if what we do is not art :-P

 

What was Leonardo, an artist or a scientist?... first an mainly a scientist, but he happened to be a geniuos and he also happened to be perhaps the biggest artist of all times, at least the one we know of. We are not Leonardos, will never be, perhaps, after great effort, we can, more or less succesfully copy him.

 

I agree with homeless guy that the closest reference of what we do, is photography.

 

cheers

[Iain Denby]

..

 

the largest problem i have with most so called photoreal rendering is that if they were a photograph, they were shot with a cheap 35mm disposable in the hands of someone just wanting to document a building.

 

Totally agree!

 

Most claims of photorealism are false, over used and over emphasised.

 

It's interesting that the architectural CGI industry is obsesed by this goal. Damn it, even photographers don't do photorealism!

[Fran]

Hi Fermí,

 

I don't think that visualization is art per se, but those who are good at it have artistic talant.

 

Susan's idea of how her work should look is based on the concepts of classical art. Architectural rendering, until the advent of CGI, was performed by artists. It would make sense to me that someone from the traditional media background would follow along those lines in their CG work. Many of us use the photograph as a standard for representation because our first experience with rendering has been CGI.

 

[edit]

And my practical suggestion was to use atmospherics. Again, an artistic person will use it well.

[kid]

...It's interesting that the architectural CGI industry is obsesed by this goal. Damn it, even photographers don't do photorealism!

the photographer doesn't have to validate the reality of the object they are depicting. they are creating a re-presentation of a real object, but CGer is re-presenting an object that does not exist. it's more an obsession with [hyper]-reality than with [photo]-reality, like maybe it's thought that if the image is realler that real the existence of the object in the real world becomes validated...

 

but it shouldn't be forgotten that we a creating a simulation or representation of an object, we're not actually creating an object. like i said in another forum about this;

 

a photograph of an apple is not an apple not all the technology, technique and artistry is going to change that...

 

and so

 

a representation of a building is not a building not all the technology, technique and artistry is going to change that...

 

 

but yeah, i agree with you...i wasn't directing this at you per se...just quoting you...

[Fermi Bertran]

... Architectural rendering, until the advent of CGI, was performed by artists. ....

 

Well, that's the point, the meaning we give to words, I think we use words Art and artistic for different concepts.

 

I could accept our trade to be called "artisany" ( artesania in spanish ) and ourselves artisans, artisany is a non industrial activity, yet it is based on technology, to produce artisany, skill and training is needed, it will be easyer for soem people or other depending on their natural predisposition ( call it talent ) perhaps the word in english for this is Craft and the performer craftman/craftwoman, definately, we should talk of our craft (not our art) :-)

 

I did use paper, color pencils, water colors, guasche, anilines with airbrush for my architectural visualization work before Computers, but that did not make me an artist then, I was an illustrator all the same :-)

 

cheers

[Fran]

Well, that's the point, the meaning we give to words, I think we use words Art and artistic for different concepts.

 

I'm not sure what your point is or whether this is a language issue. According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

 

art: 1. a. The activity of creating beautiful things. b. Works, such as paintings or poetry, resulting from such activity. 2. A branch of artistic activitiy, as musical composition, using a special medium and technique. 3. The aesthetic values of an artist as expressed in his works. 4. Any of various disciplines, as the humanities, that do not rely exclusively on the scientific method. 5. A craft or trade and its methods. 6. A practical skill; knack. 7. Cunning; contrivance.

artisan: A manually skilled worker.

artist: 1. One who practices any of the fine arts, esp. painting, sculpture, or music. 2. One whose work shows skill.

artistic: 1. Of art or artists. 2. Showing skill and good taste.

artistry: Artistic ability, quality, or workmanship.

 

 

As I've tried to clarify my statement earlier, there are visualizers who approach their work using the concepts of classical art and those who don't. I don't consider what I do to be "art" (at least before you get down to definition 5 or 6 of the word), but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't benefit from the use of classical concepts and artistic (definition 2) ability. But perhaps my argument is merely "art" as in definition 7.

[JHalton]

PHOTOREALISM

 

• noun a style of art and sculpture characterized by the highly detailed depiction of ordinary life with the impersonality of a photography video or, and not traditional media.

 

— DERIVATIVES photorealist noun & adjective photorealistic adjective.

 

Oxford Dictionary

 

REALISM

 

• noun 1 the practice of accepting a situation as it is and dealing with it accordingly. 2 (in art or literature) the representation of things in a way that is accurate and true to life. 3 Philosophy the doctrine that universals or abstract concepts have an objective or absolute existence. Often contrasted with NOMINALISM.

 

— DERIVATIVES realist noun.

 

 

 

cartoonrealism - Jesus, I look just like a cartoon. stillliferealism - Jesus, I look just like a bowl of fruit.

 

At the end of the day wether your a 5 year old child drawing you parents or a nerd at ILM creating the year 2355 we are all recreating the real world through the minds eye. If you use, like or hate the term 'photorealism' is completely irrelivant. We are all doing the same thing at the end of the day. Get over it. The argument is futile.

 

J

[STRAT]

 

If you use, like or hate the term 'photorealism' is completely irrelivant. We are all doing the same thing at the end of the day. Get over it. The argument is futile.

 

here here!

 

we all bandy this term around and every one seams to diss it and what it stands for.

 

I strive to model and render as real to the human eye as possible, or photorealism if you like. my personal goal is to try for my imagery (when the job allows) to be indistinguishable from the real thing. and there's no way i'll have any of my piers telling me this idea is wrong/outdated/not used or important anymore/boring/non-artistic etc etc etc, you pick

 

For instance, I dont go in for NPR, nice though it is, but i grade it's techniques and importance on an equal setting with any other form of graphical communication. It all depends on what the client might particulaly want or what the job needs at the time.

 

It boils down to what your style is and what you and your clients enjoy. No technique is better or righter than the next. Each is equally artistic whatever anyone thinks.

 

The argument IS futile. It's similar to the hundreds of posts i've seen around with peeps arguing over what art actually is and isn't, like anyone has an authority over it. It's ALL art. Just enjoy all of our work and lets get on with it

[Fran]

James,

 

From what I understand, Susan's question was not about whether what we do is photorealistic - or even whether what we do is considered art. It was more to the tune of "why isn't it better?" Or perhaps "wouldn't it be better if some of the precepts of classical art were used regarding focus, depth and composition?" Have we even addressed the question - or are we all just sawing away at our own little issues?