style/technique issues

[phildlight]

I'm hoping some other arch vis people can give me some thoughts on this. It's a bit difficult to explain, so if I'm not clear, please say so.

 

I've been in archviz for the last 10 years and an in house guy for the last 5 with the company I'm with now. When I started here, my boss showed me a website with a bunch of photorealistic 3d renderings on it and said "that's what we want". I've been doing that for the last 5 years with great success. My images get great compliments from clients, and I think I'm at least on par, if not slightly ahead of our competition's illustrators in the area.

 

Recently, however, we've hired some young blood fresh from architecture school interns as well as had some discussions about the future of the firm and the style of architecture we do. As a result of this, there is increasing pressure from some architects here to change the style of renderings I do to make them more "artistic". By this, it seems, the young blood are referring to doing sub par renderings and then slapping people and trees they've found on a google image search on top of the sub par renderings in photoshop. This is what they've done in arch school, and what they think is attractive in terms of renderings.

 

I disagree with this concept completely, and am actually quite pissed that they want to take my renderings and "mess" with them in photoshop to make them look more the way they want them to look. To me, these "5th year architecture school" style renderings look like they were done by someone who doesn't understand the software they're using and just puts things together from whatever they can find. It looks amateurish. I can't stand these images with shadows going every which way, and pointless streams of color thrown in to distract from the fact that there is actually very little in terms of design in the image. I have a strong feeling that our non architect clients feel the same way.

 

The biggest problem is that the ownership seem to be giving these inexperienced people far too much credibility without looking at what the client wants to see. Beyond that, I get the impression from a lot of the architects here that they resent the fact that I get to do all the "fun stuff" while they're stuck doing the mundane architecture tasks. I haven't been told that I need to change anything, but I've been involved in these discussions more increasingly lately. I feel like most of the people I work with want me out of the way, but the owners want me to stay.

 

Any thoughts on style (realism vs "artsy") and my situation? Should I be looking at shifting to another area of visualization? It's something I've been thinking about increasingly lately, but I don't really live in a part of the US that is teaming with VFX, animation studios, game studios etc.

[kippu]

well after chasing photorealism in renderings for a while , it does take a while to move towards conceptual and stylized renders , which is where you are at and also adding to the fact that maybe interns are giving you direction in the rendering is probably getting to you

you can broaden your mind and try out new styles of rendering , it will be good to have both styles in your portfolio , regarding shifting that is definitely your call

[Justin Hunt]

more and more there is a shift away from photorealism and towards photo-stylization. Which is a good thing

 

Its not too big a step but can have a big impact on clients. Often with photorealism there is little to no room for the clients to interpret and develop the design towards what they are after. They often feel that this is the final product and they are unable to change things they don't like. As a result they would rather scrap the whole design than develop it further.

 

Also if one thing is not as finished off as the rest it can ruin the whole image. So the amount of time it takes to get a truly polished images is often disproportionate to the fee.

 

Which conceptual styles, it open the doors to discussion (although not always a good thing), Clients feel that they can have some input and don't feel like they are being dictated to by the architects/designers.

 

They are relatively quicker to produce as the big picture/ broad brush is more important than the finer nooks and crannies. As such more profitable.

 

By all means they don't have to look as amateurish as a 5th year project, and as the Senior visualizer it should be your cue to guide the young guns towards a more professional product. Your experience is valuable to the company in more ways than just producing photo realistic images, use it to develop a strong visualization team that has the ability to do both realistic and conceptual images, which will give the company the chance to offer a wider service to their clients.

[Jonathan Sanchez]

I agree with previous comments, it's not necessarily a bad thing to offer conceptual stylized images...I think however it depends on the client. Some clients want to see a photorealistic image, while others would prefer a stylized image to market a design or emphasize an idea.

[BVI]

I agree with previous comments, it's not necessarily a bad thing to offer conceptual stylized images...I think however it depends on the client. Some clients want to see a photorealistic image, while others would prefer a stylized image to market a design or emphasize an idea.

 

It definitely also depends on how resolved the job is. The 'problem' with photoreal 3D's is that they don't lie, whereas its easier to get away with saying nothing with a loose 3D or by hand rendering.

Edited December 2, 2010 by BVI
spelling! :(

[1d2d3d4d]

there was a thread that had some good thoughts on the subject years ago that got me thinking

 

http://forums.cgarchitect.com/21740-principles-architectural-visualization-4.html#post152958

 

"I think (and this is a matter of philosophy) that true architectural visualization should accuratly portray:

Light

Site

Materials

Scale

To produce a rendering that is an artistic expression exists outside the realm of architectural visualization as a communication tool. Artistic expression is good for conceptual or schematic design, but it is not true visualization.

The light of the Sun or artificial light should exist and react as it will in reality-

The site (and background) should be portrayed as it will in reality-

The materials and their properties should be expressed as they will appear in reality-

the scale of the building as well as people, furniture, trees and cars should stand how they will appear in reality.."

 

 

but have fun and try to do conceptual stuff--- think outside the box and try to do even more crazy/interesting things---

use your skill with photoreal to make the surreal better--

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40198[/ATTACH]

 

it all really goes back to archigram anyway...study the archive for a few hours and you will understand just about everything you ever need to know about the " artisitc architecture style" of presenting

http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/

 

there is often little innovation in that kind of exhibit, so go nuts!!

[Brodie Geers]

I hope you'll keep us posted on how this develops as I'm in a fairly similar position here. I got an architectural internship which has over the years evolved into primarily arch-viz work. It began with a highly stylized technique based on what the previous arch-viz guy developed (basically a little sketchup and LOT of photoshop). Then turned into photorealism based on a rendering the boss saw one day. Now it's slipping into somewhere in between.

 

I understand completely what you're talking about with that architecture school style. I think it's pretty atrocious as well but I guess you can't expect professional work from folks who have to balance rendering time with designing, homework, and booze. That said, I've seen a LOT of these sorts of renderings in the portfolios of some high end architects. In fact, I think I just saw some on Renzo Piano's website the other day, to my surprise.

 

Currently where my style is at is doing photorealism for most everything, except doing artistic translucent trees, cars, and people - very much in the vein of the arch school style. It doesn't really matter what I like because my client is the boss. My position, though, is that photorealism is valid and artistic/stylized is also a valid style and both can be very attractive and offer different advantages (as mentioned by those above). But in my opinion, the two shouldn't be mixed. In my situation the case made for translucent trees and such was so that the building is more visible, a valid concern. But I think what is gained in making the building more visible is offset by the distraction of the...mixed media (of sorts). My theory is that your brain can immerse itself into most any consistent reality - meaning I can place myself into the world of Toy Story or bugs bunny temporarily just as well as I can immerse myself into the world of Sleepless in Seattle or Pirates of the Caribbean. However, when you mix realist with nonrealistic it destroys your ability to 'believe' it. As in Who Framed Roger Rabbit or (don't make me say it) Space Jam, you're constantly reminded of the fact that THIS IS FAKE. I think it works the same in still images as well.

 

But back to your original point. Don't worry too much about the newcomers. As long as the boss(es) are happy with your work, then don't worry about the other guys. If you're having meetings/discussions about where to go with the rendering style in the future, my suggestion would be to have them print out some of what they think are top notch quality renderings in the style they're suggesting. When my boss first came to me about switching styles, I basically printed out about 20 renderings in a number of different styles to get a better idea of what he was looking for.

 

-brodie

[Devin Johnston]

I've had some of the same requests over the years but it was more of a desire to have the option available than wanting to change the whole operation. After dong photo real for so long I've found it hard to come up with a non photo real style of my own, I mostly rely on photoshop filters to change my images. However we've kind of found a middle ground on this topic by keeping renderings simple and only using colors on the models instead of textures we're able to present the project in an "unfinished" state which make it a little less final.

[Iain Denby]

This change in requirement from photo-real to something else has been on the cards ever since 3D software started. For years now we've seen the software encourage the direction of architectural visualisation into photo real, becasue that's what it's good at. But it's been painting its self into a corner to the stage we're at now - nowhere else to go. In the hands of decent artists you can have images that are hard to distinguish from photographs. And so many people can do this now. The result is that many images (as impressive as they are) all look the same.

 

I'm and old fella now, and back in the day illustrators using traditional techniques rarely persued the photorealism direction, partly becuase it was harder to acheive, but mainly because it wasn't particularly desireable. A distinctive style was more apealing.

 

We're now seeing a return to that approach, and it's a good thing in my opinion.

 

To address your original point, I suspect your bosses are welcoming the fresh approach from the 'new kids' but don't perhaps realise that the images still have some room for improvement. You have an opportunity to get stuck in and come up with a fresh style of your own.

[phildlight]

Thanks for the thoughts. Interestingly, something happened yesterday after I posted this apparently that may change some minds in the office. Apparently, an intern produced a "stylized image" and showed it to a client. The client was not impressed, and in fact, the user group actually had a negative reaction to the design because it wasn't clearly rendered. So now, I have to redo this project and render it photo-realistically.

 

This has happened before too. About a year ago, an intern did a bunch of sketchup/photoshop work on a series of images. The client wanted changes and the intern was pulled into another project. I had to re-work their images and it was a total mess. I voiced my feelings on the situation to the principal and he got the point. It took me 2x as long to make an edit to the images because of all the nonsense that was done in post. Had it been a simple SU image or even a quick 3dsmax render, I could've had the changes done in an hour. Instead it took me most of a day.

 

I agree that the two styles shouldn't be mixed. The main problem I have is that (as brodie_geers states) in trying to make the entourage be less important in the image by making them transparent etc. you make them stand out more. I feel that a well done rendering where all elements look like they are supposed to be there gives the viewer a clear idea of what the final product will look like.

 

In the early conceptual stage, I tend to use silhouettes of people and either transparent trees or very stylized trees along with simple somewhat reflective grey boxes as surrounding buildings. Even in those early stages, I can't help but look at those objects with a bit of uneasiness.

 

I realize it's actually dangerous to use photorealism in the early stages for proposals and conceptual work, and I typically create somewhat abstract images for those situations. I still, however, keep everything in model and add very little in photoshop other than color correction and levels etc. I often avoid using real materials in that stage and represent intended materials with colors that could be viewed as brick or concrete or steel. It seems, though, that this is where the interns want to inject their photoshop skills. They seem to think that having frame filling people and trees with 30% opacity and a little motion blur looks better.

 

I really think it comes down to them wanting to get to do what I do. It's not that I'm concerned about job security, it's just created a less desirable work environment for me since they would rather I'm not here.

[jinsley]

Like some people here have said, every style has its place and use whether the design is in a conceptual stage or the final product is meant for marketing.

 

3D is very common now-a-days, and is expected in most cases by our industry. Where 3D use to be cutting edge and in demand, I now find it to be quite ordinary and common place. Everyone has seen so much 3D over the last few years that it has lost a lot of its "Wow factor"... I'm not saying there aren't amazing artists out there using 3D, I just wonder how many of them rely on it and whether or not it makes or breaks their career.

 

The traditional styles (or "traditional looking" styles) are gaining more and more popularity in the industry because they are not typical anymore. I believe that as Architectural Illustrators it is becoming more and more important for us to branch out from 3D rendering techniques, PR or NPR, and dabble in 2d techniques whether they be digital or not... or a combination of both.

 

Addressing your original post, I almost feel like half the problem is WHO is creating the images, rather than the style of images being created. In a firm situation, there has always and always will be pressure to create decent imagery quickly. Emphasis being on the words decent and quickly. Not everything is always expected to be an amazing composition that moves the client emotionally... and I'm sure that everyone who works at a firm is well aware of the pressures to remain within budget and given time frames. If the new intern can put together an image in half the time that I can and is available immediately to work on it... I pretty much guarantee that they will be doing the job and not me.

 

My work around for this situation has been to allow and encourage other staff to create imagery for projects. BUT once a month I sit down for an hour or two with the 5 or 6 people who regularly work with PS, SketchUP, etc to generate work... and I educate them as best I can. Teach your co-workers to be organized, name their layers in PS, use groups in PS... a little quality control through education goes a long ways.

[eagle_ear]

...

[danshewan]

Addressing your original post, I almost feel like half the problem is WHO is creating the images, rather than the style of images being created.

 

I have to agree with this. Regardless of whether your clients were to more readily accept stylized images or not, it seems that if a more experienced artist were to have produced them, it would be less of a problem.

 

Obviously situations where you have to correct or improve work done by less-experienced artists is annoying and a poor use of time to say the least, but everyone makes mistakes and had to start somewhere. If we're honest, the intern / junior responsible for the sub-par work shouldn't have been reallocated to another project - if they aren't introduced to responding to negative client feedback on their work and are given responsibility for adjusting it to the client's satisfaction, they won't learn from their mistakes or the experience overall.

 

As for the clash of opinions between stylized and 'traditional' photorealism, I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive, as the work of studios like State of Art Studios demonstrates. I agree that stylization shouldn't be used as an excuse or poor disguise for sub-par work, but introducing more artistic elements to traditional renders can be very effective and memorable, if well-executed.

 

Perhaps your concerns would be worth discussing with management, not only to voice them, but to see if it's possible for them to agree on a solid, unified direction in terms of the style and standard of images produced across the board.

[phildlight]

Perhaps your concerns would be worth discussing with management, not only to voice them, but to see if it's possible for them to agree on a solid, unified direction in terms of the style and standard of images produced across the board.

 

I've done this a few times over the years. What typically drives decisions on WHO creates images if other than me, is often time availability. Management here tends to make decisions based on schedule more than anything else. This has always and continues to create problems with quality and consistency of work. Unfortunately, there isn't much I or anyone else here can do to change that.

 

I've actually held little in house seminars at the request of management on working in sketchup and PS. It's worked with some, but others tend to either not learn or ignore requests to be more organized or follow some basic pre-established guidelines for image creation. Basically, there are management issues here that revolve around a lack of discipline and hierarchy. Low status people are often given too much freedom and there are very little to no consequences for poor work.

 

I also haven't been given enough authority to make sure that people adhere to established standards in our office. For example, I've created a standard titleblock and sent out office wide emails letting people know that they are to use that titleblock for any presentation image they use, but people still insist on using their own creations. Nobody tells them they can't and nobody enforces that there is already an established titleblock. I've also established a color palette for floor plan diagrams so that the images can be used in a presentation along with older images and there is consistency. People ignore that and use their own colors and then I end up having to re-create the images to use them in presentations.

 

Thanks for listening to my venting. I'm just getting frustrated with the situation and voicing it here. I appreciate the feedback and thoughts!

[danshewan]

Well, certainly seems like you've got good reason to vent in the first place. I didn't want to come out and accuse your managers of anything, but from what you had described and the very fact of them moving an artist from one project to another before completion seems like very poor management - especially if time and scheduling is a primary motivation for this.

 

It must be incredibly frustrating to have attempted to implement defined guidelines and offer training to increase the quality of both the work and its presentation, only to continue to experience the same problems.

 

Have you considered moving companies to somewhere a little more concerned with the quality of the work? Surely someone with your experience wouldn't struggle to find a studio or practice that's a better fit for your own standards?

 

Either way, I wish you all the best. Hopefully the situation will improve, or you'll find somewhere that values quality work and experience a little more highly.

[jinsley]

Management always plays a huge roll in the production of art and implementation of graphic standards... You have to ask yourself whether the companies priorities as far as producing art ate the same as yours and whether or not you are ok with that...

[markf]

You could consider incorporating something like FotoSketcher to your workflow. So you could offer both a stylized and photo-realistic option.