Arnold Sher Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Hi everyone, ..Just read "Are we in danger of everything having the gi look?" and it got me thinking about where i and my team have started and i actually went to our back up drives and dug out one of the first images we ever did which was done on 15th of july 2002 (at least that's what the image is dated as). I have to say it made me smile... What a ride it has been and thinking about it now how much i've loved it. I am learning to this day and i have to say for a career that i have not chosen initially this has been a 10 year love affair that promises to last. Anyway guys i'll post an image that was done today and the equivalent of it done recently and i hope it will inspire everyone of you to do the same. Kind of a trip down a memory lane... Looking forward to your posts..Cheers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihabkal Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 everyone is doing night shots cause they overshadow poor designs lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Sher Posted August 25, 2011 Author Share Posted August 25, 2011 everyone is doing night shots cause they overshadow poor designs lol Actually we did 16 shots for that project and most of them were day shots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Ihab brings up a point though. Every exterior building shot has blurred people and blurred cars. Or worse, ghost people who are 50% transparent. Is that the standard now? It's everywhere. You'll struggle to find a building image that it's not on. It's not saying your image isn't bad or that it's a leap from the past. That's not the case, the latest one is a good image. But it has that template CG look to it with the blurred people and streaked car lights. That's the GI look I think everyone is scared about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Denby Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Nasty converging verticals....some things never change ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Sher Posted August 25, 2011 Author Share Posted August 25, 2011 ...thanxs guys...l think the idea was to kinda get everyone to pitch on where where we've started and not to crit my work, otherwise i would have posted this under "work in progress" . I am not looking for my style analysis either as i am not looking for clients here! Just looking for a chat so try sticking to the topic.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) ...thanxs guys...l think the idea was to kinda get everyone to pitch on where where we've started and not to crit my work, otherwise i would have posted this under "work in progress" . I am not looking for my style analysis either as i am not looking for clients here! Just looking for a chat so try sticking to the topic.. It is sticking to the topic. The concern of the GI look is that every image has the same basic look to it. IE, every city rendering has blurry people and light streaks from cars in it. Again, it's not bad, but everyone is doing it. There's little difference between artists. Which was the entire concept behind the original post. Quote from the original thread and original poster, "Do y'all think individual uniqueness is getting lost in gi rendering. Before the computer renderings looked very different depending on style, experience, and medium of the renderer. Now, you see newbies posting "This is my first render guys" and it doesn't look that different from what seasoned renderers are doing. And it all looks the same and has the same feel. Of course there is the 10% who take it a step further and make it their own but for the most part everything is looking the same, especially to the untrained." That's why I brought up the light streaks and blurred people. They are everywhere, almost as if it's a standard to put in an image these days. It's not individual uniqueness if you are using what everyone else is doing. Alex Roman was unique, then everyone started to rip his style off. It's par for the CG industry to make carbon copies of unique work, but this particular industry is really known for it. The first person to animate a building being built was unique, now if you show that process people roll their eyes and go, "Oh jeez, there's another one of those." Perhaps you shouldn't have referenced the GI look post, as that one is a little different of what I think you are looking for. Edited August 25, 2011 by VelvetElvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Sher Posted August 25, 2011 Author Share Posted August 25, 2011 It is sticking to the topic. The concern of the GI look is that every image has the same basic look to it. IE, every city rendering has blurry people and light streaks from cars in it. Again, it's not bad, but everyone is doing it. There's little difference between artists. Which was the entire concept behind the original post. Quote from the original thread and original poster, "Do y'all think individual uniqueness is getting lost in gi rendering. Before the computer renderings looked very different depending on style, experience, and medium of the renderer. Now, you see newbies posting "This is my first render guys" and it doesn't look that different from what seasoned renderers are doing. And it all looks the same and has the same feel. Of course there is the 10% who take it a step further and make it their own but for the most part everything is looking the same, especially to the untrained." That's why I brought up the light streaks and blurred people. They are everywhere, almost as if it's a standard to put in an image these days. It's not individual uniqueness if you are using what everyone else is doing. Alex Roman was unique, then everyone started to rip his style off. It's par for the CG industry to make carbon copies of unique work, but this particular industry is really known for it. The first person to animate a building being built was unique, now if you show that process people roll their eyes and go, "Oh jeez, there's another one of those." Perhaps you shouldn't have referenced the GI look post, as that one is a little different of what I think you are looking for. I think i am getting misunderstood here... I was actualy trying to say where i have started and where i am where i am today. I am not talking about styles but rather how it all started with scanline and developed from there. I could not care less that Alex Roman is getting ripped off or that your style is similar or different to mine or someone else. I was just trying to see where people began in terms of work and where they are now... Lets try this again Picture 1- This is where i started Picture 2-this is where we are today, that's all... lololol... Or is that is that still too complex...?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Sanchez Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) I'm almost embarrassed to show my old work :-) Old work is from around 10 years ago. Edited August 25, 2011 by sancheuz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Sher Posted August 25, 2011 Author Share Posted August 25, 2011 I'm almost embarrassed to show my old work :-) Old work is from around 10 years ago. ...that's awesome...love it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AubreyM Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Talk about embarrassing, I started out in 3D doing levels for games like Quake2 and Unreal. So the two images are not much of a comparison but I thought I would chime in. It's funny as going through my old images was a hoot as I haven't looked at a lot of these since 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BVI Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) These were done in scanline (fake gi, handpainted reflections, hand painted lighting effects) by Chris (my brother+partner) in 99-2001 or so. Retail was an early adapter for 3D, so we did a lot of retail illustration in the early days. Some of these guys are still clients! Below is the original wimpy design and the current Spur design, that hasnt changed in 15 years. [ATTACH=CONFIG]44555[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]44556[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]44557[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]44558[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]44559[/ATTACH] Edited August 29, 2011 by BVI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Gray Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Every exterior building shot has blurred people and blurred cars. Or worse, ghost people who are 50% transparent. Is that the standard now? It's everywhere. You'll struggle to find a building image that it's not on. I get tired of seeing this too, but you have to consider that those of us in the industry are seeing this every day, so it does become tiresome and unremarkable. On the other hand, our clients (many of them at least) are not seeing these techniques every day and so they really do like the look. Regardless, the issue of everything looking like it's CG is no more of an issue than all watercolors looking like watercolors; all pen and ink renders looking like pen and ink; all oil paintings look like oil paintings... CG is our medium and we have our own signature look just as traditional artists do (and much of what you describe are simply tricks to suggest photorealism). We can differentiate ourselves by developing our own techniques or being the absolute master of a signature style and having the honor of an entire industry trying to emulate you (i.e. Alex Roman). The critical thing to keep in mind here is that as artists we want to make masterpieces, but we are not commissioned to make masterpieces, we're commissioned to create 'commercial art' that sells and idea. I fully seek the approval of my peers for the work I do, but what's more important than peer approval is a paycheck. If your client insists on blurry, transparent people and copious use of lens flares, then that's what you do. If the project has merit for your portfolio, then go back and redevelop the piece to your liking and get noticed by your peers (and future clients) for having a more signature look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r3nder Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I'm almost embarrassed to show my old work :-) Old work is from around 10 years ago. I love your recent work Jonathan! May I ask about the trees in the newer image please? Thank you kindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Geers Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I get tired of seeing this too, but you have to consider that those of us in the industry are seeing this every day, so it does become tiresome and unremarkable... Very true. We're a very critical bunch. People get criticized for mimicking someone like Alex Roman because that's "so 2 years ago." But there are clients out there who still don't think hand renderings look dated! There's a pretty big lag in our industry in terms of what clients think is a 'dated' look and I'd say that this is mainly pushed along, not by how current arch-viz images look, but the sort of quality cg they're seeing in films. -Brodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M V Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) The reason why I think that "GI Look" is happening is because a lot of artistry was taken out of arch illustration when the computer took over. Now anyone with an understanding of the software and make a 'rendering'. This is sad part and this is why some much bad is out there and why there is so much out sourcing. My 2 cents. Here are my two renders - the b4 is from 10 years ago. [ATTACH=CONFIG]44569[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]44570[/ATTACH] Edited August 29, 2011 by valerostudio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Sanchez Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I love your recent work Jonathan! May I ask about the trees in the newer image please? Thank you kindly. Thanks r3nder. As per my original thread, the trees are a mix of evermotion models and trees I've created in onyx, along with ivy generator. I touched up some of the vegetation in Photoshop 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