Traditional or Digital?

[lylemills]

For those working in the arch-viz / illustration field, I wanted to know how much of your work, if any, is done traditionally - drawing, sketching, markers, pen to paper, etc...? It seems like these techniques have all but gone by the wayside with the exception of the old guard (no offense!!!) who have hung on to doing things the "traditionally" way such as watercolor, pencil sketch... and have adopted a bit of the computer here and there.

 

I am asking this as I have spent the better part of a year teaching and educating myself about architectural illustration. I am working towards entering the field very soon. I want to differentiate myself from the standard GI 3ds max/vray render images seen quite frequently and feel that borrowing and adding from the traditional ways - such as Jim Leggitt praises with his term "tradigital" may be the way to produce work that stands out and is truly unique. No offense to those using a 100% digital workflow and 3dsmax/vray. Also, are these traditional methods in demand in the current markets?

[notamondayfan]

Like pretty much anything now-a-days it's usually down to cost and speed, and sadly traditional media lags behind digital some what. Clients are demanding more for less, changes in an instant, and sadly with traditional media it isn't as quick as digital.

I like the concept of mixing digital and transitional media, I know of architects who mass in blocks in 3D, print them out, then sketch ideas over the top, but then only for them to be translated back into digital / 3D.

[Scott Schroeder]

I'll push the digital traditional look for certain clients, meaning I'll use toon shaders in Vray to give it that sketched look. While traditional media may be a litter faster in the creation side, you don't have to model light and wait for renders, the change side is the one that hurts over digital. We all end up making changes, and a simple color change or re-model in digital is a complete re-draw in traditional.