Are you impressed by these?

[Justin Hunt]

The only company that I know that acknowledges that some of their users are pirates and who go out of their way to get them on the right side is Luxology. They see pirates as either software collectors, enthusiasts who cant afford the software or those making a profit selling pirated software. Its these last ones they are concerned about. The others have little to no impact as more often than not they end up buying anyway.

 

That a side whilst under cutting is part and parcel of the industry it is also what is killing the industry.

 

jhv

[salvador]

Not impressed. I've seen a lot better. Sorry.

 

Think that as long as clients search for the lowest prices, there will always be people who do it for less. It's like booze or drugs. They exist because there are those who consume. How can the Archviz industry remain as good business with so much variations of all kinds? Economies from one country to another, greedy clients here and there who'd sacrifice quality on behalf of cheap; there are no regulations about it. CGA surveys are some of the first and useful tools I've found just to get to a fair pricing approach.

 

I don't mean to rant, but I share the feeling of many here.

[alejandrovalentin]

Hello for me sometimes is diffucult to charge because i dont know how, i really want to be profit but i dont know how to charge, can you give me some advice or a rate for render, you can see my renders in this page, can you give me an estimate for a render, i live making renders, i made like a 20 renders per month (in a very good month) X 40 usd.

[alejandrovalentin]

Hello Salvador can you give me an advice Im from mexico too, how do you charge o how can i make money to survive in this industry

[pailhead]

Does this link work?

 

 

It's neoscape's interior gallery posted on facebook. I am really not impressed by these, but it seems like high end work. They probably took a professional panorama shot using cranes or RC helicopters or something, but the quality of the 3d is pretty basic IMHO.

 

I am guessing, but if it's true, just serves to prove that not all the clients are about cutting corners, some probably appreciate the customer service, reliability, tradition etc.

[Jonathan Fantucchio]

Neoscapes gallery is very good work. Many clients would be pretty psyched for this quality. Of course we have all seen better because this is CG Architect were people post their best work. Not all clients require the premium. For many that's not even necessary. Also I sometimes forget that I am an illustrator first and foremost and it's not always a contest to get the most photo-real results. It's about evoking an emotional response to sell a product.

[pailhead]

The first two images don't do it for me.

[pailhead]

Not all clients require the premium. For many that's not even necessary.

 

 

I couldn't agree more with this, but what i was trying to say is that some of these images are not there, and don't require fancy software or hardware to create, not even any special techniques

[Nic H]

woooiiiiii

if they aren't good then i don't know what is!

 

some of them are pretty 'generic american' but overall a very high standard.

 

dont see the point in doing shite images - id always try and do the best within the time. every time iv seen someone offering 'simple' images for a lower price it always goes wrong and they somehow end up doing fully polished images for the same price. its a hard line to draw tbh.

[M V]

I cannot believe their are studios charging $3k for a Photoshop montage and I also cannot believe their are people charging $60! Quite a range. I guess the same thing happens in architecture. You want Gehry or you want Joe Shmoe Architect?

[pailhead]

I see this more like some sort of a formality or something that you need to pay for and you don't really care about. As in, i'd rather drive a nice car than a crap one. But, i'd rather save money on some tax, or get financing at a lower interest from one bank, than at a higher rate from a fancy bank.

 

Nic,

 

Mir's renderings are pretty good and i've never seen them fail. Dbox too, these two from neoscape are just plain.

 

Maybe i don't know what neoscape does, but i always thought that they are this super high end viz studio. This image though may be really old, i think i remember seeing it before.

 

I'm not even talking about things like the carpet and the reflections etc. the light levels are just weird, the background has great exposure, but then some portions are way splotchy and over exposed.

 

I think that the quality of this one particular image, can easily be achieved in-house today, maybe even using a combination of archicad-artlantis or something ready-made like that. If this was a $3000 rendering a few years ago, or ten years ago, i don't see why anyone would have to pay that much if at all if it can be done quickly in house nowadays.

[Nils Norgren]

these two from neoscape are just plain.

 

Maybe i don't know what neoscape does, but i always thought that they are this super high end viz studio. This image though may be really old, i think i remember seeing it before.

 

I'm not even talking about things like the carpet and the reflections etc. the light levels are just weird, the background has great exposure, but then some portions are way splotchy and over exposed.

 

I think that the quality of this one particular image, can easily be achieved in-house today, maybe even using a combination of archicad-artlantis or something ready-made like that. If this was a $3000 rendering a few years ago, or ten years ago, i don't see why anyone would have to pay that much if at all if it can be done quickly in house nowadays.

 

I am sorry you find those images lacking, they are at least 3 to 5 years old, based on the projects. I would respond that the purpose of the online galleries are to make an impression on potential clients, no to impress the rendering crowd.

 

While many studios have a distinct "Look", we tend to be more democratic in our style. Those project were for developers, and were part of large multi-deliverable projects. I don't want to make excuses, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. I agree that the other studios mentioned do great work, (there are many around the world that do).

 

Often the differentiators when clients choose a studio is not quality or price, but issues of capacity, ability to single-source for a range of services, speed, responsiveness, customer service, reputation, experience with a particular sector, and past history of successful projects.

 

I have often heard this industry declared "dead" (or at least on it's way out) due to native renderers being upgraded in CAD software, new graduates being able to crank our "Photo-real" rendering, overseas shops working for pennies, etc. The general trend is still positive over the 17 years we have been in business, I am hopeful for the industry, I find that the only thing progressing faster than the software/hardware/capabilities is the expectations of clients, which is a good thing.

 

-Nils - (Founder of Neoscape)

[salvador]

I cannot believe their are studios charging $3k for a Photoshop montage and I also cannot believe their are people charging $60! Quite a range. I guess the same thing happens in architecture. You want Gehry or you want Joe Shmoe Architect?

 

Big LOL !!!!!

 

What's Joe Shmoe's e-mail? I'd like to hire him ( LOL ) I already have Gehry's e-mail ( LOL )

[salvador]

I am sorry you find those images lacking, they are at least 3 to 5 years old, based on the projects. I would respond that the purpose of the online galleries are to make an impression on potential clients, no to impress the rendering crowd.

 

While many studios have a distinct "Look", we tend to be more democratic in our style. Those project were for developers, and were part of large multi-deliverable projects. I don't want to make excuses, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. I agree that the other studios mentioned do great work, (there are many around the world that do).

 

Often the differentiators when clients choose a studio is not quality or price, but issues of capacity, ability to single-source for a range of services, speed, responsiveness, customer service, reputation, experience with a particular sector, and past history of successful projects.

 

I have often heard this industry declared "dead" (or at least on it's way out) due to native renderers being upgraded in CAD software, new graduates being able to crank our "Photo-real" rendering, overseas shops working for pennies, etc. The general trend is still positive over the 17 years we have been in business, I am hopeful for the industry, I find that the only thing progressing faster than the software/hardware/capabilities is the expectations of clients, which is a good thing.

 

-Nils - (Founder of Neoscape)

 

Nils, I just took another look at your Portfoilo, and unlike what was posted at the start of this thread, what I saw there made me very happy. I found it inspiring. I had seen the name many times before and I remember visitng your website too.

I don't think the industry is dead, I just say there's a lot of clutter around when it comes to pricing standards. I don't think just anyone could produce the kind of films you have in thier own garages. Maybe the part of the common "what's the little house gonna look like" is a bit hopeless because it's easy to come up with a decent render of it. From there on, the curve steeps into specialization and high end stuff, like yours.

 

Glad to talk to you

[pailhead]

I honestly did not mean any offense. I've re-read my previous post and i definitely sounded too harsh .

I believe that we are on the same page. I've participated in this thread mostly out of curiosity.

 

I think that a weird set of circumstances and phenomenons created an unusual situation that we find ourselves in today. I am sometimes amazed by the rates that photographers charge, compared to the 3d artists when it comes to the architectural field.

Other than a bit of physical work (arranging an interior, setting up the lighting etc) a 3d artist does all that and more.

On top of having to know a lot about photography in order to master GI methods of rendering, a 3d artists has to know how to use much more complicated programs than lightroom or photoshop, has to have good spatial understanding (descriptive geometry etc.) which even a surprising amount of architects lack, has to be good at sculpting, and even VFX.

 

IMHO mapping an object is a pretty abstract task, that most illustrators and photographers would not understand, and it comes to us from the VFX industry. I wonder if you guys agree with me?

 

Same with sculpting, or industrial design. I've dealt with lots of organic shapes in architectural rendering, mostly when modeling furniture (even when you're not doing fine detail such as creases and folds). I probably wouldn't be as successful if i tried to make the same thing out of clay, but i think if a person can do it in 3d it's just a matter of practice with another medium before he nails it. A photographer most certainly doesn't have to deal with this. I also know a lot of people who went into 3d from an architectural background and struggle with such shapes.

 

Same with illustrators, a few lines, a little bit of shading, and you have a sofa, or a chandelier.

 

Then comes the whole collage thing, integrating people, vegetation etc. into your rendering, i don't even know where people learn that, but i do know that some people who studied arts are much better at this than architects or pure 3d artists for example. I remember doing collages, magazine cutouts etc. a couple of times in college and in high school but i always thought it was a bit silly, now i regret not getting more into it.

 

Doing a proper photo-montage requires you to have, if not the same equipment as a professional photographer, then at least something decent. Then you need to have very powerful computers, and really expensive and complicated software. To top it all, you need to know at least the basics of how a perspective is constructed (architecture, illustration?) but i guess there are some people that just do it by feeling.

 

 

That being said, creating a photo-realistic rendering requires a lot of multi-disciplinary work.... and it's often counter productive. More often than not, clients clinch to details such as door knobs, or some ridiculous detail like that that wouldn't even be visible in a traditional illustration. I've even had some clients in the past provide really bad 90s looking renderings as examples of what they wanted when we provided them with photo-realistic renderings.

 

But why is it considered a standard? I have a theory of sorts. Would you agree that nowadays, most arch-viz is done by (ex)hobbyists and (ex) enthusiasts?

 

Just the fact that there are so many forums and communities online, where people share techniques, explore new ones, and often compete against one another tells me that it's so.

 

I remember back in the day when iCube was "dva kub" or so, they would participate in a couple of forums, but never ever shared anything other than the money shot. No wireframes, no raw renderings, hardly even mentioned the software they used. I'd say that's professional. I'm under the impression that other big studios also seldom posted their work on forums such as this.

 

But then again, if anyone remembers Zuliban, that guy would post some of the most realistic, all 3d renderings back in the day, five leagues above everything that everyone else did at the time.

 

I don't remember a lot of people saying how unrealistic it is to spend so much time producing one image (in some cases months), or even a set of images in a professional environment, but almost everyone scrambled to try and reproduce it. Probably because true professionals didn't even frequent the forums, while countless hobbyists, enthusiasts, kids armed with all the latest software etc did. The fact that a lot of people were able to achieve it, somehow set a standard... a wrong one at that.

 

 

I have worked with another 3d artist who in turn worked with some of those people who used to create the most realistic architectural renderings before it's time, but he had very bad experience with them being unreliable, poor work ethics, sub par work when dealing with deadlines, overall unprofessional. That's not the way to go.

 

One of the comments i hate the most when posting work on forums is "Oh, your building looks really clean"....

 

 

In the end, i don't know what the future will look like. When we had a REVIT workshop while i worked at Flack + Kurtz (engineering company, lighting design department) we went over the rendering capabilities, but they were REALLY basic, and horrible at that, but sooner or later they will become decent. The company had a 3d studio max licence, and even bought vray when i was there, still there wasn't anything to it other than placing IES files into whatever the architect provided at that point (often no textures and no materials).

 

I like what MIR and luxigon do. I think it's definitely setting them apart, and that their work requires a lot of artistic input, rather than sheer brute force technical work required to make a super realistic but dull all 3d rendering.

Edited August 9, 2012 by pailhead

[pailhead]

I think that those couple of renderings that started the whole discussion are what clients need, no more no less. The only weird think about them was the entourage, but it's somewhat subjective. We all agreed that they look bad though.

 

The two from the neoscape gallery which I bashed are also on the same boat, but i think they lack the kick compared to those of MIR.

 

I wonder what will happen when one click solutions achieve the quality that 99.99% of the clients need.

 

One thing that IMHO all the top studios have in common is that no matter how simple, or how complex a rendering is, they are always perfectly cropped and composed. I have never ever questioned that aspect in a single one of those renderings, while a lot of self-taught people struggle with it. But then again, in the future, i predict that all it will take achieve that, is an intern working in revit 2017 and a principal that finished RISD in the late 70s to chose the crop and the camera angle and sketch where the entourage goes...

[pailhead]

I was also disappointed when i saw a set of 12 renderings made in china come to the office on a project done by studios architecture... They were extraordinarily good, and produced in 2 days. They featured proper architectural lighting based on our design, a lot of complex materials (3d patterns on the walls etc.) and a lot of really good and what seemed to be custom made furniture.

[heni30]

When I first made contact with the Chinese company I collaborated with, I asked for a picture of their office to show my client and it was a floor of a highrise with about 50 people working away. The funny thing was that they were wearing heavy sweaters and coats indoors. I guess if they make the deadline for that big project they get to have the heat turned back on. I friend of mine said the workers would do anything - work 24/7 - whatever it took, to be able to learn the skills for themselves so that someday they could break out and start their own company and make lots of money.

 

I worked for a Chinese airbrush renderer in NYC and when it was crunch time his wife and the kids would come in with dinner in Tupperware containers and she would be cutting mat boards and helping out and they would all sleep on a mat on the studio floor. On the other hand, he was driving a Porsche and scraped enough money to buy a small house in Scarsdale (one of NY's most affluent suburbs).

 

Here is a link to the company that the project manager I worked with started after our collaboration:

 

http://www.helixscape.hk

 

Edited August 9, 2012 by heni30

[pailhead]

I love ther c i lents, but i also love their work, its pretty good.