Arch-Viz Conundrum, please chime in...

[mills-illustration]

Hi All,

 

So here is the problem, I have been trained as an architectural technologist (essentially a poor man's architect), but ever since graduating in 2007, I have been obsessed with architectural rendering. I have an extensive background in photography and post processing (20 years +). I have been teaching myself how to do architectural renders, but cannot decide which route to take - photo realistic arch-viz, or non photo realistic (NPR) digital hybrid? I have been studying and attempting both and understand that each camp has its own challenges and skill sets. Of course Alex Roman, Viktor Fretyan, and Peter Guthrie inspire the photo realistic, but I am also drawn to works from people like Dennis Allain, Jeff Stikeman and Scott Baumberger.

 

It seems that most people use 3DS Max/Vray. I use Cinema 4D and Sketchup. With the extensive hours of rendering required, I don't know if my laptop and lack of access to a render farm would be detrimental to any arch-viz efforts. There seems to be so many "making of" and tutorials on arch-viz and few on digital hybrid or NPR that I wonder how much NPR is used these days? However, with the sheer amount of time and computing power required to complete a single arch-viz image (it seems a week for one is the norm?), is arch-viz primarily used for final presentations and NPR used earlier on in the conceptual, permit and planning stages?

 

Finally, considering my software choices, would it be difficult for me to gain employment in a Canadian or American firm doing architectural visuals using C4D? Regardless of which camp I choose, I plan on hopefully working for a firm to gain experience and then after a year or so try it out on my own.

 

I know that this is a one group vs. another group kind of discussion, and I don't intend on pitting people against each other, but any advise would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!

[Jeff Mottle]

cannot decide which route to take - photo realistic arch-viz, or non photo realistic (NPR) digital hybrid?

There seems to be so many "making of" and tutorials on arch-viz and few on digital hybrid or NPR that I wonder how much NPR is used these days?

 

NPR is a minority in the total number of renderings being produced for commercial purposes. It is used for marketing imagery and within design workflows, but to a lesser degree than photo real. Certainly during design studies the quality is not as high due to their not being a need for it, but I would not call that NPR per se. I don't think limiting yourself to one or the other is the solution. To make yourself a good generalist and to increase your marketability either working for another company or on your own, it's good to be able to do both. Kind of like being an artist and specializing in only using red paint.

 

 

I have been studying and attempting both and understand that each camp has its own challenges and skill sets. Of course Alex Roman, Viktor Fretyan, and Peter Guthrie inspire the photo realistic, but I am also drawn to works from people like Dennis Allain, Jeff Stikeman and Scott Baumberger.

 

All very good role models and all have extensive experience in the field. I am a big fan of Dennis' work.

 

It seems that most people use 3DS Max/Vray.

Yes that is what the vast majority of people are using in architectural visualization.

 

With the extensive hours of rendering required, I don't know if my laptop and lack of access to a render farm would be detrimental to any arch-viz efforts.

 

Until you are working in production don't worry about having a monster machine and access to a render farm. That having been said, you might want a desktop with a bit of power or a desktop replacement laptop if you really want to dig into your learning. Not impossible, but rendering things out will take a lot longer otherwise. Also, normal laptops are not designed to be used for long periods of max out CPU rendering and will likely overheat or wear our prematurely.

 

is arch-viz primarily used for final presentations and NPR used earlier on in the conceptual, permit and planning stages?

 

The work you normally see online is marketing imagery, but from a volume standpoint if you were to pool all rendering done worldwide (even just basic conceptual massing renderings etc) I would guess that it would probably be somewhere along the lines of the 80/20 rule. 80% done throughout the design process and 20% done for marketing and/or photoreal.

 

Finally, considering my software choices, would it be difficult for me to gain employment in a Canadian or American firm doing architectural visuals using C4D?

 

I think it would limit your options. Visualization studios may be more forgiving if you have a real talent as they may be more willing to get you up to speed on the software they use (likely V-Ray and 3ds Max), but if an architectural firm already has max users, they are not going to have the resources or budget to have you learn a new app on their dime.

[Fooch]

+1 for everything jeff said.

However, if I got 2 juniors at the same level applying for a post, i would choose the one who had the same software skill set to us.

Nothing worse than getting a young junior who can only work 1 way and 1 way slowly ....

 

So learn max + vray if you want to get into the good studios. If you want to go solo, then its ok

 

 

f

[mills-illustration]

Jeff and Fooch thanks for your feedback. I think considering the software and hardware at my disposal, digital hybrid is probably my best bet - maybe my only choice at the moment. Alex Hogrefe's site shows how to do this work in a more "economical(?)" way with sketchup/kerkythea and photoshop w/o relying on the big guns.

 

I'm not so much concerned on making any ground breaking visualizations [although it would be nice ], but I rather just want to break into this industry and be able to feed my family, pay the bills and enjoy doing what I do every day for a living.

 

Thanks!

[Ernest Burden III]

I don't know about Jeff Stikeman, but Dennis Allain uses C4D and I'm pretty sure Scott Baumberger does, too. As do I, also know for NPR work. It is not the software but the user that matters. However, as stated, most studios are Max based. Maybe you could get hired with strong skills even with another program, but I doubt it. But as a freelancer you can use whatever suits you. I find C4D to be a fantastic platform for doing great work.

 

And NPR is more a style than a category. It absolutely is used for final, big-deal marketing work both for stills and animation. But a mouse to photo-real's elephant. Learn both and all. What is most important is imaging--composition and idea presentation. That you may have from all the photography. The post work is also vital to doing good arch-vis as the rendering software only goes so far. The rest is your skill.

[Jeff Mottle]

Jeff is C4D too: http://www.cgarchitect.com/2007/08/jeff-stikeman-architectural-art-arch-viz-as-concept-design-tool At least he was back in 2007.

[John Dollus]

I feel that the photoreal work is for the most part a faceless product and has become far too much of a commodity. photoreal is more prevalent because the barrier to entry is so low and it has become easy to pull off compared to a great stylized presentation. Many have tried to develop that personal artistic style but few have succeeded and those few that have succeeded seem to be surviving in a market which has experienced serious downturns. Sticking to only photoreal work may very well keep you in the architectural technologist realm and it doesn't sound like that is where you want to go professionally.

As far as software goes, substantial 3d studios have pipelines that need to be adhered to for many reason but if you have talent, it's not really an issue to train you to use one rendering package over another. Design firms seem more willing to simply go with what you know if you can be productive enough to justify the expense of purchasing the software.

Edited July 30, 2012 by John Dollus