Two rendering comparison

[aristocratic3d]

Hello,

I am confused about these style. which one would you chose for your brochure?

 

 

2nd one:

 

 

Outside is very cold in reality. which one should be perfect among these two.?

Also what area do these images need improvement?

furniture color exterior images was fixed by client.

 

Thanks for your suggestion in advance.

Abdullah

[benjaminbogaert]

I would pick the first, but I think your environment needs more exposure.

Also a small thing but; on the right side of you image u have small border of wood ( on the floor ) but then it stops. Your missing the 2 other walls.

And I would change the texture of the chairs, the seem very out of place, almost low rez in comparison.

And personal taste, but I would blur the object on the left abit( the one closest to the camera ) to give a sense of depth.

 

Overall a very clean and nice render!

[Nic H]

id pick the one without that person - looks awful

[CJI]

I prefer the light in the second image, cold overcast light from outside and the warmth of the artificial light providing depth and a sense of shifting shadows. Can't always get a client to buy in to these though ("Mediterranean sun" syndrome ). Also for such cold blue/grey light from outside suggesting overcast the shadows from the window would need to be soft and diffuse, although i do understand this is post work you are comparing here. Agree with NicNic about person, personally if I can't get the people to look perfect, i would rather loose them all together (again not always an option).

[aristocratic3d]

Why the man in the image is not looking right? I meant I cant get it better.

I agree with the chair material. I dont know why client did not complain.

I liked the second image personally. but I will do more work on it based on your feedback and post here.

Thanks all of you for the kind feedback.

[Ismael]

First one is better. About the fellow in the second, he is in motion and appear headed to trash the floor lamp. Perhaps a person sitting on the sofa either reading or as if talking to somebody inside the room to make our eyes want to explore more of the space. Good job and good comments from the fellows.

[aristocratic3d]

What about the lamp at the right side? should I remove that?

[Ismael]

I would only reduce the output of the lamp so it would not burn the wall that much as the Sun nowhere is burning any object, the lamp should not either.

[aristocratic3d]

HI, I took your feedback as guide and here is where I am now. do you think it improved?

 

 

Thanks again

Edited January 5, 2014 by aristocratic3d

[aristocratic3d]

BTW,

I let the exterior to have more exposure.

changed the chair texture.

removed the man and the lamp at the middle of the road.

This was based upon all of your feedback.

[Ismael]

Fine job.

[benjaminbogaert]

BTW,

I let the exterior to have more exposure.

changed the chair texture.

removed the man and the lamp at the middle of the road.

This was based upon all of your feedback.

 

 

Don't forget those wooden things at the floor. Glad to help.

[Scott Schroeder]

Why the man in the image is not looking right? I meant I cant get it better.

I agree with the chair material. I dont know why client did not complain.

I liked the second image personally. but I will do more work on it based on your feedback and post here.

Thanks all of you for the kind feedback.

 

The problem with motion blurring people is that 99% of the time, the artist doesn't think about how fast would that person actually have to be moving to create such a blur. Architectural imagery has gotten to the point that it has become standard to heavily blur people and cars without any thought to why. When you see a heavily blurred person you think that he must be sprinting yet his legs are in such a fashion that he is clearly walking, sauntering, or going for a lively jaunt. Which in turns makes him seem completely out of place, wrecks the image, and makes your eye focus on the wrong thing in the image.

 

Also, the man doesn't fit the image. Why is he wearing sunglasses when it is clearly an overcast day, unless the future is going to be so bright that he indeed does have to wear sunglasses. Why does he have a backpack? Why is he carrying a folding chair? Maybe why he is blurred is he is walking fast because he stole the chair. Nothing about him fits your scene. He is also clearly shot outside, yet he is inside. He feels quite over scaled to me as well. It looks like he'd have to duck to get under the hanging lamp.

[aristocratic3d]

I wish I never add that people. lol.

mr.scott I hope you liked the latest rendering?

The problem with motion blurring people is that 99% of the time, the artist doesn't think about how fast would that person actually have to be moving to create such a blur. Architectural imagery has gotten to the point that it has become standard to heavily blur people and cars without any thought to why. When you see a heavily blurred person you think that he must be sprinting yet his legs are in such a fashion that he is clearly walking, sauntering, or going for a lively jaunt. Which in turns makes him seem completely out of place, wrecks the image, and makes your eye focus on the wrong thing in the image.

 

Also, the man doesn't fit the image. Why is he wearing sunglasses when it is clearly an overcast day, unless the future is going to be so bright that he indeed does have to wear sunglasses. Why does he have a backpack? Why is he carrying a folding chair? Maybe why he is blurred is he is walking fast because he stole the chair. Nothing about him fits your scene. He is also clearly shot outside, yet he is inside. He feels quite over scaled to me as well. It looks like he'd have to duck to get under the hanging lamp.

[Corey Beaulieu]

I think your latest rendering is looking good...

 

If I were to add my two-cents it would be to say that the camera feels to be looking downward. I think a camera a bit lower looking slightly upward would make the space feel taller and less tilted. I also don't think you need the artificial light in the left of the image, but if you want to keep it, maybe reduce the intensity. The color from the light adds something interesting, but it's really strong for a day image that has so many windows.

[aristocratic3d]

I am Agree with you about the light. Now I see its strong.

The angle was chosen to match the outside image.

It was a client requirement.

Thanks a lot of your input man.

I think your latest rendering is looking good...

 

If I were to add my two-cents it would be to say that the camera feels to be looking downward. I think a camera a bit lower looking slightly upward would make the space feel taller and less tilted. I also don't think you need the artificial light in the left of the image, but if you want to keep it, maybe reduce the intensity. The color from the light adds something interesting, but it's really strong for a day image that has so many windows.

[hrishikeshp]

1st is good but if you change intensity of sunlight, it will goes towards cold days...

[svb3d]

Abdullha where would this room be?

you mention that it is cold outside.

i see that the background trees have no leaves but the foreground ones have and there are a plant blooming on the terraz. it seams a bit od.

btw the chairs looks much better now

[notamondayfan]

I'm not keen on any of the lighting in the images. The way you have lit them you would expect an evening / dusk setting, where the environment is dark enough for the interior artificial lights to be the main light source, but your sun position is actually very high in the sky, so in reality the interior lights would have little effect.

 

If it were my image I would be trying to pull light through the image from the large windows to the foreground. There's so much potential to play with the sun / environment light, and then just to use the interior lights to give some areas some ping.

 

Also to comment on the man, one of the main reasons why it doesn't work is that the lighting (both direction and tones) don't match the CGI, and also it's a very odd choice of person. He isn't dressed well, and he's leaving the shot. If it were my shot I would either have someone walking into the room so to lead your viewer to the focal point of the room, or have the person doing something more interesting, such as opening the doors.

 

Dean

[kcpr.pl]

Hi!

 

I would just point out the reflection in the glossy image on the left - it has black exterior areas while it should be exposed as behind the windows.

 

I would re-render this area with some self-illuminated image behind the windows to fake the exterior exposure.

 

Can you post ONLY the exterior-background image to let us see the outside lighting? This would help to setup lighting coming from outside to the room to fit the backround.

 

Regards,

raffaEl

[TomD_Arch]

The problem with motion blurring people is that 99% of the time, the artist doesn't think about how fast would that person actually have to be moving to create such a blur. Architectural imagery has gotten to the point that it has become standard to heavily blur people and cars without any thought to why. When you see a heavily blurred person you think that he must be sprinting yet his legs are in such a fashion that he is clearly walking, sauntering, or going for a lively jaunt. Which in turns makes him seem completely out of place, wrecks the image, and makes your eye focus on the wrong thing in the image.

 

I also think you need to remember what it is that is causing the blur of a person in motion in a photograph. It is based on the camer setting and how long the image is exposed. If this were a night shot and you were taking a picture you would have your shutter open for a longer time to get more light into the picture and as a result a person walking would be more blurry. The reason people don't look so blurred in daytime shots is because the film is not exposed for nearly as long so a person just strolling will not have much, if any blur, and a person running may have just a little.

 

I think it is important to remember when creating "Photorealistic" renderings, it is just that, PHOTOREALISTIC, not naked eye realistic. Ergo: we need to understand what it is that is creating these anomalies we fake in renderings to make them look like real photos.