Working in an office where a Linear Workflow has been dismissed as unnecessary.

[TomasEsperanza]

I recently did some work for an Architectural Visualisation company. I was in their office for four days, and had been tasked with making small changes to a large scene, then setting up cameras and rendering views.

 

The scene was a shopping mall, with many objects. Despite, evidence of good modelling skills, the guys previously working on this scene had clearly spared no thought to scene management. It was a minefield: few layers, many objects, inconstantly named (if at all), broken Xrefs links, etc. ... I could go on; it was an appalling scene to have dumped on one's lap.

 

Anyway having spent time organising the scene enough to actually work on it (and got the FPS up a little), I was faced with (what for me was) an even more frustrating problem: Gamma Ignorance. Sure, they had got good renders out of the scene before, and I could have (and probably should have) stuck with their settings. But it just went against everything I have been soaking up about good practice. Relighting and re-texturing the scene may well have been necessary to get pleasing results if I was to do it "properly". Well, there was no time for that, with the line manager frequently requesting the next image for mark-ups to be submitted within the hour.

 

So I did as they asked, hated every minute of it, got paid, and left vowing to never accept work from them again.

 

Have you had similar experiences? - To me, the wilful ignorance of the Gamma issues, meant that the artists were "working hard" not "working smart". What do you think?

[RyderSK]

 

So I did as they asked, hated every minute of it, got paid, and left vowing to never accept work from them again.

 

What do you think?

 

 

Had similar experience once, was the only time I was employed actually. Needless to say, it ended up very much same way as yours ! :- )

 

Clean-up work is the worst. I do NOT accept anything pre-made by anyone else then me. If the client for some reason has a revit/sketchup model, it's really nice reference but not an inch of it will end up being used.

I also always ask enough time to make things properly and my way. Otherwise I simply don't pursue such offer. I never enjoyed the time-stress production and will never return back.

[Nic H]

sounds like a bunch of amateurs

[Ernest Burden III]

If the client for some reason has a revit/sketchup model, it's really nice reference but not an inch of it will end up being used...

 

I should stick to that thinking. I can't count the number of times I've spent more time fixing a client's models than I would have spent building them myself (or better still hiring someone else to do that). And linear workflow ... well, yeah, might be amateurish now but what do think we all did in the stone age before the sun rose over the land to illuminate virtual creation in God's-own Gamma?

[Scott Schroeder]

what do think we all did in the stone age before the sun rose over the land to illuminate virtual creation in God's-own Gamma?

 

We were Cro-Magnons who used scanline rendering and put omni lights in every corner.

[heni30]

Sometimes you don't have the luxury of time to even name things. I agree that a large project like that that was going to be worked on by several people needs to be well-organized. My projects are almost always smallish with tight deadlines. Since I'm the only one working on them I can get by with just object color orderings and groups. The majority of my objects are named Box ***.

[notamondayfan]

Perhaps you should look at it as a chance to pitch to them some training and work-flow sessions, as in the long-term a good work-flow and a well educated team will produce work faster, better and more efficiently.

 

Dean

[istratebogdanpeter]

I've been passing through the same thing in a company in UK.

Needless to say that any attempt to explain them the benefits of using a linear workflow were blocked with force by the fear of changing their workflow which, as they say, worked so far... and as part of their workflow, they had 2 guys doing only retouching all day long... and by that i mean that every render was brought to a natural look in Photoshop(using masks for every single object) as it was rendered with gamma. Insane.

I've been fired after a few months for not fully complying to their orders

[Sketchrender]

Admit it ...............your a Gamma Snob.

[TomasEsperanza]

Bogdan,

 

Thanks for sharing that. It does appear that these difficult situations are a phenominon at the moment. It is understandable that when people have arrived at a workflow that has been serving them well, that they will be adverse to disrupting that. However, it is astounding to watch people insist on doing it the hard way out of sheer resistance to change.

 

My take on it is that you can't help people if they are not willing to adapt, therefore one must simply move on to find like minded colleagues. I do look forward to working at the cutting edge with a team that is always excited about finding new techniques, (not that gamma is new, it isn't, I know). It feels productive to learn.

[TomasEsperanza]

Admit it ...............your a Gamma Snob.

 

It would be easy to say "Yup OK I am" but really I'm just interested in fulfilling potential. So if rules are made to be broken, and it helps to understand them first, then willful ignorance is no-ones friend. I am just curious about others experiences in relation to mine.

[Nils Norgren]

I can understand that situations like this are frustrating, there are always tradeoffs in a production environment. Thinking through the examples given, I reflect on the other side of the story. As someone within studio environment for the last 18 years, I have been asked similar questions repeatedly over the years. I am sure that I have been accused of being stubborn, unwilling, or too "old-school" when I don't immediately embrace change right away.

 

One should consider that to make a change like the one suggested requires developing a training program, examples, curriculum, re-mapping all the assets/maps, globally setting computers to matching specifications. Most importantly, one must communicate the reasons/justifications for the change to every last artist, preach the gospel of the new workflow and teach all aspects of the technical, and most importantly get them to agree the old way is wrong and they need to change the way they do things.

 

If one cannot communicate the benefits in a captivating manner, get enough allies to compel the change, change becomes a battle. This is why communication is the most fundamental skill for success, it is easy to complain that nobody listens, but hard to figure out how to communicate effectively and affect change.

 

I certainly don't have all the answers, I try to acknowledge my shortcomings and "curmudgeonly attitude" about change. Often changing a whole studio is much more difficult than it should be, with payroll, rent, leases, HR, lawyers, accountants, healthcare, IT, collections, contracts, bidding, etc. there are many things that take attention away from production. Add to that, we have an average of 60+ projects going on at once.

 

It is very difficult to rebuild an engine while it needs to keep running.

 

I do not mean to diminish the author's experience, I know many managers/owners that dismiss good suggestions. I just think it is useful to take a critical look at both sides of the coin.

 

my 2¢

 

Nils Norgren

[Scott Schroeder]

To add an example to what Nils mentioned, the past office I worked at did the gamma switch back in 05 and it took us a solid 3 months of an intern's time to prep the assets, a solid weekend to transfer settings to each machine, and about a year of trouble shooting little pop-ups and old projects that came back into the pipeline. We made the decision that at the switch, any project 75% or more complete would remain in the old gamma and any project that was new or just starting would take on the new gamma. So for quite some time many of us had to work in a dual gamma pipeline. Thankfully we had a pretty awesome scripter on had to create some really nice tools to automate a lot of the change over process.

 

So it's not an easy fix by any means. And Thomas mentions a critical point in his original post, they got good images out of their "improper" set up. For most places, that is all that matters. Is the quality acceptable to their level and did they get it done in time and under or on budget?

[neil poppleton]

I have seen award winning images with gamma set up and without. I appreciate the comment on gamma but its all about the end product and not the tools you use. Having worked with many 3d artists in my experience the more technical people were not the best artists. The best artists I worked with have awful file setups and systems but produced the top end quality.

[RyderSK]

Add to that, we have an average of 60+ projects going on at once

 

Well, while this wasn't the sole point of your post, I kind of felt from my chair. That's...impressive. Way beyond what I would have guessed for larger studios.

Nothing else to think of at the moment...but, that got me thinking a lot. I am glad you shared this tid-bit, not many people of such large companies get down to communicate with mortals.

[TomasEsperanza]

Thanks for sharing your insights guys.

 

What I'm taking from this is that switching gamma workflow is usually a really a disruptive undertaking, thus an executive decision should be based on the benefits verses the costs. Considering that it may not be worth implementing for many businesses, one might be wise to accept established practice of an office, and be flexible in this matter.

 

Personally, the recent experience that I described, with this company, has definitely been a learning curve. I am clearer about what I am looking for in a company for which to work for, and technical practices aside, I prefer an arty environment, rather than the sales driven office I've just worked for. The artists were great, but the management were people who had latched on to the industry as opposed to having grown from it; the manager a background as a PA and sales, and a boss who literally has about six totally different businesses on one floor of the office. Nope, I am definitely not that money orientated; just enough to live off and satisfying work and I'm content.

[RyderSK]

I prefer an arty environment, rather than the sales driven office I've just worked for

 

Well you better like, start your own bussiness then, which should be default choice anyway ;- )

[TomasEsperanza]

Well you better like, start your own bussiness then, which should be default choice anyway ;- )

 

Haha - Yes, I probably shall. ' Having moved from a completely different field, I figure I need more experience though, (with a variety of arch-viz companies, so I can make an informed decision about how I want to do it).

[heni30]

There's always teaching; there you can enthusiastically espouse your ideals to eager, unsuspecting lambs.

 

.............before you start a thread entitled " I've absolutely had it with this industry!"

 

http://forums.cgarchitect.com/75116-ive-absolutely-had-industry.html

Edited January 29, 2014 by heni30

[TomasEsperanza]

:-p Yeah I read that.... I empathise with Joe, having become disenchanted with my previous career. It will definately be done with more worldly wisdom this time.

 

Regarding suggestions to teach: For relative newcomers to the industry, this forum is a blessing for which I am grateful to those who share. Teaching, like a lot of practices can sometimes be a pleasure that is spoilt when formalised as a profession, thus I consider that if we value something we should not sell it without careful consideration. It may be that some of us decide to try and earn a living through our subject of passion, while we create strict boundries to protect ourselves and our aspirations. For example: To clearly define working hours. To clearly define acceptable pay. To say no to jobs that don't fit. I do this as much as I can avoid the pitfalls of jobs that aren't what I hoped. With each job, I know more what to look for as good or bad for my ideal.

Edited January 29, 2014 by TomasEsperanza
speliing ;)

[hockley91]

Clean-up work is the worst. I do NOT accept anything pre-made by anyone else then me. If the client for some reason has a revit/sketchup model, it's really nice reference but not an inch of it will end up being used.

 

No one likes to work on someone else's work. Picking up where someone left off. You don't know the workflow, you don't know the history of what has been edited or changed. In general it's a nightmare sometimes no matter what your profession may be. I do visualization and production work in our office. I hover around and get placed on different projects which has been great. Working in Revit has been advantageous also since I am modeling in Revit I have better control of what I want to see and how it's going to end up in a rendering or animation in 3DS Max.

 

However, There's a balance also with how much to detail in the Revit model because it's intent is for construction, not rendering. There's a lot of detail missing and I 100% always add to the model, or remodel areas if they do not look correct.

[Noise]

Add to that, we have an average of 60+ projects going on at once

 

Nils, how do you go about getting so much work ? Could you do a "making of" tutorial !!

[Ernest Burden III]

Nils, how do you go about getting so much work ? Could you do a "making of" tutorial !!

 

He did. Re-read his post.

[Nic H]

lol at 'arty environment' when talking about arch vis...

 

arch vis at its core is by definition visual communication and marketing and as such is a sales driven environment, if it wasn't there would be no money and therefore no time put aside for the rare 'in studio' projects.

 

it depends on the 'brand' of the studio as well i suppose

 

for what its worth we remodel absolutely everything and allow for that time. it may seem unnecessary but when a project gets complex and is animated it those heavy, unwieldy, poorly modelled documentation models will bite you.

[RyderSK]

arch vis at its core is by definition visual communication and marketing

 

I like this definition a lot. Seeing everyone call themselves "artists" get tireing and it often feels deilusional to point. Neither architects, nor designers, photographers or people in advertising or other creative professions call themselves artists, but people in archviz consider themselves next to michaelangeo's of digital era (and it doesn't matter if it's photorealistic or illustrative look, it's technique that changes, but not purpose).

For what it's worth, we're "creatives", if title needs to be assigned. I think it's bit sad how "art" gets assigned to everything left and right, it definitely devalued the term.

Edited January 30, 2014 by RyderSK