Architizer article : "How We Render"

[Yama]

I can totally confirm Mariu's view there.

 

Working for over 3 Years in the business of architecture I also often get the impression that there is a big tendency to copy paste designs and styles instead of creating something new.

 

And not only in architecture, in visualization too.

 

I often get asked: "Look here's a picture we found on the internet, we want our visualization too look like this." What they don't see imo is that every project needs a different approach.

 

If you want to just copy the style and mood and technique from one viz of one project to another project, it will mostly go wrong, because, guess what, it's not the same project!

 

So I try really hard to convince clients not to give me reference images and having a fix idea right from the start, but to look at every project different and try to find an unique and custom solution.

 

So yes, I think it is true, that photorealism took out a lot of soul and most photorealistic images are really boring, because they look just like, well, boring photos.

 

But its the same with photography either, it's a long proces from pushing the button to a final breathtaking architecture Photo, and between there is a lot of postwork involved, as it is in great renderings.

 

my two cents on that

[RyderSK]

So yes, I think it is true, that photorealism took out a lot of soul and most photorealistic images are really boring, because they look just like, well, boring photos.

 

But its the same with photography either, it's a long proces from pushing the button to a final breathtaking architecture Photo, and between there is a lot of postwork involved, as it is in great renderings.

 

I do generally agree with the above sentiment of copying, which has just gone out of hand and also forcing style where it isn't appropriate. The latter is a problem of insufficient communication and educating of clients, all responsibility of us.

 

But I disagree a bit with the last sentences. I don't think it's the form that creates "soul" for the end-product completely without anything to do with subject. A poor project, with pointless visualization, will still don't have any soul, regardless of which top studio and creative technique gets used (or as they say "you can't polish a turd"...).

Breathtaking photography of architecture and or anything else general, needs exactly only the push of the button on technical level, post-production is just further technique, it can sure enhance it, but it's not what makes is great. The thought process of author spoken through the photography and the very captured essence of the moment, is in my opinion what is. Everything else is complimentary, not crucial benefactor.

 

tl:dr; "soul" of image isn't in form :- ) imho

[heni30]

You are kidding right? Because if not I would have to say that you just hate architects, what is that with the "they feel, they think, they want...Plenty of us here are architects.

 

I'm not talking about architects as people in general - it's more about their relation to contract renderers. And my comments were exaggerated expressions of a significant chunk (not all) of MY own personal experiences.

 

I think most architects have it hard as far as hard work and monetary compensation go.

 

Given this, on the surface, the renderer might be seen to have it easier in comparison. (which might breed a little resentment)

Edited February 26, 2014 by heni30

[peterhoste]

that black and white one is lovely

however my feebdack in 2014 is:

 

remove shadows from facade

glass is more reflective and also more transperant

blue sky please - too gloomy

add life to balcony

activate ground plane

add trees

more trees

more people

one person in foreground

make trees transperant

need to see more context

make penthouse more visible

looks grainy, make smooth

needs to look more 'premium' in general - this is not batmans house

 

and make the white walls more white