That one guy...

[M V]

Photoshop's highlights and shadows is great for pulling up dark areas, no re-rendering. Otherwise, yeah, put in unrealistic lights and refuse to 'verify' the results.

 

I use this all the time to do just what they are asking. It works really well. Also, when you save out your images from Max, try to render out as many channels as possible. Saving out a GI pass will give you the chance to add that lighting into areas of your render to please those pickier folks.

[Chris MacDonald]

I use this all the time to do just what they are asking. It works really well. Also, when you save out your images from Max, try to render out as many channels as possible. Saving out a GI pass will give you the chance to add that lighting into areas of your render to please those pickier folks.

 

I can do all of this, but my main point is that sometimes you are requested to push an image to the point where it simply looks shit. That and that alone is my issue.

[Francisco Penaloza]

I also agree with Nicnic that most of the time when I have that problem (that guy comments) is because there is something in the image or the design that is not representing what they were expecting. It is like when they ask you to put even more people to show "dynamic" make the image "Live" with more "energy" all those qualities that are absolutely missing in their design, they are trying to compensate with very arguably comments.

 

I had this interior designer, he was always a pain in the neck because all his design where white, and he always asking me to make it "whiter" after several tries I found out that all what he wanted was to see contrast. I stater to place more intense color objects and accent lights, that will give you eye a reference point of what is white and what is not. He was very happy after that. I learned that his "red" was actually dark orange and things like that.

 

Some people really do not understand the media, others know just a little that made them think they know the answers and others are just idiots.

 

Shoot, it even happens in this mere forum, people that come with questions and later they argue or question your answers/help..

 

I also work as Arch-Viz in house and after a few years here I earned a reputation that they will listen to my opinion and respect my decisions, but there will be always "that guy" and we just need to learn to deal with it. make him understand and if he still insist just close your eyes and get the job done. Life is way better than argue with those people

 

Besides if you really like the project you can do a version B that you can use in your portfolio

 

 

Cheers.

Edited July 13, 2015 by fco3d

[heni30]

I can do all of this, but my main point is that sometimes you are requested to push an image to the point where it simply looks shit. That and that alone is my issue.

 

Another point is that "shit" is different things to different people. You seem to have painfully high standards.

 

You thought a quickie night shot of a wall climbing building that I did was "shit" but the client was ecstatic with the rendering and I had payment delivered to my PayPal account 2 hours after he received the file. I thought it was ok given the extreme circumstances.

 

I would get second opinions in order to get a better perspective of how things look. Like Fco said, you can always bring it up to your portfolio standards afterwards.

[Tommy L]

Another point is that "shit" is different things to different people. You seem to have painfully high standards.

 

You thought a quickie night shot of a wall climbing building that I did was "shit" but the client was ecstatic with the rendering and I had payment delivered to my PayPal account 2 hours after he received the file. I thought it was ok given the extreme circumstances.

 

I would get second opinions in order to get a better perspective of how things look. Like Fco said, you can always bring it up to your portfolio standards afterwards.

 

....yes, but the unqualified layman is not in a good position to judge whether a 3d rendering is good or not as they have no idea of the universal standards to which these things are held. If a client (be they in-house, independent or or other non-3d production person) is ecstatic with an image, this has little bearing on the subjective value of the image itself. The only people qualified to judge a 3d image is a person with 3d experience and there-in lies the problem.

Macker is pissed because a direct superior requests stupid things. This is unforgivable, they should not be in a position to do such things as they are in the same company. They should bow to the judgement of the more qualified person (in this case the artist.... quote Steve Jobs, "I hire clever people to tell me what to do, not the other way around").

Your client has no such chain of command to adhere to (vendor-client relationship is direct) so you are in a different position.

This raises an interesting point. If Macker (qualified) thinks your image is shit and your client (unqualified) is ecstatic, who is more likely to be right?

Discuss.

[Francisco Penaloza]

errr... I feel this thread is going sideways wish can be very fun or a terrible waste of time dead end.

... any how to keep adding to it

 

....yes, but the unqualified layman is not in a good position to judge whether a 3d rendering is good or not as they have no idea of the universal standards to which these things are held.

 

I think the point of Heni was clear, he knows and understand his potentials and limits, the point was a really ridiculous deadline, with a stupid client that want it his way. He just did what he was told and forget about it. He knows that he won't do that type of work if he need to participate in the Architectural visualizations awards or any other "between artist" competition or judge my stuff type of forum. He was just doing cold business decisions.

 

Besides "one's man thrash is other men treasure" we can tell the same about food, music, movies etc etc. some people thing Transformer is the most amazing movie ever, other think Life of Pi was extremely boring.

 

 

Not long ago, I was running two freelancing projects. one was a several million dollars development in Boston, at the same time I was doing a simple box Stop and Go in Texas. The height-end client were happy for the "Great quality of my work", the other Architect of Texas was complaining that it was not photo-real enough because I was missing the bolts in the gutter holder (or whatever the name is) that "Where very important in his design"

Yes you read it right, the bolts of something so insignificant on a crossing the street view of a standard project as a Stop and got store, that looks pretty much like any other stop and go that you ever seen!!! Both of them where my clients, I had to deliver the "best image" to both of them. I did what I was told, one project will go in my portfolio, the other it will be archived in the Indiana Jones warehouse

[heni30]

....yes, but the unqualified layman is not in a good position to judge whether a 3d rendering is good or not as they have no idea of the universal standards to which these things are held. If a client (be they in-house, independent or or other non-3d production person) is ecstatic with an image, this has little bearing on the subjective value of the image itself. The only people qualified to judge a 3d image is a person with 3d experience and there-in lies the problem.

Macker is pissed because a direct superior requests stupid things. This is unforgivable, they should not be in a position to do such things as they are in the same company. They should bow to the judgement of the more qualified person (in this case the artist.... quote Steve Jobs, "I hire clever people to tell me what to do, not the other way around").

Your client has no such chain of command to adhere to (vendor-client relationship is direct) so you are in a different position.

This raises an interesting point. If Macker (qualified) thinks your image is shit and your client (unqualified) is ecstatic, who is more likely to be right?

Discuss.

 

My last sentence says "get second opinions". I was talking about other 3d people that he knows. There will be differences of opinion between "qualified" individuals as well.

 

And I said that I thought my rendering was "ok". I'll weigh in the client's reaction and Macker's - but I will ultimately be the final judge of it's quality given the circumstances. And it's all relative; the client and his associates are excited because the rendering conveys chic nightlife, cool shops/eateries, the potential of what their vision could become. Macker's criticisms of the lighting not being correct on people or the sidewalk curbs not being modeled in do have merit, as Fco pointed out, IF it was something like a contest submission. One of Mkr's streets even had divider stripes that were 3 dimensional with slight waves in them.

 

If I have a choice of feeling good about the client being happy or chastising myself for not having time to space the street lamps evenly, I will take the former.

 

My point is that if you are very uncompromising and rigid, it might make things more stressful than they have to be when dealing with clients in the real world.

Edited July 14, 2015 by heni30

[Chris MacDonald]

IF it was something like a contest submission.

 

What I would consider to be my worst works are competition ones, because the deadlines are too short to do anything of any real merit.

 

My point is that if you are very uncompromising and rigid, it might make things more stressful than they have to be when dealing with clients in the real world.

 

You're not wrong, but I have worked with a person who shall remain nameless who had a tendency to do just what he was asked and literally not a thing more. The bare minimum. This suited him fine and people were generally happy with the speed at which he produced work, but now he lacks the skills that the vast majority of 3D guys have these days because he didn't push himself to produce the absolute best he could. Now people actually avoid him for work.

 

It's not just the frustration of the director being wrong (and admitting it when he saw it on screen instead of his awful print out), it's that I want to at least try to be the absolute best, even if ultimately I am not. Like I said, I've seen what not pushing yourself can do, and I don't want to end up there.

 

I realise this has gone off on a tangent.

 

I think I will always reside in the "I've done this for x years so I am qualified to tell you when you're wrong" camp, because if I were asking somebody else to do something for me based on their past work and experiences, I wouldn't second guess them when they make decisions because ultimately I do not possess the same skills as them. Example; I know photoshop inside out, and am fairly deft at illustrator/indesign too - but I wouldn't dare tell a graphic designer how to make a logo.

[M V]

Some time ago, I worked in an office of narcissists. No matter what you did, there was always something 'wrong' with it. Can't tell you how many times I was told to make colors "more pastely" and then a month later I was told "this all looks too pastely". Some designers are just impossible in nature. Ask a contractor how he feels about architects. If you work on your own, you can stay clear of these ankle-bitter or charge them a high maintenance fee. If you work in an office with one, factor in the (insert name here)-factor. It's highly unlikely to avoid these folks as they are all over the profession.

[heni30]

You're not wrong, but I have worked with a person who shall remain nameless who had a tendency to do just what he was asked and literally not a thing more. The bare minimum. This suited him fine and people were generally happy with the speed at which he produced work, but now he lacks the skills that the vast majority of 3D guys have these days because he didn't push himself to produce the absolute best he could. Now people actually avoid him for work.

 

I think that's a good point that skills will atrophy from a lack of use.