What makes a good render?

[joshuastephens]

I am currently and architecture student and have decided to pursue archviz as a hobby that could be a benevolent influence to my work. As you would expect, I am inexperienced at archviz and spend alot of my time watching tutorials, reading articles, and studying great images, and rendering old projects. One thing I cannot seem to figure out is what separates a good rendering from a mediocre one.

 

I can always identify great renderings and I am confident in my taste.

 

If you were to sit me down and ask what was done that makes this rendering: https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/20382097/hd/ea2581133f099973968af49d08c80694.jpg

 

better than this one:http://www.plarq.com/imgs/projectos/original_resize_1330008371_habitacional1.jpg

 

...I wouldn't be able to give anything more than general concepts to improve on (light, materials, etc).

 

If you were a teacher, and your apprentice gave you the latter rendering, what would be the top 3 things you would tell them to study so that they could improve? What do you think that person is lacking that is causing them to produce sub-par image quality? I hope my question is clear. Thanks.

Edited September 2, 2015 by joshuastephens

[ryannelson]

If i were the teacher, I'd make them tell me what the differences are and proceed to correct their own image. The differences of the two are clear, your question is self-defeating. If you are interested in learning how to create a compelling image, questions are better directed to how to achieve them, not why.

 

But to answer your question... light, materials, composition, and technical quality make some images better than others - objectively speaking.

[Justin Hunt]

In my opinion both are poor renderings. They dont tell a clear story.

 

the shed

It is supposed to make me want to aspire to live in that house, it doesn't the weedy field makes me thing that they spent all their money on the house and cant afford a lawn mower.

On the technical side, the fog is unbelievable. the composition is poor , too much boring foreground and the building is looking out of the page which gives the impression it would rather be somewhere else than here. there is more but I wont bore you with it.

 

Just because it is a house (or shed) in a grassy field with foggy trees does not automatically make it a good image.

 

The office building maybe technically poor (lighting, textures composition etc) but is good in describing the massing of the building, good for early design phase. Not good for marketing

 

So in short, does the image tell a clear story? if so then it is a good image.

[bobbylin]

Hi Joshua! The latter image is better than the first one(on the left), but as what they said, both images are not good enough to sell them to a market, or to quality as a good render. You still need to improve your 3d rendering. The first image was dull. There are many things to consider like lights, composition, quality of image, etc. But I guess if I am a teacher, the first advice I would give is that, your image should be able to tell a story. It should tell a message of what you are trying to convey to your audience just from glancing your work. The technical side can be studied, work on and improved.

[Corey Beaulieu]

If you look at images by the companies that are known to deliver time and again, you can see certain things matter more than others. MIR, Luxigon, and Hayes Davidson all deliver undoubtedly amazing results, but a closer look shows that they may not focus on certain, more technical areas.

 

MIR often times has a lot of noise in closer looks at the image and Hayes Davidson often uses simplified materials and stiffer models. Luxigon pushes the limits of reality to the point of fantasy.... but all the same I would take these images in a heart beat.

 

Justin hit on a very large part of the difference. Is the image compelling? What is the story? This is the hardest part of what we do. The rest of it is, in my opinion, having a decided "style".

 

When I see an HD image, I am always taken back by the lighting and the composition (the art direction of each shot), and the paint work always has just the right amount of color and contrast. MIR blows me away with their atmosphere. They produce the cinema-graphic versions of realism and I am always drawn to their work. Luxigon is all FX and Balance. They know just how to draw the eye to the areas they want you to see and they tell a story like no other. They are famous for competition renderings that do SO much with SO little.

 

The point is that technical ability comes several lines down the list. Story and Style are of the utmost importance in this business. It is why we are artists and not technicians.

 

I work at a company where I lead others in their images and I have people who help me make decisions on mine and my team's work. We have several versions of this vertical and not one of us would give the same answer on how to improve another artists image, but not one of us would question a good image. Our Principal assigns work based on our strengths and challenges our weaknesses, but ultimately being a good artist is about being a confident one in your composition and the story; in the balance of the elements at play and the in the style in which they are portrayed.

 

Sorry for the opinion filled response, but I think about this when I teach others and when I am being critical of my own work. The Art Director I work under and I talk about little else when discussing the job.

[joshuastephens]

Thanks for your reply. I like the idea that the image should tell a story, it takes me back to why I started in my artistic roots in the first place.

[joshuastephens]

Wow I can't believe that I haven't come across those works...I have nearly the same response you have, bordering disbelief that they are renderings. I do get a strong artistic vibe from some of MIR's work as well, as if I am looking at a photo of a hyper-realistic wall sized painting. Thanks for your response.