Tips for Exterior Render

[ianmoran]

Studio/Institution: Tweak 3D
Genre: Residential Exterior
Software: Maya, Vray
Website: http://tweak3d.com.au/projects/
Description:

Hello guys,

 

I am currently doing a number of projects for a local builder, but I am really struggling to feel inspired at the moment. Sometimes your mind is literally a blank canvas and it seems to stay that way.

 

Anyway, I finally got a first draft render put together. I am not happy with it. A distinct lack of realism and me staring at it all day does not seem to be helping. A new pair of eyes on it may be what is needed.

 

If you have any tips, suggestions at this point, I would be much appreciative. I really need to improve my work badly.

 

As a side note, the house will be built in Perth, Australia. The architect told me that the orange door idea was taken from some examples of properties in Palm Springs, California. The other properties he is putting together have a mixture of orange and yellow doors to match the series.

 

Thank you in advance,

 

Ian

 

[heni30]

The view is just way too symmetrical - like looking down a bowling alley. Kill some of that foreground. Walkway would have expansion joint lines; drive would not be higher than walk. Some more landscaping would help soften the angle. Maybe a foreground tree branch above with ground shadows. Maybe a normal lens or slightly tele would soften the extreme angle. Look at a bunch of pictures to get ideas - like residential landscaping. Those sconces might be a little bit too strong. Softer lighting would create a better mood I think.

 

It's funny because the building materials are there; the glass/reflections is there; the background is there; the lighting is there - but it's just so rigid. Or better just go to a nice neighborhood and take pictures. You say you're stuck but it's just a matter of emulating what's out there in the real world.

 

You might plan to do all these things but this is what your presenting to critique.

Edited March 29, 2017 by heni30

[ianmoran]

Thank you, George, for the honest critique. I really appreciate it.

 

I will work on the landscaping, path etc. Regarding the lens - what mm would you recommend for exterior shots? On this image I am using a 24mm so fairly wide angle.

 

I will also look at softer lighting and good examples of residential landscaping.

 

I will post updates as I produce them.

 

Again, thank you for the advice. Feel free to criticise as much as you like. I am here to learn and improve.

[heni30]

Hey Ian,

 

24mm ? Whoa! That creates an extreme tunnel vision effect. Normal eye is 50 mm. But every situation is different - it's what works; what looks good for that particular building mass. In this case it's the design that's the problem - the building isn't that big and the entry is being pushed way back down a narrow hallway. The extreme wide angle lens exacerbates this effect which is why using a more normal lens makes sense to bring the door forward.

[ianmoran]

Again, George, thank you so much for the information. It helps a lot. Unfortunately I can not do much about the design itself (I am just given the plans created by the architect or draftsperson), but I think you advice is great. Your advice helps to make good is what can quickly become a mess if not done correctly - and a mess is exactly what I am creating right now. I need to start looking at these images in a different way and seeing what lens (amongst over things) will work best in each individual situation. I will certainly try your suggestion and post the result.

 

The best way to probably learn some of this is to get outside and take some photos myself and see what works and what doe not work. Unfortunately I am physically disabled and unable to use a DSLR camera, however I have been trying to learn more from observing images online and asking friends to take photos for me at different focal lengths to observe the different results. It is not easy, but I am slowly getting the idea.

[CliveG]

Shows the state of Perth architecture when an orange door at the end of a blank walled slot is a key design feature! So you have a conundrum in that you need to show that to best effect?! George is right a wide angle lens is not going to help in this, instead it's going to exaggerate that blank walled corridor leading to the door.

 

Where I disagree a bit with George is that I don't think the background is helping either. It's not like what I see driving around Perth, perhaps you don't want to be too true to what we actually see driving around this place but I'd certainly be adding in a bit more context and a variety of trees. It feels like the house is perched above everything else and doesn't seem to sit in realistic surroundings.

 

Agree on the foreground, lose a lot of it (lens and framing) and add detail to the foreground finishes they're bland and characterless. Mess with some subtle noise or bercon maps in colour and reflectivity etc.

 

And have a word with your Architect that an orange door is just an orange door even in Palm Springs and perhaps he can do better than that!

[Chris MacDonald]

Hey Ian,

 

24mm ? Whoa! That creates an extreme tunnel vision effect. Normal eye is 50 mm.

 

I'm not sure that's right, is it? I thought it was more around 35mm equivalent? I also use a 24mm focal length very often without issue.

 

This aside I don't think your image is that bad; you've got all the basics down.

 

I think the composition of the image could use some work, as there's a lot of blank foreground space that is grabbing too much of my attention. Perhaps look at some example photo's/renders to see what view-points they use. I quite like the "straight down the middle" shot, but perhaps try to capture more sky than foreground? I wouldn't worry about using a 24mm lens, sometimes I go down to 18 (in extreme situations) and it can be used to really emphasise certain aspects - like george said, it does have the effect of pushing the front door away from you.

 

Some good composition tips here: http://www.ronenbekerman.com/photographic-approach-in-architectural-visualisation/

 

I think the next thing to work on would be lighting. What time of day are you trying to capture? The bright outdoor lights suggest night, but the sky suggests a sunset. If there is one thing you should definitely adhere to when setting up lighting it's that looking at reference photography (not renders) is very, very important. What you think you remember about a sunset vs what a sunset actually looks like in a photo are two completely different things.

 

If you're going for the "blue hour" type of shot then don't be afraid to adjust the white balance on your camera to create colour contrast between the sky and lighting.

[CliveG]

I'm not sure that's right, is it? I thought it was more around 35mm equivalent?

 

You "digital" age youngsters were probably taught different, but back in the days of film type 35mm SLR cameras - 50mm was definitely the focal length deemed to best replicate the eye (it was actually just under 55mm).

 

But Macker, you know the maths and everything, isn't it the relationship to the film gate (36mmx24mm on an old SLR) that affects this equation. So with todays smaller sensor areas 35mm might well be the focal length that replicates the eye in one of these new fangled digital things. Apropos of nothing - from memory it was something like 110mm on a 5x4 monorail bellows.

 

So we're probably all more or less correct

[heni30]

Ian,

 

I was looking at your website and your biggest weakness is vegetation. You can't just have small non-descript plants evenly spaced in a row and have a single large plant centered and vertical in a planter.

 

- look at pics

- build a library of 3d or 2d landscaping

 

Also be aware that your lens size affects everything. Wide angle increases depth - tele flattens things out. So while a narrower lens might solve your entry problem it's also going to affect things like your eaves which you might like better at 24 mm.

Edited March 29, 2017 by heni30

[Chris MacDonald]

You "digital" age youngsters were probably taught different, but back in the days of film type 35mm SLR cameras - 50mm was definitely the focal length deemed to best replicate the eye (it was actually just under 55mm).

 

But Macker, you know the maths and everything, isn't it the relationship to the film gate (36mmx24mm on an old SLR) that affects this equation. So with todays smaller sensor areas 35mm might well be the focal length that replicates the eye in one of these new fangled digital things. Apropos of nothing - from memory it was something like 110mm on a 5x4 monorail bellows.

 

So we're probably all more or less correct

 

More than likely. I wonder what the eye equivalent sensor size is? hah

[Zdravko Barisic]

Some of the below are already said, but let's repeat some of them..

 

Could you make the view angle more interesting?

Asphalt and grass are 3dmax 3.1 like, honestly...

More and more grass and bushes, and all those plants..

Daytime you are trying to render, maybe just do not fits perfect? Why do not try with 12:00 midday Sun? Just for fun?

Also, placing light coming from the RIGHT side maybe would help?

Looking carefully it becomes clear that only issue you have here is 3 surfaces near the camera, asphalt, white path and grass, if you could switch to bright daylight they would become more interesting, I am pretty shore!

Have a nice lighting!

Also those 3 surfaces should have some more exciting texturing, they are boring and they are in the first half of the image, just crop them!

Good luck and cheers!

[ianmoran]

Hey guys, thank you so much for the critique - I am so grateful.

 

Clive G - Yes, I think this may be what the state of Perth architecture has come to - long white tunnels with an orange door at the end! hehehe…. Are you also in Perth? Or elsewhere in Australia? I have only been here a few years as I am originally from the UK, so even the walls and orange doors make a change from rows or red brick terrace houses.

 

I agree that the background is very boring and still needs work. The client has suggested hills in the background (again from Palm Springs reference), I am just not sure if it will work for the Perth market. You are correct that I need to work on my skills at fitting the image into an environment better. I will work on this.

 

Chris MacDonald - Thank you so much for your feedback. Yeah, I think it is a 24mm lens, unless I am reading the settings incorrectly. I have attached a screenshot of this (by the way I am using Maya not Max in case it looks a little different to what you are using).

 

 

I will also try your suggestion about more sky and less foreground. I have just read the link that you left for me and it has some great advice in there. Thank you so much.

 

Regarding time of day, the client would like to have a shot which is almost dusk. He would like to have the interiors lit, so a blue hour shot would be what he is looking for, I would expect.

 

George & Zdravko - You are both correct about the vegetation. I have had a lot of frustration with this for some time now. I am using a Mac so didn’t have the option of using Max, therefore I am using Maya instead. So unfortunately I have not been able to take advantage of things like grass in Max and the various paid models etc that are available. In this situation, I have been creating a lot of it by hand and in some cases using some models is obj format. Vegetation has by far been my biggest headache. I signed up to the Mastering Vray and Mastering Lighting courses with Grant Warwick some time back (I am not sure if you have any knowledge of these courses). They are not ArchViz specific, they are more general and the courses are completed in 3DS Max. Therefore I have been trying to transfer the knowledge I have been learning from Max to Maya. On the whole, I have been able to do this with some success, but certainly the vegetation lessons did not give me the good results I was hoping for. I am not sure why. I need to do more investigation.

 

I am talking too much again (one of my many faults). Anyway, I have made notes of everybody’s suggestions, and will look at how to implement and improve these. I will post more as I update them. I have gotten to a stage where I feel I have hit a brick wall (possibly the long white one ), and I don’t feel I have been improving much recently. So of course, please criticise as much as you like and feel free to offer suggestions and tips. It is the only way I am going to improve and I very much value all of your expert opinions.

[CliveG]

Your architect is Palm Springs obsessed! Perth has attractive hills too you know (I live in 'em)

 

With regards to some of the things you feel are holding you back now, although in the long term learning how to get more from your rendering engine is a great idea, don't underestimate the value of post production skills and the immediate benefits they can bring to your finished product.

 

There are some guy's on this forum who could take your beauty render and transform it in photoshop so that it looks unrecognisable and fulfils more of your and your clients expectations. moreover they could do it in an hour, whereas those boosts you're looking for via Grant and co. are going to take much much longer to realise benefits with your finished product.

[heni30]

I agree. Maybe you should go the Post 2d route. There is a LOT out there and it quick and easy - probably a lot of YouTube tutorials - and it will be more cost effective; something that you probably need to take into consideration when doing not too lucrative spec houses.

 

Then you can add 3d veggies later for your portfolio pieces.

[ianmoran]

Thank you Clive & George, it is a very good suggestion. I will check out the 2d videos and see if I can make some quicker improvements. Ultimately I want to be able to get good results in 3d. It is a kinda challenge I have set for myself. I have already seen the transformations some artists have managed to do in Photoshop in this website - and I was blown away by the results. The final image would be almost unrecognisable from the original raw render. Superb work! I will certainly try this route first.

 

Clive - I am guessing that you and I must be located pretty close to each other. Whilst you are up there in the hills, I am sitting at the foot of them close to Armadale.

[CliveG]

I am guessing that you and I must be located pretty close to each other. Whilst you are up there in the hills, I am sitting at the foot of them close to Armadale.

 

PM'ed you

[ianmoran]

Hello guys... It has been a while but I finally have an update for you. I have changed the landscaping and lighting, added the Perth Hills in the background and changed the camera lens to 45mm to try to make the whole thing feel less "long".

 

If you guys have a few additional words of wisdom for improvements, I would certainly appreciate it. Thank you all.

 

Ian

 

[Chris MacDonald]

That's looking so much better.