How valuable are rendered images

[gipper51]

I apologize if this has been asked before, but how much "oomph" does a nice rendering add to presentation when you are trying to win a project? I know they are always good to have but expensive to produce. Our firm is scraping the bottom of the barrel right now trying to line up more work, and is seems like I can't convince the powers-that-be to ever spring and do a full blow rendering of a design concept. Our in house designer will do a nice perspective by hand or some colored elevations, but I think a full-blown rendering could be a big piece of puzzle. Our firm has several 3D guys in a different office, but we rarely utilize them. Unless we are submitting a proposal for a job over $XX we never use them, and just don't bother on smaller $3-5 million projects. Out of 10 firms applying we come in second and third quite often, and I'm just trying to see if a good rendering could be a big asset. I know it's not a saving grace, but are we hurting our chances by not submitting a quality rendering?

 

Thanks for any imput.

[DrFx]

A "full-blown render" is something that is becoming standard these days, and in about two or three years, it should go without saying.

It makes all the difference! Most clients do not have the spatial skills to "imagine" how a building will look like at all. From my experience, they will look vacantly at a plan and say "it's ok... I think..."

[gipper51]

Carlos,

 

Thanks for the imput. I agree, we should be submitting a rendering with almost every project. I am in the process of teaching myself Viz, but am nowhere close to being able to produce renderings for projects, especially while on the clock. Our designer recently got a copy of Sketch-up and is using it here and there, and from the sounds of it I hear we may start using it to some degree for quick, "down and dirty" renderings. However my boss doesn't seem to think taking the time to use Viz and get an almost photographic rendering is worth the time spent, especially on smaller jobs.

[DrFx]

Aaron, if I may suggest something, you could probably resort to an external rendering company to "test the waters". Try it on a project you think will benefit from it. There are freelancers that do renders for pretty cheap, but of course the general tendency is for practices to have it in-house.

Learning Viz can be time consuming, because at first, you will only be able to produce "passable" renders, but in a few months, with practice, you can start producing great quality stuff. Good luck!

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

you could shoot yourself in the foot doing a photo real render for a presentation to get trhe job. the problem i see with renderings a lot is that clients feel like the building is designed, and are afraid to give input. a NPR rendering, that could be quickly done with Viz and Photoshop might be better, or a rendering out of Sketchup. they are ambigous enough to not frieghten the client, and ambigous enough that people don't get hung up on minor details instead of the larger picture.

[Sawyer]

chg has a good point. I have seen architects even be very hesitant with renderings because they were afraid the show say the colors they had in mind because then the client would then always thing that color and if they hated it they could never get that image out of their mind. I have not found that kind of attitude too often but it makes it hard to do an illustration.

[Devin Johnston]

My firm makes extensive use of renderings & animations when going after work. It's something that is becoming more and more common, and it communicates so much more than a flat elevation ever could. When going after a job it's important not to make everything photo real because as has been mentioned before it will scare the client, unless they've specifically asked for that. Once you've got the job however is when the client is going to want to see more concrete stuff. You need to be careful here, because clients seem to think that these images are easy to create, and if you don't charge what there worth your going to spend all your time making images and not getting paid for them.

[gipper51]

That is a good point CHG. Right now we not doing anything except hand rendered images. While our designer does a nice job and can do them pretty quick, I think something done in CG would be beneficial, even if it is a simple Sketch-up image. I see your point about the photo real image giving the impression that the building is designed already, but does a high qaulity rendering also give the client the feeling that "Hey, these guys are good"? Kind of a way to show off what you are capable of?

 

Maxer - thanks also. After reading your thoughts and CHG's I agree that photo renderings may not be the best way to go. What do you guys typically submit for images like these? Any way you can post a pic to give an example of detail level to use?

 

Thanks,

Gipper

[Sawyer]

Really though a good rendering is better than nothing. Far more often I have heard a client or building official wish that there was an illustration than a client have any problem with the illustration they were presented.

[Devin Johnston]

Aaron, this is a good example of the kind of work I do for an interview. This rendering was one in a series of 4 different schemes; each one took me about a day to do. Now that we have the job we will move into design development and the renderings will become more photorealistic. We will also be doing several animations, more than likely at this quality level or maybe a bit above. Hope this helps you out.

[gipper51]

Maxer,

Thanks for the pic. That was even more detailed than I was expecting, so if you can knock out an image like that in a day, damn I think we're fools for not utilizing CG. Even if it took us a day and a half to get something close to that it would be great.

 

Appreciate it. Hopefully I can use that image and few of these testimonials to convince the top brass that we are behind the eight ball without good renderings.

 

Thanks all.

[Devin Johnston]

I forgot to tell you but I spent a day working only on the rendering, the modeling was done separately. In our office we use ArchiCAD which is a BMI program, so you’re basically drawing in 3D all the time. I really have to do very little modeling any more since the models are built for me by the designers. If I had to model this and render it I would say it would probably have taken me two or three days to get to this point.

 

I can't understand why everyone isn't using renderings at this point, the software is reasonably cheap and most people graduating from architecture schools these days at least know the basics of 3d. I think the firms and the owners who refuse to embrace this technology are foolish, and won't be in business much longer.

[gipper51]

Devin-

 

Even so, a couple three days isn't bad, and thats a pretty large building with a fair amount of materials.

 

I agree with you that firms not using 3D are going to have a rough go. We don't use it (at least not in our office, our main office near Chicago uses 3D quite a bit from what I understand) and I think we need to very soon. We recently lost an interview for a pretty big project, and the client told us one of the things they were impressed with was qoute "their extensive use of 3D" from the firm they selected. I heard that and felt like slapping someone, because I mentioned that we should have included a rendering in our proposal, but they didn't want to spend the $$. Maybe they will see the light soon.

[Devin Johnston]

I used to work at a small firm (12 people) and even thought the didn't like to spend money on 3d we were able to convince them they need to. I was there for about 2 years and only did a hand full of renderings mainly because they would rather me spend time on CD's. The biggest hurdle that architecture firms have to get over in terms of 3d is writing this type of work into the contract. That way no matter what job it is you've already got money set aside for 3d work, and you don't have to justify it to anyone. I think you'll find that once you get the client hooked, they won't want to go back.

[bully712]

 

our main office near Chicago uses 3D quite a bit from what I understand

 

Isn't this convincing enough? Obviously it's working in the main office, why not in yours? It doesn't matter the size of the project. 3D open clients eyes.

 

Not only does 3D make pretty picture, but also it's an excellent design tool.

[gipper51]

Isn't this convincing enough? Obviously it's working in the main office, why not in yours? It doesn't matter the size of the project. 3D open clients eyes.

 

Not only does 3D make pretty picture, but also it's an excellent design tool.

 

Only bad part is, our firm has a northern and a southern division, and it's kind of an "us vs. them" mentalily. I don't know how extensively they use 3D, but I know they use it more than we do (which is practically never), but they also work on much larger projects than we typically do. If we are gunning for a big job, we will have one of the northern guys put together a rendering for us. However it's the smaller jobs that we don't bother with. They just feel that it's not worth the expense to use for a project that only costs a couple million. I'm trying to convince them that we might get more of these "measley" $2-3 million jobs if we would submit more 3D work on them. They know it's a good tool, I'm just trying to convince them to use it almost all of the time instead of for just the big projects.

[DrFx]

Once you integate 3d into the workflow (or "pipeline"), it will be a fairly simple matter and not be considered that much of a cost. If a client is going to plunk down a mil on a building, is he not going to want to see what it will look like first? Even if it costs him a few hundred bucks?!? you just have to factor the 3d job into the "design" cost.

[Vince Paske]

The company I work for entered into a design competition (late!). All we had were transparent boxes fading in and out describing our proposed spatial arrangements. Really simple and quick, they instantly understood that WE understood their needs and we got the job. Sometimes it's not the rendering...it's the idea's and concepts being clearly presented. I've also done full-blown renderings, animations...etc and have not gotten the job. My point is there are many variables that go into "getting the job", but that still doesn't stop me from going the extra mile when it comes to graphics. Rendered images are valuable, it's just not the only thing when it comes to winning. I've gone to enough post-interview debriefing after finding out why we didn't get a job to know that it wasn't the graphics.

[John Dollus]

Calvino has an excellent point. If you have come in 2nd or 3rd in several competitions, the owners surely have an understanding of why. Is your firm solo or are you partnering with the wrong firms? There is probably much more going on than simply a lack of 3d renderings.

[DrFx]

I agree. Bad architecture is bad architecture no matter how much gloss you pour over it, and good architecture will stand out, even with average presentation.

[gipper51]

John,

 

I'm sure it's a combination of a few things. I know that lack of renderings aren't the only thing holding us back sometimes. I think alot of times it's our whole presentation package. I'm not actually in the position where it's my job to chase and interview for these jobs, but I've thumbed through our front end SOQ and it's boring as can be. Alot of other print that we submit is redundant and boring also. If I were a client I would be put to sleep after reading the first page. Our office staff realizes this, but unfortunately the material is written by marketing personnel in a different office and to break from the company standard.... well, you know how that story goes.

 

Dr. FX

 

To be honest, I don't know if most clients can spot good architecture. Most people can't tell from looking at just plans and elevations if the design is good or not (which is basically what we show them). When it's explained to them they can say if they like the idea or not or if it's totally off base they can tell it won't work. If they have a checklist of items they know they want in a building, if you give them 10 different concepts incorporating them I don't think they are knowledgable enough to widdle them down and choose the best. Maybe I'm out in left field here, but to an uneducated client, a mediocre design presented beautifully will look better than a great design that fell way short on presentation. It's basic advertising practice.

 

While I don't think that good renderings will save our presentations, maybe it can take us from a 5/10 to a 7/10.

[Vince Paske]

Some clients understand good architecture, some don't. Most of them do understand good ideas and concepts though, even if the "architecture" isn't all the way there yet at the time of the interview.

I remember Calatrava describing how he got the commission for the Milwaukee Art Museum. He had a easel and a sketch pad and just started drawing swooping bird-like forms. Well, he captivated them before there was any sort of building actually drawn, they just loved his concept.

[bricklyne]

Re: Clients ability to tell the difference between good and bad architecture.

 

You're absolutely spot on with this point. Most clients ( who usually happen to be developers, wealthy people, city officials, or representatives of large corporations) aren't exactly that well versed in a lot of the Architectural lingua, conventions and minutae that architects and designers inherently tend to take for granted. And as such many of them will never be able to tell off-hand whether a design constitutes good or bad architecture. I mean, how else do you imagine that badly designed buildings actually get built? And there are quite a few out there. Most of them will usually go by what they see, first impressions and the strongest visual cues that the presenters or architects can provide. The unfortunate point about the architectural profession in all this is that Architecture schools do not put great emphasis into teaching marketing and advertising; not so much as a trade, but more so as an aspect of being able to successfully sell their ideas, their designs and their building concepts. Which intrinsically is why a lot of firms ( more so the ones with older principals and senior associates) will be against the notion of spending any proportion of the proposal stage on 3D and computer rendering from a cost-effective point of view. All the while forgetting that we live in the MTV-generation and the Ipod-age and they are more or less selling to people who otherwise buy their cars, vacuum cleaners, wardrobes and even life insurance on the strength of a glitzy TV commercial. Meanwhile the company with a conceptually weaker, but well-coordianted and fronted marketing approach and presentation strategy not only wins the contract but also the oppportunity to polish up and refine their design once the client is roped in. A lot of firms are beginning to understand this about presentations; whereby a conceptually poor design isn't exactly the death knell of a project but can afford the opportunity to present and emphasise the strongest points of the architects' ideas nonetheless by well-coordinated renders and directed presentations that focus the strengths over the weaknesses of their concept

 

The point I guess I'm trying to make here, is that presentation and proposals are far more important than a lot of architectural firms like to admit, and in this day and age renderings and 3D presentations are critical and vital parts of that process. Pretty soon, as someone said they will be standard, and companies not using them will be doomed to failure at some level or another. Remember that yesterday's Quake, Nintendo and Half-life Junkies are tomorrow's Mr and Mrs. Jones looking to build a 5 bedroom mansion on the West end, and shopping for an architect to blow them away. Understanding your clients capacity to understand and assimilate visual information is a strong part of today's business climate, and a big reason why Marketing and Advertising are big hits among University and College courses. Architecture lags seriously behind in this respect, because we have always felt that our profession is above "cheap marketing tricks".

 

I think you should do everything you can to convince your bosses that visualization and CG is or should be a very big part of their future even for small projects. TOday your company places 2nd or 3rd in a lot of competitions, I gaurantee you that tomorrow it will be 6th or 9th even, as the other firms look the competitive edge. 3D-renderings are not going to be the be-all and end-all of your presentations, but they will at least give you that competitive boost ( if used judiciously) that you have so far been lacking, and possibly make up some of the difference between the 2nds and 3rds that you are now accustomed to and that 1st position that you need to get.

 

Just my 2 (long) cents.....

[Eric]

Okay, skimming the forums, came across this thread - didn't read all the posts, but I have a comment.

 

I believe you said you have a hand-renderer. Is he any good? To me, a hand rendering is much more impressive if it's a quality piece of work - Artwork. CG images can indeed be very powerful design and presentation tools, but I think in general, a good quality piece of artistic renderings will get the job. I am trying to make my CG renderings look as hand-drawn as possible because stuff done by hand has so much more character.

 

Also, from my perception of large firms (I'm not in one, so forgive me if I'm wrong), the designers have been in the industry for decades, and have developed their hand skills. They probably have one or a few dedicated designers that were hired for their portfolio and artistic skills. They are great at what they do. They've been doing it forever!

 

Most of us in the CG arena are relatively young, and have little artistic experience/training (compared to the old guys at the big firms). Put an average hand-rendering up next to an average computer rendering, and an average investor will probably pick the hand-rendering. The average hand-rendering has 20 years more experience put into it.

 

My opinion, as long as your rendering is generated from an "artwork" mindset, you're on the right track. If not, you might need to outsource your marketing images to a highly-skilled artist, digital or traditional. Otherwise you need to consider what's wrong with the rest of the package (your company).

[joseph alexander]

the most succesful images are those that prove a point or tell a story not those that are simply pretty or realistic....