Quick job
-
Looks good.
(Indigo?) There's a couple of things that need work - but I'm confident you know that. 
Not a critique, but a question: why the (PS?) dof? I always got c's for photography, but my gut tells me it isn't needed here. Now, my gut's been wrong before. (Anyone care to buy a nearly new pair of bright red trousers?)
-
Really nice grass kwist, may i enquire as to how you did it?
-
Sure Remus,
I applied a better texture than in the first image, but since it is virtually impossible to get the grass 'leafs' (is that the right word?) to appear 'standing' (displacement can do it but I never find it realistic), I used a photoshop brush to paint some leafs in the front parts of the image as those areas require a bit more detail...thus adding some depth to the field. -
Indeed the DOF is a bit off.
After I submitted that first image to the client in time, I volunteered to make a second view.
I spent a bit more time on the grass in this one and textured the walls.
Maybe in a later phase the building can get more detail (depending on how his design will turn out)
-
Cool, cheers for the ideas kwist.
It's generally 'blades' of grass btw, rather than leaves.
-
That grass in the second render is looking AWESOME, Chris..!!
How did you make it..?? Instancing..?? -
Chris you still have not said which rendering program you used?
Can you show us the brush you used in PS? I never thought of trying that but what you have achieved looks excellent.
-
won't speak for Kwistenbiebel but for grass brushes in PS I found these useful :
http://www.brushes.obsidiandawn.com/sets/grasses.htm
( lots of other nice stuff there ...)
btw I'm curious too about the brushes involved here ... -
The brush I used is a commercial one. I look it up.
The trick here was to do a 'match color' after applying the brush, so the color palette corresponds to the tones of the rendered grass texture underneath. -
Great image Kwist, the grass is just amazing.
Nrevk,
Thanks for the link. -
That grass does indeed look very good.
-
It is a great render as yours always are.
I think this sentence of yours raises important point in the ongoing discussion about photorealism:@kwistenbiebel said:
Maybe in a later phase the building can get more detail (depending on how his design will turn out)
Most architectural renders, at least here in Finland, are made early in the design process, when most of the detail remains undecided. This introduces an element of imbalance, which seldom is resolved in a convincing way. At worst the design is presented as a bland box in a highly detailed surrounding - often made worse by the car and girl-loving modellers introducing their favourite foreground entourage elements. Or then the modeller puts in detail that is unlikely to survive into the final design.
In this context your render is probably one of the best, probably due to your superb use of textures.
Anssi
-
Anssi,
That's a good remark.
Actually PR renderings aren't always the best solution to present pre-design imho.
Sometimes it focuses too much on things (materials) that weren't yet decided on or weren't thought through.Often it is better to make a paper scale model or a rendered one, just to show the mass.
On the other hand, renderings can support the concept the architect is aiming for, even in an early stage.
Also, I tend to believe that sometimes arch competitions are won based on imagery, and I must admit some render people can make a bad design 'look good'. So not always a good thing.
Thanks for the comments.
Advertisement