Bridge
-
Indigo. One emitter. No texture maps.
-
i like it, i want to use it as a print on the wall of one my renders
-
lol. That'd be cool. Producing artistic content for use in renders ... That's gotta be the tiniest niche market possible.
-
im guessing you are going for the scale model look stinkie, if so, very convincing i like it. captivating stuff but i dont know why!
-
Strange as it may sound, I'm not going for the scale model look. If I were, I'd make sure that bridge looked like it was made out of pieces of cardboard or wood. I'm trying to produce good renders that don't look like they're something they're not. Eh ... that's pretty vague, but I don't have a better explanation.
-
can't knock your style. nice as always. I think the railing along the bridge gets a bit too lost though against the dark background, imo. I think free agent hit the nail on the head. Looks more like art than arch-viz. nice compliment to that skyscraper from awhile back.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
I think the railing along the bridge gets a bit too lost though against the dark background, imo.
Hmm ... I kinda like the way it looks. That said - yeah how'd it look if that railing stood out a little bit more? I suspect that would mess the composition up - but still, you've made me curious. I'll look into this tomorrow. If the test renders look promising, I'll re-render. Dammit. Thanks for the comment.
@unknownuser said:
I think free agent hit the nail on the head. Looks more like art than arch-viz.
It's supposed to be art (arrogant as that may sound) - I am not an architect, nor an archviz professional. I am a former art student - and I've been procrastinating (and amassing sketches and notes) for far too long now. Time to move things forward.
-
Excellent work. Same for the two buildings from the last thread.
My mother in law is an architect from Germany and she has a lot of old architecture magazines around. Sometimes the black and white photographs in the magazines will be a bit like your work. The photos have faded and lost a certain amount of detail but they become darker in the shadows and somehow crisper. It's like they lose depth and come forward into the frame of the picture.
Whatever, love your stuff. Looking forward to anything else you might post.
-
@unknownuser said:
Hmm ... I kinda like the way it looks. That said - yeah how'd it look if that railing stood out a little bit more? I suspect that would mess the composition up - but still, you've made me curious. I'll look into this tomorrow. If the test renders look promising, I'll re-render. Dammit. Thanks for the comment.
You very well might be right about messing up the composition. I think to be any more firm in my opinion I'd have to see it printed out on a high quality printer and hanging on a wall. So long as the handrail was noticeable, no matter how subtle, I might change my tune. It's the subtleties of your work that I like the most after all.
@unknownuser said:
It's supposed to be art (arrogant as that may sound) - I am not an architect, nor an archviz professional. I am a former art student - and I've been procrastinating (and amassing sketches and notes) for far too long now. Time to move things forward.
Doesn't sound arrogant at all. I didn't realize that was your background. Your work makes a lot more sense to me know, the door, the buildings, the hallway, the bridge (I think all of those were yours anyhow). What's the endgame you have in mind then? Have you begun or are you planning to sell your work? And if so how do you plan on doing that (selling prints, images,...?)
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
lol. That'd be cool. Producing artistic content for use in renders ... That's gotta be the tiniest niche market possible.
im sure evermotion are making a killing off it.
as for the railing, just add a slight sheen to make it pick up some slight highlights from your scene light u got in there.
-
perfect white can take a long time to render in indigo, might be why there isnt any in stinkies image(s.)
Theyre very nice btw
Not entirely sure what it is about it i like, but it's definitely very good 
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
Hmm ... I kinda like the way it looks. That said - yeah how'd it look if that railing stood out a little bit more? I suspect that would mess the composition up - but still, you've made me curious. I'll look into this tomorrow. If the test renders look promising, I'll re-render. Dammit. Thanks for the comment.
You very well might be right about messing up the composition. I think to be any more firm in my opinion I'd have to see it printed out on a high quality printer and hanging on a wall. So long as the handrail was noticeable, no matter how subtle, I might change my tune. It's the subtleties of your work that I like the most after all.
Well ... I'm re-rendering as we speak, using Maxwell now. The railing's standing out a bit better. It's looking fairly good so far, IMO. I did, as FA suggested, consider some 'sheen' on said railing, but I decided against it in the end - because I thought that would take the, er, drama out of the composition. It'd probably could explain this better in Dutch.
Thanks for the suggestion though, FA.@unknownuser said:
What's the endgame you have in mind then? Have you begun or are you planning to sell your work? And if so how do you plan on doing that (selling prints, images,...?)
I want to print these. I've just ordered a calibrator to ensure my images come out of the printer looking like I want them to. I plan on starting a 'dumb questions about printing' thread in the near future.
In the end, I guess I'd like to see this stuff end up in people's living rooms. That'd be cool. Galleries are nice - but homes are better. And yes - I do intend on selling my work (the prints, that is - not the digital images). No idea how or what yet, though. I might pull some strings to get me appointments with gallery owners in due time. We'll see. I've managed to make up my mind about one thing though: scale. The prints shouldn't be too big - 35 centimeters wide at the most. Anything bigger than that requires too much stepping back and forth - which, at least in my opinion, is somewhat counter productive if you're aiming for an, er, intimate relationship with the viewer. I could be wrong.
@unknownuser said:
well, actually I do see something. I loved the black so much I forgot to look for the white. There is no white.....I like to see 255.255.255 somewhere...even if it is just a small spot somewhere.
Hmm ... yes. I gotta agree. Got practical post processing advice? I'm loving Photoshop, but I can't say I am any good at using it!
Oh ... there's another member now who wants to use my 'stuff' in his archviz. I find that pretty cool. So ... thanks FA and That Other Guy. Bill's in the mail.
-
ooo, rerendering in Maxwell, eh? Curious to see how it works out. I think if you can let it run long enough to get rid of enough noise Maxwell would be a great match for your work.
I like your comments on keeping your images relatively small. That's an interesting thought that I wouldn't have considered. It would probably work well and help maintain a bit of the mystery in your images if you couldn't examine each detail at large scale.
As far as I understand any unbiased renderer isn't going to much like pure white, takes too long to clear up. If you're going for realism though, nothing is really that white so it shouldn't be a problem. I think a piece of paper or drywall is something like 220,220,220 if I remember correctly - point is it won't be 255. I do adjust my image in PS though so I've got some pure black and pure white. I'm not sure that your images need this based on what you're doing but it's worth taking a crack at and seeing how it looks. Just keep in mind that it's one of those rules that you may want to break for the sake of art.
Best way I know of to do this is to go to Image -> Adjustments -> Threshold. Push the slider as far to the left as you can while still seeing a bit of black - this is the darkest part of your image. You can remember this location or you can hover your mouse over the black area and shift+left click and it'll place a little (non printing) marker there for you. Then push the slider over to the right until you can see the least amount of white you can get. This is the brightest part of your image - again either remember the area if it's obvious or put a marker there. Finally cancel out of the Threshold box (you do NOT want to do a Threshold adjustment, it's just to find the brightest and darkest areas in the image).
Next add a Curves adjustment layer (go to the little black/white circle at the bottom of your layers pallet next to the Add New Layer and Layer Mask buttons). On the left side of the Curves box you'll see 3 eyedroppers. Click the top one (filled w/ black ink) and click the spot in your image that you found earlier to be the darkest spot. This will adjust your curves so that this area is now 0,0,0. Next click the bottom eyedropper, filled with white, and click the lightest area of your image that you found earlier. This will now become 255,255,255.
That's pretty much it. Usually this will be a fairly minor adjustment but it can help. You'll have to play with this and probably modify it as your needs, stinkie, are different than most. I use the Curves adjustment layer because it's nondestructive. You can always turn it off and see your original image or even change the opacity to lessen the effect or even add a layer mask so that it only affects part(s) of the image.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
ooo, rerendering in Maxwell, eh? Curious to see how it works out.
Worked out fine.
I'll post the result in this thread as soon as I've found the time to do some tinkering in PS.@unknownuser said:
I'm not sure that your images need this based on what you're doing but it's worth taking a crack at and seeing how it looks. Just keep in mind that it's one of those rules that you may want to break for the sake of art.
I'm not sure they need it either, but I'd like to try nonetheless. If it looks good, great. If not, well ... then it doesn't.
As for printing relatively small, a lot of contemporary paintings, photographs and drawings are just too darn big! This, I think, is because they are made with the archetypical 'white cube' in mind. People don't live in white cubes. Well, most don't. (A second reason for a lot of contemporary stuff being big, is due to how art students get to know art: by watching slides. Hence they never learn 'big' is the poor man's 'scale'.)
Thanks alot for the tutorial!
Advertisement