Why do we render?

AdamB

You can look at a photo of great building and appreciate this and that, but its a wholly different experience to walk through it. Being inside a building elicits a whole bunch of emotions that you just don't get from a photo.

In a similar vein, I can look at a schematic representation of building / artefact and understand the dimensions etc but a render brings out a whole new set of emotions/thoughts that I just don't get from looking at a schematic representation that I can hopefully take back to the schematic in an iterative way.

Adam

thomthom

Are we talking about "render" in terms of render engines like V-Ray and the likes (the context where you hear "render" in now)? Or does it include rendering with traditional tools - such and pen and paper?

solo

I intended to discuss render as in 3rd party apps like Vray, KT, Podium, Lightup, etc. I'm trying to get to a point about why we render using SU plus X.

thomthom

Ok - just wanted to clarify that. As "Why do we render" as in "Why do we illustrate" would be a totally different discussion.

For me it's an extra tool in the belt.
For early stage projects I prefer to keep it simple. A sketchy style communicates better to the viewer the stage the design is in. It prevents the client's getting caught up in details that hasn't been solved yet.
For more matured projects it's often a desire from the architect and client to see a better approximation of the final result - to get an impression of the materials and details. We often use this to try out various design solutions.
I still some times render a model for early stage projects - but not with realistic materials or lights. It's more that I some times want some softer shading than what SU offer natively. And it often gives a satisfying result quicker than shading my hand in PS. Additionally, V-Ray - which is my render engine of choice - allows you to render out various other useful passes that can be useful for a PS comp.

honoluludesktop

Solo, I get the feeling that your question exposes some issues Architects have with Cad rendering. If you read Paul's post, he is making a good argument why not to use render software, essentially when it may impedes the design process. Surprising to me since Paul makes great renderings. I suspect that this is true for most Architects, regardless of the love we have for, or the value of Cad rendered images.

Speaking for myself, it is frustrating when you can not work in "what you see is what you get". Designing buildings is not the same as making an illustration of it, and when the illustration software slows visualization down, and design creativity is affected.

So I would change my reply to: When I render, it is simply to get the results that only Cad ray-tracing provides.

Al Hart

@solo said:

I intended to discuss render as in 3rd party apps like Vray, KT, Podium, Lightup, etc. I'm trying to get to a point about why we render using SU plus X.

I presume you are including non-photorealistic add-on renderers,
renderers which process lights, but not reflection, and of course we should include SketchUp itself. (Having worked in wireframe for many years, I thought OpenGL was a pretty good renderer in itself.)

I liked what I thought the original question was "Why do we render?" - meaning why do we use SketchUp, and/or other tools (including pencils) to create renderings. But if you want to change it to: "Why do we purchase, or use free, add-ons for SketchUp" - that would be interesting too.

Non Photorealistic add-on example

Lights only example

SketchUp Rendering with OpenGL

EDMON242004

In our daily work, rendering is not just for presentation for client but we also consider it a design tool

Pixero

@unknownuser said:

Why do we render?

In short: To sell the design.

Rendering is a way of making the design look as good as it possibly can.
Rendering can also show the solution in a way that makes decisions easier to make. Maybe for people that isn't used to read cad files.
It's also a way to easily show different colors, materials, lighting, also making it easier to pick the "best" alternative.

About style, photorealistic or not, I believe what sells the idea best is right. I also belive that a style that differentiates you from your competition is best. So when everyone is making photo real images why not make a hand drawn, watercolor image.

Elibjr

I agree with Pixero,

I render for a few reasons: 1. Once you add "lighting" to any space you get a much clearer idea of what the colors and materials would look like. 2. I also render to look at the color scheme and the overall "feel" of a space. 3. For Marketing reasons and to be used in proposals. 4. To analyze the location and the amount of lights in a space. 5. They are great to impress a client when they can't get the real 'sense of space' in a color wire-frame. 6. To decide material selection and product accurately in a space with other chosen products. Helps to price materials after the client has viewed them. 7. It's the only way you can decide lighting in a space before you purchase them.

Although most renderers tend to focus on the "static" image, ones that allows you to walk through a space live like "Lightscape" used to do is a great tool, "Light-Up seems to be the only alternative. Clients like this. Also it just make your space more real and believe-able.

LBOX

I only render to show materials and oftentimes reflection of light. The "weight" of materials is important to me and a rendering helps convey that to a client.
Otherwise, sketchup provides a nice visualization tool for the geometries and how materials come together. Tracking a reveal through 10,000 S.F. is difficult enough, but to actually SEE and make visually informed decisions based on how it looks within a space is critical!