Photoreal or Artistic ?
-
-
I think that the missing elements from PR rendering is license and interpretation. When you look at some of the architectural illustrations done 30-40 years ago it was more about expresion of mood and capturing the essence of the design rather than the accurate rendition of the building in terms of form and materials. The loose watercolour impressions also allowed individual interpretation by the viewer almost like Rorschach inkblot tests generates ranging responses to the same image when viewed by different poeple.
I do not think that it is a question of NPR or PR but rather what is appropriate at what stage of the design process. When the design has been developed to a certain level rendered images have real value in terms of testing the design prototype in terms final configuration.
It is a shame however that hand sketches and architectural illustration has become somewhat of a lost art during the early design stages. -
One of my first lessons in illustration was to draw a straight, freehand,pencil line. I could go from "a" to "b" OK, but the line squiggled. The harder I tried, the worst it got, until my professor told me that it didn't matter how uneven my line was, as long as the unevenness was consistent. Still I noticed that some of us could draw, and others couldn't. Of course, there are grades of acceptability between the extremes.
The use of Cad rendering software, has sparked the expectation that a machine will do it for us. Well, it doesn't work that way, some of us still can while others can't. Among those who can, some will become great, and others OK. Perhaps because I am not great, I argue for ok
And, as beauty is "in the eye of the beholder", even that is questionable. However that being the case for many (being OK), I would argue that Architectural illustration is a not lost art. Perhaps pencil sketches are a lost form of illustration, but "cut and paste" cad rendering has risen in its place.If there is a problem with ray-tracing software, it is that the process is not "wysiwyg". Some like Paul elect to stop at SU's output. Others go on to some form of post processing. If you want nuanced reflection, ray-tracing can't be avoided. But, all of this is off subject. Photoreal as a goal, is not the same as good illustration. Not all photographs tell the story in a pleasing way.
-
Interesting thread, I am increasingly going for NPR as I am crap at rendering, probably not great at NPR stuff either but I find I can do something quick which I'm happy with.(I used part of one of Fred Bartels sculptures in the 3dW in this one - just an example for a class I'm teaching).
Pixero, is freestyle a standalone app or strictly a blender plugin? I see you have to compile it yourself at the moment.
-
@honoluludesktop said:
Photoreal as a goal, is not the same as good illustration.
Quoted for agreement.
-
@honoluludesktop said:
The use of Cad rendering software, has sparked the expectation that a machine will do it for us. Well, it doesn't work that way, some of us still can while others can't.
I think this was even more pronounced when desktop publishing arrived on the scene, what a cut and paste clip art nightmare.
So another question then, and I'll ask it in first person. Is it just because it is so hard to be excellent in PR that I often slip back into NPR? Would I do more PR if I was better at it?
I know for sure that as far as I'm concerned some of the work I have seen in NPR, be it digitally rendered or done by hand, certainly seems to be done by people as talented as the best PR people. But, and maybe it's just my impression, I'm not seeing the same degree of acknowledgment of their work. -
I think this thread is assuming a false dichotomy - photoreal vs artistic. I don't think that an image that is more 'sketchy' is necessarily more artistic (I kind of hate the term artistic). Would you consider Stinkie's doors less 'artistic' because they are quite photoreal? The doors are some of the most interesting images that have appeared on this forum.
Granted, there is a certain dead end quality to the whole photoreal process - ultimately you're trying to make it look as much like a photograph as possible and that's kind of the death of interpretation. But, alternately, the whole sketchy thing can easily fall into cliche as well - lots of fake brush work and squiggly lines doesn't immediately translate into quality. It's really a question of what you do with the image.
The important question to me is - 'what would your image look like if you had no client, no predetermined parameters to work with?' If you're given free rein to do as you wish, do you end up with a body of work that feels consistent and personal? Whether it's photorealistic or something else doesn't determine the answer to that question. Solo and Stinkie are each staking out very individual bodies of work on either side of this dichotomy, but they're both very successful at what they're doing.
-
Attached are a SU jpg export, and (as previously presented) a rendered image of the same model. Even though the second image is ray traced, bumped, etc., is it a photo realistic render? Admittedly not Van Goths, however does either lack artistic merit? The second image was the result of rendering several images over a period of 2-3 hours. When viewed this way, is there a big enough difference to justify photoreal?
I suppose that for me, photoreal is a plus as long as it can be accomplished with some degree of predictability. Two to three hours for several images is at the limit of my tolerance.
-
You're far too kind, Arail.
Interestingly, my 'work', if I may call it that, only became vaguely pleasing to me after I stopped worrying about the whole "photoreal or not?" question. As some may have noticed, I don't even bother using textures. And I'm quite sure the IOR of the glass I use may be off at times.
My point is: nevermind making your renders look exactly like photographs. Nor like paintings or drawings. Just make them look good - whatever that is, according to you.
Rendering as such is an independent medium. There's little point, in my opinion, in adhering too firmly to the rules and/or look of other media. That is, unless a client expects you to, of course.
-
@unknownuser said:
nevermind making your renders look exactly like photographs. Nor like paintings or drawings. Just make them look good
Absolutely! Many ways to "skin a cat". I have seen a presentation of plans, sections, elevations, and perspective on a black and white scratch board. Beautiful, completely understandable to a lay person.
-
---executive summary---
I show them pure SketchUP first, then move on to photo-artistic when I think they are ready for it.
I show them digital water colors if they prefer/ask for it.
---end executive summary----As an Architect/Designer I have discovered my clients don't want "Photo Realistic"... they want to see something "pretty" (attractive) .
I guess the "pretty" is the "art" part.
Renderings for me serve generally 2 purposes:
1- I'm communicating an idea to a client to get approval or consensus on an idea, or
2- My client will use a rendering to communicate the idea to a potential customer or client. (hotel, church, condo, all same goal basically.)"Art" is not an "end" in either of these goals... but it is a POWERFUL TOOL.
I use any communication tool for my purposes that I think will be most effective in reaching my goal in the most cost-effective way for either myself or my client. Some clients specifically want my 'digital watercolors' and some want my 'mind-blowing photorealistic' interior shot.
In either of those, I need to employ "art" and I do so in a way that will please them and reach the end goal: approval/attraction of a client, or approval and attraction of the client's customers.
In my experience I avoid confusion and get consensus from my clients most quickly with Photorealistic renderings. In my experience clients have no problemtelling me when they don't like something or want it changed in the photo-artistic (that's what I call them, literally.) renderings... in fact, they comment more intelligently and most often on photoartistic renderings than with the digital water colors. Many like the straight SU output... and I in fact usually give this to a client first, as I discovered that once they see the photo-artistic rendering, they have a brain-freeze and can not make any decision any more until they see it rendered photo-artistically.
If I were using SU for another purpose, 'just for fun/art'... then my approach would be different... and likely a combination of both techniques.
-
-
If I had to choose between FLW's rendering and the model, it would be the FLW's rendering. Hmm..., how do I use his colors as textures?
-
Totally OT (sorry!), but this one's heaps of fun: http://www.amazon.com/Frank-Lloyd-Wright-Interactive-Portfolio/dp/0762419350/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255032881&sr=8-17
(please dear God, make it look real)
Advertisement