I've been on a kick recently of rendering in 'hidden line' view using programs like SketchUp or Rhino with the Penguin plug-in and then hand-coloring or adding in textures later using Illustrator. It's a bit of a tedious process, but the results often tell a lot more about your method of thinking and your concept than a photo-realistic rendering.

Client's want real as possible.

For personal stuff, I like photo real with a little style.

One thing that I think architecture needs to accept is photoreal rendering for design. I know it's costly and 99% of all architect's can't do it, but it does reveal a lot about the project. Too often things are left looking 'cool' as a diagram, but then it doesn't translate into reality well (think the entire blob bs).

So it's a tool that should be used to explore what things will actually look like. If that's done more for design it will make better architecture - no hiding behind black skies and transparent walls (while they look very cool, they shouldn't be the final images, but could/should be framed on the wall).

My 3D skills are rudimentary, at best. As such, I rely on a lot of hand sketches - I mean a LOT. Although not quite 'photo-realistic', I get a lot of mileage out of these by using them in a logical & 'sequrntial' order. Often, I do rely on my basic-level graphics software abilities to put them into a context that is more suited to that of a computer.

I don't shun computers, and would really like to incorporate 3D more into my presentatiions. But my method is very effective & the clients always get what's going on. Additionally, I find that they are more interested in the noncomputer drawings more just because it helps them to work their imagination more than a computer generated rendering would. Also, it's possible that a lot of them have been so 'over-saturated' w/ computer graphics the last few years that they
respond well to something that looks like it's crafted by a human.


One last thing, I can ususally get a good hand-rendering to the client in less than a few hours. I just don't see myself moving that quickly w/ a computer rendering. When I have to justify my time to the client, they always respond better to the fact that a hand-rendering/ sketch package is more cost-effective than computer rendering time.
Maybe you guys might differ w/ that, because, again - I'm not quick, or experienced enough to whip out a 3D model in a few hours (approx1-4).

i do a variety of styles, depends on the amount of time i have and the attitude (conservative vs. adventurous) of the client. in the firm where i worked prior to going on my own, we always generated 3d models as the base for a rendering but then traced it and presented a hand-drawn, hand-colored final. most of our clients like that kind of warm/fuzzy drawing and were put off by computer renderings.

The renderer that would be able to describe his own style before he's 70 is the one who's really talented. I could maybe describe the direction towards I think I'm heading after six years of practice. To summarize, I think pure photorealism is possible only when you can compare the rendering with a phtograph of an equivalent space or object, and equivalent use of existing materials. Once you start to work with "challenging architecture", with a space that tries it's best "to be different" to say it quickly, and a use of materials that tries to reinforce this ambiguity, you start to be in real trouble if you try to achieve phototrealism. Just look at the 3d tech sites: the only perfect examples of photo realism are those trying to imitate daily life, a common kitchen, bathroom, townhouse living room or garden and so on...
So the only solution if you want to work with interesting architecture is to use a form of stylization that would be a perfect middle ground between the revelation of the architectural idea (through caricaturization or emphasizing important details or materials for instance) and the pure photorealism.
Well, that's where I'm trying to go anyway. But I'm further away than across the nation. Just wanted to give my two cents.

I kind of pick a look and go with it. My thesis was rather photorealistic, except the colors were skewed to make them blend into my presentation boards. Before that I did some very photorealistic work as well as some all-cad 300MB hatches on constructed perspectives that were quite beautiful, if hard to work with.

... or across the world, sorry French, glad for the response.

I go for as much photorealism as possible by incorporating aspects of photography in our renderings. I like seeing motion blur (with cars and people) , the use of depth of field, slightly overexposed backgrounds for interior scenes and even add some film grain to the final image.

Realistic has to be best 99% of the time when it comes to clients.

I mean what you see is what you get. Wouldn't a client want to see what the actual thing Actually looks like before it is built?

I mean let's be realistic here...clients are forking out loads of moola into an actual built project. What would persuade them the most? What would make them ask the least questions? What would make them feel most confident in you? Something that's as close to the actual thing as possible..I mean there isn't much way around it.

Sorry, but "photo-realistic" renderings are never going to be "photo-realistic." They may be "HYPER-realistic" but to get something close to a photograph is, in my mind, impossible, even with the best software out there. Architects will always show their designs from the perfect light, with the perfect reflectivity, at the perfect time of the day, etc. It's not what the project is, inevitably, all about. I think renderings should be more than just a pretty picture.

And I think clients would respect that notion if it was explained better instead of defaulting to the norm.

Look at Steven Holl's watercolors for an example. They tell more about the spaces than any 3D rendering could.

I have to agree with going photoreal, esp. since technology has made it so possible and accessible. But photoreal has to be very good photoreal. Otherwise, clients can easily get thrown off by bad mapping and lighting, even bad camera angles. In which case, maybe a hand rendering might be better.

If one can afford to go photoreal-- great. Other than the client, the last one who wants any surprises when the project is built is the architect....and you'll be surprised how many architects still can't visualize their own work!

interesting post:

the word Render is closely related to Translate and Interpret...

I am a recent grad, so I have no established way of doing anything...

but, I prefer collage. This method allows use of photorealistic elements while also incorporating drawing etc.

For example, on a current project I am taking context photographs, ambiguous movie stills, hard-line drawing and other photo-real elements (such as scaling devices - people and such) to create a Rendition.

I think that photorealistic rendering has damaged the profession. It gives clients a totally unfair image of what a project should look like. Of course any construction mistakes are tolerances are never taken into account , the concrete pours are always perfect etc. etc. etc. I agree with the ppost about ideas. A rendering should provide a specific translation of the space you are describing.

I think we run the risk of "... Judge 'so and so' as you can see from example a: this photograph or photo-realistic rendering is not the same as the photograph . y client wants a refund etc. etc.

In the near future anybody will be able to make photo realistic renders with just a fragment of rendering exp. So dont worry if your not at genius at tweaking all those damn parameters!
take a look at the new Maxwell render. (www.maxwellrender.com)

I tend to concentrate on what I want the image to tell rather than render or draw everything in sight with equal detail. I usually look for a way to convey my own personal thoughts and views on things rather than an image of just the proposed end product. Although I used to be really good at 3d modelling (and still know a trick or two) I now more often than not choose other methods to achieve this, or atleast combine methods. I'm not saying this is the right way to go, or even that it works well for me, but it's how I work.

However, still being a semester short of graduating (although I have a few smaller projects that have been realized) it is quite plausible that I will eventually have to change my ways and become a member of the pro-photorealism community...

Those renderings from Maxwell look incredible. At $1k how doeas that compare to other rendering plug-ins? (My office is looking to upgrade all of our equip and software soon and I'de like to get a good renderer.)

There's nothing wrong with photorealistic renderings, just like there's nothing wrong with hand renderings. They both serve a purpose. Our firm uses both, based on project type. Generally, the slicker photoreal stuff is for larger commercial/residential mixed use projects that will eventually be used to market the project as a "modern" project. Other projects that have more of a hometown feel are generally done in sketch form. (e.g. high rise condo vs. town center shopping area)

I think Holl's sketches are interesting and have become a mark of his work, I think his name carries his sketches, not vice versa.

Has anyone actually used Maxwell? The renderings look nice, but <b>Sylvester<b>'s post makes it sound a little like 3D-H. You just press a button and the rendering is done... :P

Good question pencrush.

I've tried it just to see if it was as slow as I expected. It is. Don't expect any good result before two days of pure calculation, no other task asked to the computer, knowing that it was a dual P4, 3.2 Ghz, 2 Gig Ram. Not worth trying in my opinion. Unless you are some sort of lazy ass artist or something. The near future of sylvester will wait for the programer of this thing to deal with workflow reality.

it depends on what you're going for.

I think photorealistic renderings while still in the design phases is a bit dangerous. They tend to make people feel that things are more concrete and set as opposed to a design that's still open to change.

You always have to evaluate the appropriate level of abstraction in any kind of perspective rendering. Boils down to what is the purpose of the drawing. Adding too much detail can always get you into trouble as it just piles on more and more variables on in the rendering.

Many rendering firms use either Vray, Brazil or Mental Ray for GI. I have yet to see one that uses Maxwell in a production environment. Maxwell is still in beta though. But then again, so is Vray.

Check out the Nine Inch Nails video which was done in Vray:

Only - Directed by David Fincher - Fight Club/Panic Room Director
http://www.nin.com/visuals/index.html

i just did a rendering of a house remodel for a client using autocad...all CD's are done and we were exploring different color schemes for the house. you do see things that you would not typically see in other forms of representation...in this case I was trying to achieve photorealistic renderings...clients like those fancy graphics

but if the project was still in the conceptual stage i would tend to favor what aemkei has described...more about creating an image, whether through collage or any other visual techniques you need to use...but my boss doesn't get it...he's too engineer minded...

I think this post is helping me like Sketches & a bit of collage to enhance context. With the majority of renderings seemingly going the direction of 'photo-realistic', I think more room is made for those of us who remember how to draw & use conventional forms of art to convey our goals.

Of course, I've always been a sucker for a 'real' model. Heh, heh.

Ah, yes. The REAL model. Still abstract enough to convey thoughts and concepts but clients LOVE to touch it.

Sure do. Just ask "A Center for Ants."

the shopping center style is definitly my favorite!

LOL!
Back to school.

model everything in autocad,
set up a view
zoom the view big enough to fit the screen
hit "print screen" button
get the image from photoshop
done

my boss wouldn't want to hear how I move the trees on his "photo-realistic" renderings.

it needs to be at least...

three times bigger!

When will marker renderings make a comeback?

MWad,
They never left. But I do miss seeing the 'debonaire Dan'-looking sigure lounging on his chaise lounge while smoking a pipe.

Ants,
Yess, you're...you're absolutely right!

I've found I get the best responses from critics who are architects when the lighting looks accurate, but the model itself has no textures or image maps -- basically looks like a white model, sometimes with a slight splash of color in a detail.

ACFA: ROFL.

Rita
I agree about the shopping center being the best, but they're all pretty far-out, like many of your posts anyway.

Maxwell is a great approach, and I wish more focus was placed on the simplicity versus the features. But it's still far too slow, imo, and I've still yet to see images that were better than the best produced in other packages (Final Render, VRay, or Brazil).
It's not click and go and there are no optimization features (the parts of the other renderers that make them more complicated).

Personally, I think Final Render and VRay will be far ahead of Maxwell before Mxwll ever gets close to quick enough for production. When a hires image can take 6-8 hours to render on a new dual 3.4, it would take exponentially longer on Maxwell for the same image.

From my point of view, it's all hype about the 'new kid on the block'. First it was Final Render, then Brazil, then Vray, now Maxwell (will everyone do back flips for the newly release $1k Renderman? That's Pixar lighting for a grand!). They all work but not everyone is good.

Great idea, but a long way off. If you've got tons of time and a render farm (although I don't think it can do distributed rendering, not sure, I know it lacks many of the features the others have), go for it, but for most, time is money.

Zero, I've been working on renderings more like that lately, just using a skylight and bounces in MAX to render it. Pretty fast results and good enough for presentation. I like the simplicity of them...and sometimes its good to add just one or two colors to pop them out. The stye reminds me of Morphosis renderings.

That rendering looks like its from a $30 Home3D program!

When I was 14 I played around with one.

That was done in a couple hours before a meeting. Sometimes you have to just get things done. I wasn't trying to be mean...I'll post an example of what type of rendering I'm talking about.

But thanks for posting that, it reminds me I need to update the website and get some new projects/renderings up.