I'll be applying for a 3.5, M.ARCH I track this (Fall 2022) and am hoping that I could get some feedback on the quality of some sample renders for a bank project (below) that I was able to put together before I establish a dedicated rendering workflow for other projects in my portfolio, or upping the file size/subsequent render time with FF&E for example.
I come from a non-arch background (construction science) so most of my content is generated during my spare time. I did however take up an architecture minor, where my u.grad program was closely allied with our College of Architecture—I've been fortunate to be able to learn most of the softwares along the way as a result.
One of the things that stuck me was the tendency of Arch students to insist on jumping into either Lumion, V-Ray, etc. to finalize renders for their boards, even after having worked for weeks/months in Rhino, a modeler with rendering capabilities in the base product.
I realize that the software has undergone changes since my observations of this approx. 3-4 years ago, particularly with the PBR (Physically Based Rendering) materials, but would you say that I'd still need to utilize a totally separate rendering plug-in such as a V-Ray, or would you say that the quality of these renders suffice?
I have a dedicated Letter of Recommender, Associate Professor of Architecture from my previous institution, but don't want to belabor bringing him 'scraps' to sort out during my portfolio critique slated for late this summer ahead of my formal application submission in the fall.
I'm planning on applying to some well-ranked programs, so I'm mostly looking for perspective on the raw renders generated in Rhino 7.
Luckily, I have some experience with post-editing in Adobe suite, including Photoshop + Illustrator and would no where near consider these to be 'final' concepts/iterations by any means.
Still, while working to refine material library + lighting more in-depth, I wanted to know if this sample Rhino 7 rendering is okay?
Or should invest that time + energy into compiling a V-Ray asset/library instead given the deadlines on the horizon.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on achieving as much realism as possible. Take a look at most graduate school projects - there are plenty of collages, flat images, and illustrations. While this does not mean the students behind those images are not capable of rendering real-like images, putting one's personal stylistic touch on the image counts for more IMO. The image is supposed to communicate something intrinsic to your project. In the office of course, realism tends to be the MO if you're selling condos or persuading the planning department!
Question: What are you trying to communicate with this image? What is the project? Taken out of context, I'd say the colors are rather muddy and the textures confusing. The juxtaposition of the axon render in the middle doesn't say much about the project as there are too many colors/textures meshing into one.
Why, in fact, does this image have to be a render? Linework and collage could speak just as much if you're communicating the spatial organization (via the axon) and a sense of space/its use (on the left) - as for the right, not sure what's the goal there. I strongly urge you to consider what the image is trying to convey, and how best to relay that message in the portfolio along with the help of some text and other graphical means.
Make a beautiful image. If not, at least an informative one. A beautiful image doesn't have to a realistic one (Not for school anyway). Most admission committees are not looking for rendering abilities. Rather, they want to see your design process, aesthetic judgement, ability to work in 3D, and as a bonus, a stylistic touch. Between an awkward shot at realism versus an abstract but illuminating image - go for the latter any day!
Hello,
I'll be applying for a 3.5, M.ARCH I track this (Fall 2022) and am hoping that I could get some feedback on the quality of some sample renders for a bank project (below) that I was able to put together before I establish a dedicated rendering workflow for other projects in my portfolio, or upping the file size/subsequent render time with FF&E for example.
I come from a non-arch background (construction science) so most of my content is generated during my spare time. I did however take up an architecture minor, where my u.grad program was closely allied with our College of Architecture—I've been fortunate to be able to learn most of the softwares along the way as a result.
One of the things that stuck me was the tendency of Arch students to insist on jumping into either Lumion, V-Ray, etc. to finalize renders for their boards, even after having worked for weeks/months in Rhino, a modeler with rendering capabilities in the base product.
I realize that the software has undergone changes since my observations of this approx. 3-4 years ago, particularly with the PBR (Physically Based Rendering) materials, but would you say that I'd still need to utilize a totally separate rendering plug-in such as a V-Ray, or would you say that the quality of these renders suffice?
I have a dedicated Letter of Recommender, Associate Professor of Architecture from my previous institution, but don't want to belabor bringing him 'scraps' to sort out during my portfolio critique slated for late this summer ahead of my formal application submission in the fall.
I'm planning on applying to some well-ranked programs, so I'm mostly looking for perspective on the raw renders generated in Rhino 7.
Luckily, I have some experience with post-editing in Adobe suite, including Photoshop + Illustrator and would no where near consider these to be 'final' concepts/iterations by any means.
Still, while working to refine material library + lighting more in-depth, I wanted to know if this sample Rhino 7 rendering is okay?
Or should invest that time + energy into compiling a V-Ray asset/library instead given the deadlines on the horizon.
Any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Link: https://assets.adobe.com/id/ur...
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on achieving as much realism as possible. Take a look at most graduate school projects - there are plenty of collages, flat images, and illustrations. While this does not mean the students behind those images are not capable of rendering real-like images, putting one's personal stylistic touch on the image counts for more IMO. The image is supposed to communicate something intrinsic to your project. In the office of course, realism tends to be the MO if you're selling condos or persuading the planning department!
Question: What are you trying to communicate with this image? What is the project? Taken out of context, I'd say the colors are rather muddy and the textures confusing. The juxtaposition of the axon render in the middle doesn't say much about the project as there are too many colors/textures meshing into one.
Why, in fact, does this image have to be a render? Linework and collage could speak just as much if you're communicating the spatial organization (via the axon) and a sense of space/its use (on the left) - as for the right, not sure what's the goal there. I strongly urge you to consider what the image is trying to convey, and how best to relay that message in the portfolio along with the help of some text and other graphical means.
Make a beautiful image. If not, at least an informative one. A beautiful image doesn't have to a realistic one (Not for school anyway). Most admission committees are not looking for rendering abilities. Rather, they want to see your design process, aesthetic judgement, ability to work in 3D, and as a bonus, a stylistic touch. Between an awkward shot at realism versus an abstract but illuminating image - go for the latter any day!