yeah, I guess its kind of impressive, but can anyone explain to me why that degree of photorealism is necessary for an architectural drawing? Clients of course love it, but once you start handing them photographs of their unbuilt buildings, they will never accept anything less (and I'm stuck in the office until 9:00 pm). Aesthetically it seems pretty deficient.
why the hate? these renderings are amazing, who said they have anything to do with architecture? i see your angle, guppy, but thats not the point of them ... these obviously have much more significance to VR and video game applications, and are obviously quite impractical to the architectural realm.
the alleyway images aren't so good: the grass looks bad, the paint textures on the right don't change specular colour right as they diminish, and I hate that hazy-white radiance effect that maxwell does.
and yes. i don't condone the use of photorealism in any way. i just think these renderings are exceptionally good. i don't think photorealism has a lot of place in the architectural world.
except that it pays the bills (and then some) for some of us!
It's actually an extremely valuable tool for architecture.
#1 - It's a marketing tool. If the architecture doesn't sell (and it rarely does with architect's renderings or sketchs), then there is no project. Every new condo and office tower out there has professional renderings done. This is a service that architect's cannot provide.
#2 - It's a great way to test what things will really look like. Sure, that is bad for 90% of the buildings out there (and I see why so many architect's would not want anyone to know what the building would really look at before it's done - probably scare people away!).
That's the only argument against it I can see - that some people don't want that kind of specificity, some don't want to make choices about materials, some don't want to reveal what the building will really look like.
I agree that it's not that exciting, but it can be. As always, it's just a tool in a book of tricks. How it's done, the attention to details, etc., make the difference.
^ yes, but as guppy say, you may be giving an unrealistic, excessively accurate vision of something no one knows how it will really look like... causing the clients a certain deception, I rather guide their imagination with more abstract approaches and redefine some aesthetical aspects of the project as the project goes on (even when it's already being built)...
those flickr renderings, though (and technically), are really amazing
y_okaue is not an architect--I think he's(she?) a product designer and one of Next Limit's A-Team members, testing the limits/functionality of Maxwell
I use Maxwell and think it's a great tool, especially since it's physically based and it's supposedly planned to have some sort of lighting analysis tools implemented in future versions.
There are times when photo-real is needed and there are times when it's not…
There's a lot of talk about "why that degree of photorealism is necessary for an architectural drawing" and "Why not spend all that time making the design better". I'll answer that. The renderer is not and architect or designer. It's been said, but I am just adding.
rendering is an awesome tool that architects neglect all to often.
i usually model in rhino and always keep a render going in the background in maxwell just to keep a record of where i've been and to try out various versions of the building i'm designing.
usually these are 15 minute renders so the quality revolves around that.
photorealistic rendering is a tool.
it just happens that there are way too many architects that are too lazy to learn it, angry that they are not capable of learning it or just don't recognize the potential of being able to work out a VERY VERY VERY good perspective without even lifting a pencil.
i hate when people go "photorealism sucks". it' stupid. yeah diagrammatic renderings can accentuate your idea, but if you have a good building, a nice photo rendering will only do you good.
Beautiful realistic renderings. But I wonder what the value of that degree of realism is for design or even as a sales tool. No doubt renderings are sales tools... But... that type of rendering is like a photo. It's not unbuilt. It's not design. Why not take a photo? The amount of energy invested in realism... Isn't that basically: A. a handcuff design wise and sales wise: spend so much time and money saying this is exactly what you get, no questions asked B. pointless as an architectural tool since... you can just take a photo.
For architects, I think abstraction (to whatever degree), is more valuable since... it says something... It gives room to the imagination (doesn't handcuff you), and it is more precise in what you are trying to say... While it's true that realistic renderings like these do say something, create with beautiful precision the ambience or mood, what you would really see, etc. somehow it also seems anal retentive... it gives up looseness and flexibility... and maybe a bit of character for the sake of being real... I am in awe of the technical skill behind it, the images are beautiful... But I am not any more impressed by them as images than I would be of a photograph of the same thing.
The value there is only in what it says I think, not how many hours of labour or computing power it took to say it... In other words, what's the point? Show me a photoreal image of something that you can't take a picture of with a camera, something unbuilt and I will be more impressed...
Or show me an selectively abstract image that leaves me with an idea of what might be, that lets me imagine possibilities and my mind might blown away by what it makes me think about...
This a personal friend and colleague of ours. His rendering work is amazing, he does a lot of work for big office and star architects. very nice. keep it up Mr. Silverman! link
funny about the needing hands comment - the last 2 weeks I've been in traction as I had dislocated my shoulders in a freak incident...architects kinda do need hands, we can only live on charm for so long
mind blowing renders...
i've been using maxwell render with great results and was curious to see what's abound on flickr...
but this guy's renders are mind blowing...
if i ever need a seahorse in a glass, i'll know who to call...
yeah, I guess its kind of impressive, but can anyone explain to me why that degree of photorealism is necessary for an architectural drawing? Clients of course love it, but once you start handing them photographs of their unbuilt buildings, they will never accept anything less (and I'm stuck in the office until 9:00 pm). Aesthetically it seems pretty deficient.
In all honesty I've never seen more photo-realistic renderings.
they're ok, If you just want to fool people when they go to your website. That's about all that comes out of them though.
why the hate? these renderings are amazing, who said they have anything to do with architecture? i see your angle, guppy, but thats not the point of them ... these obviously have much more significance to VR and video game applications, and are obviously quite impractical to the architectural realm.
the alleyway images aren't so good: the grass looks bad, the paint textures on the right don't change specular colour right as they diminish, and I hate that hazy-white radiance effect that maxwell does.
the flash photo is crazy good though.
and yes. i don't condone the use of photorealism in any way. i just think these renderings are exceptionally good. i don't think photorealism has a lot of place in the architectural world.
except that it pays the bills (and then some) for some of us!
It's actually an extremely valuable tool for architecture.
#1 - It's a marketing tool. If the architecture doesn't sell (and it rarely does with architect's renderings or sketchs), then there is no project. Every new condo and office tower out there has professional renderings done. This is a service that architect's cannot provide.
#2 - It's a great way to test what things will really look like. Sure, that is bad for 90% of the buildings out there (and I see why so many architect's would not want anyone to know what the building would really look at before it's done - probably scare people away!).
That's the only argument against it I can see - that some people don't want that kind of specificity, some don't want to make choices about materials, some don't want to reveal what the building will really look like.
I agree that it's not that exciting, but it can be. As always, it's just a tool in a book of tricks. How it's done, the attention to details, etc., make the difference.
^ yes, but as guppy say, you may be giving an unrealistic, excessively accurate vision of something no one knows how it will really look like... causing the clients a certain deception, I rather guide their imagination with more abstract approaches and redefine some aesthetical aspects of the project as the project goes on (even when it's already being built)...
those flickr renderings, though (and technically), are really amazing
The guy has talent, granted. Why not spend all that time making the design better?
...maybe he's not an architect
probably that is the case hasselhoff.
nice renders, though.
recently i made a presentation with pen and ink and photoshop. and two physical sketch models. worked like a charm.
hmmm, maybe i wil stop rendering, and switch to peter salter sketching from now on...
y_okaue is not an architect--I think he's(she?) a product designer and one of Next Limit's A-Team members, testing the limits/functionality of Maxwell
I use Maxwell and think it's a great tool, especially since it's physically based and it's supposedly planned to have some sort of lighting analysis tools implemented in future versions.
There are times when photo-real is needed and there are times when it's not…
There's a lot of talk about "why that degree of photorealism is necessary for an architectural drawing" and "Why not spend all that time making the design better". I'll answer that. The renderer is not and architect or designer. It's been said, but I am just adding.
Geeez...
ACfA these renderings are amazing.
I think we should all move to Second Life and sell our designs there.
vado that's freakin amazing? What did you render that in?
Grilled Cheese 3.0?
Greasy Spoon Studio 8 would have rendered the oil stains on the ceiling better, though...
mmmm...grilled cheese. I am hungry now!
That makes me want to go get a late-night snack. Time to stop incessantly posting here anyway.
that grilled cheese looks like someone in my studio's project...
that was rendered by hand. it is an oil painting.
This little dude kicks all of our @$$es
Nice work today ACfA. Seriously one of the best in the review.
Nice work vado. I especially like the guy in the reflection. Details details.
as if i painted it. its richard estes...
Those Biolinias really capture the mood.
Estes rocks... photo-realistically speaking.
rendering is an awesome tool that architects neglect all to often.
i usually model in rhino and always keep a render going in the background in maxwell just to keep a record of where i've been and to try out various versions of the building i'm designing.
usually these are 15 minute renders so the quality revolves around that.
photorealistic rendering is a tool.
it just happens that there are way too many architects that are too lazy to learn it, angry that they are not capable of learning it or just don't recognize the potential of being able to work out a VERY VERY VERY good perspective without even lifting a pencil.
i hate when people go "photorealism sucks". it' stupid. yeah diagrammatic renderings can accentuate your idea, but if you have a good building, a nice photo rendering will only do you good.
a lot of people out of columbia end up going the render route. has everyone seen these guy's (and gal's) work?
tronic
they're doing some beautiful stuff.
That NIN video is great. And I actually like the song. Two wow's.
The tronic site noises annoy me.
wait a minute. those are off of the maxwell render website.
http://www.maxwellrender.com/
I had one professor who insisted that we were only allowed to use toon renderers. I like playing with photoreal stuff, but he had a point too.
What was it?
Beautiful realistic renderings. But I wonder what the value of that degree of realism is for design or even as a sales tool. No doubt renderings are sales tools... But... that type of rendering is like a photo. It's not unbuilt. It's not design. Why not take a photo? The amount of energy invested in realism... Isn't that basically: A. a handcuff design wise and sales wise: spend so much time and money saying this is exactly what you get, no questions asked B. pointless as an architectural tool since... you can just take a photo.
For architects, I think abstraction (to whatever degree), is more valuable since... it says something... It gives room to the imagination (doesn't handcuff you), and it is more precise in what you are trying to say... While it's true that realistic renderings like these do say something, create with beautiful precision the ambience or mood, what you would really see, etc. somehow it also seems anal retentive... it gives up looseness and flexibility... and maybe a bit of character for the sake of being real... I am in awe of the technical skill behind it, the images are beautiful... But I am not any more impressed by them as images than I would be of a photograph of the same thing.
The value there is only in what it says I think, not how many hours of labour or computing power it took to say it... In other words, what's the point? Show me a photoreal image of something that you can't take a picture of with a camera, something unbuilt and I will be more impressed...
Or show me an selectively abstract image that leaves me with an idea of what might be, that lets me imagine possibilities and my mind might blown away by what it makes me think about...
This is basically similar to the photorealistic v. impressionistic debate in fine art just over a century ago...
If you have the skills to do quality renderings in a short time, I say why not?
This a personal friend and colleague of ours. His rendering work is amazing, he does a lot of work for big office and star architects. very nice. keep it up Mr. Silverman!
link
funny about the needing hands comment - the last 2 weeks I've been in traction as I had dislocated my shoulders in a freak incident...architects kinda do need hands, we can only live on charm for so long
i cannot understand a photorealestic rendering of something that already exists...that's just mental masturbation
What happened architechnophilia? Did you over-use your charm?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.