Forums
|
Forums >> Community >> The Studio >> Philosophical discussion about rendering
|
|
|
Joined: Sun, Apr 23, 2006
265 Posts
 |
you spend endless hours getting your rendering to look just right
and the client says: "that's not what i had in mind can you show me
something else?" what is the purpose of a museum quality rendering?
why do they need to see a photographic work of art to know if that's
the kind of building they had in mind? if you create a model from massing
that tells the client everything they need to know about the building and
they tell you that's exatly the building they want you to build for them-
do you stop and say: "just hold your horses because before i can start building
this for you i must finish the rendering- i must render the landscaping
and put in the RPC people and cars and stuff and i must try to win an
art contest with it"..... yeah right.. and yet large numbers of revit students
are trying to win art contests with their renderings.. they'll even master
photo shop to gain an edge.. many of them will even abandon accurender
and go for viz or 3ds max.. those rendering programs are a career in
themselves.. i don't get it.. why are they doing this?
|
This user is offline |
|
 | |
|
|
site moderator|||
Joined: Fri, Feb 10, 2006
1874 Posts
 |
i have often wonder the same myself. As far as Revit is concerned i am concentrating strickly on the BIM part for now being a new user. Because i think that is where the real future value of Revit lies. The rendering is nice as a by product of the BIM model beacuse we still have to convey our design. in the prelim phases of client presenation the non-rendered shots (shaded, wireframe etc..) suffice and convey the intended message. but i say "to each his own" and the can of worms that you just opened, i was now willing to do so.
when clients project are just proposed and they are trying to raised money, by selling the the project before actually building it, then i think you need high quality rendering or the project and been finalized and the client wants rendering for display.
Enjoy your replies
LOL
Post edited on 2006-06-02 06:24:00
-----------------------------------
best regards, coreed,aia bmpArchitects,Inc. "Revit has to be implemented, Not installed." Long Live Revit |
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Mon, May 22, 2006
9 Posts
No Rating |
Let me first start off by saying that art and architecture are natural progressions of each other. An architect or designers purpose is to make something beautiful, whether it be a 12 story building in an urban fabric or an art peice worthy of awards. Steven Holl, as you should know, wakes up every morning and does a water color painting. Marcel Breuer and Frank Lloyd Wright were also accomplished furniture designers. Fashion designer Christian Dior considers himself to be an architect of textiles and materiality. All facets of design and art are interstitially connected and should be celebrated.
The use of 3 different computer programs is no different really than using an olfa blade alongside chartpak and rapidograph pens. They are just tools that fortunately can be used in conjunction with each other to acheive the desired affect. Although I am not entering art competitions, there isn't one rendering I produce either in Revit or 3DS Max that doesn't get tinkered around with in Photoshop. I want to make things look beautiful and complete as much as time permits.
The reason, I think, that most designers spend "endless hours" producing renderings is simply because they can. The CAD and BIM age has made it possible to spend more time on design and less on producing schedules, tags, and detail lines (as beneficial as they are). I think it is pretty rare that a designer would only create a 3d model and rendering for the client. In my opinion if they were not doing it for themselves to see another aspect of their design they would not do it. However, the benefit of having a rendering for a client is uncanny. For example, if you bring a set of beautiful architectural drawings; floorplans, sections, hidden line perspectives all with perfect lineweights and intentions; but you also bring a bug/sketch/massing model the client will always be drawn to the model. It is something physical and "real" that is easier to relate to and associate with. Renderings work in much the same way. Most people are not able to string together a vision of what a project will be through a set of drawings like a true designer can. The renderings give the designer an outlet for themselves and an inlet for the client so both can see what the project will look like once complete.
To be honest, better the client (or the designer for that matter) finds out that they don't like the design early in the process. Having an unhappy client at the end of a constructed project is a far worse outcome.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
Joined: Sun, Apr 23, 2006
265 Posts
|
ok here is what i think about rendering..
first of all you must show the client what
your building will look like so you have a
chance to move on to the CDs and get the serious
money.. you could just show them shaded line
views but that may or may not be sufficient..
they don't have the ability to visualize like
you do.. i think you need to show them BASIC
renderings.. not with all the reflections and
fancy lighting trying to make it look like a
photograph.. it seems like that just
send a message to the client saying it's
either this building or nothing.. also everyone
has the ability to visualize to some extent..
as far as rendering programs go i think even
though AccuRender is old and slow i also think
it's still the best program to use with revit
because the simplicity of it is evident to all..
i am new to all of this so i'm just learning..
thank you
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
Joined: Sun, Apr 23, 2006
265 Posts
|
i still suspect shaded line views with shadows will
do the job 9 times out of 10.. i'll probly just dumb the
rendering all together..
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Fri, Sep 23, 2005
26 Posts
 |
I agree with Kalvin 100% in everything he said. The better you can make yourself look and the project, the more trust the clients have in your design.
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
site moderator|||
Joined: Mon, Mar 14, 2005
777 Posts
|
Hello there,
I read all of the above with intrest, as was I pondering this question...
I agree with Kelvin to a point, it is nice to show the client what they are getting and it is true that we want to make things as beautiful as we can, but the danger lies with the simple fact that the rendered image will never (well not a while) look like what it is actually going to look! what happens if the client turns around at the end of the job and says “this is not what the picture looks like”?
sometime it is better to show less than every little detail. I guess it will have to be case by case...
anyway, we have dedicated Max people at the office, doing 3D rendering from 3D faces created in Autocad! (that's another post) 
-----------------------------------
Integrator Architectural Engineering Construction KarelCAD |
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
Similar Threads |
|
Please visit the Autodesk Revit discussion forum at |
Community >> The Studio
|
Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 8:09:57 PM
|
2
|
|
Autodesk Revit 6.1 is now available for download |
Community >> The Studio
|
Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:12:47 PM
|
0
|
|
Is this a Tips and Tricks forum or a side door to the General Discussion forum ? |
Revit Building >> Tips & Tricks
|
Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:05:45 AM
|
3
|
|
Need help with Topo Tool and Elevations |
Revit Structure >> Technical Support
|
Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:44:07 AM
|
0
|
|
Radius window jambs |
Revit Building >> Technical Support
|
Fri, Jul 6, 2007 at 8:55:13 PM
|
0
|
|
|
Site Stats
Members: | 2100829 | Objects: | 23171 | Forum Posts: | 152296 | Job Listings: | 3 |
|
Search