STRAT

bump test

__________________

Limbus

Ok, to get back on topic I try to say something not related to down under or beer.

I think one can learn alot from the masters of architectural photography like Julius Shulman. Photographers have much less the possibility to change a scene (hiding lights, unseen geometry, reflection maps) than an 3D Artist and jet they produce stunning images.

And the its about viewing architecture. One has to have an eye for space and detail (but I think this can be trained). Knowing what the Architect wanted to achieve with his design can also help. Another great source of inspiration is set design. Set Designers know how to bring drama and emotions into a picture. Just look at the sketches of Ken Adam and you will see how he captures the mood just with black and white.

My 2 € Cent,

Florian

__________________
www.florianvonbehr.de

Abel Oner

I think (and this is a matter of philosophy) that true architectural visualization should accuratly portray:
Light
Site
Materials
Scale
To produce a rendering that is an artistic expression exists outside the realm of architectural visualization as a communication tool. Artistic expression is good for conceptual or schematic design, but it is not true visualization.
The light of the Sun or artificial light should exist and react as it will in reality-
The site (and background) should be portrayed as it will in reality-
The materials and their properties should be expressed as they will appear in reality-
the scale of the building as well as people, furniture, trees and cars should stand how they will appear in reality..

all of those things are very difficult to do, but it speaks to understanding and appreciation the design before it is built. i think cheating the light or the site is unacceptable (imagine if you were the client and the architects were showing you inaccurate sunlight or forced reflectivity). and even some of the meekest buildings involve great cost-- sometimes more than you can fathom based on the finished product. visualization should be an attempt to render a new reality.

Limbus

There is a story about a group of investors that wanted to buy a building based on photos taken by Julius Shulman. Now if you know Shulmans work you probably know that he made extreme use of filters and shift. When the investors visited the building, they where angy because it did not look as good as on the photo.

I agree, that one should not change the direction of the sun or remove the huge power facility behind the site but I do think that athmospheric enhancements are allowed.

Florian

__________________
www.florianvonbehr.de

Karen

I don't usually post, but I have to say that I have really enjoyed this theme and the answers around the original questions. Some really thoughtful discussions (beer preferences notwithstanding :-)

The old masters did show us interpretations of and around the fundamentals like composition, light and color, and then you have the Frank Lloyd Wright's who come on the scene with form and its functionality, and then by the 21st century, some architectural visualizers take all that and deliver it in with futuristic florish.

I look at a lot of architectural visualization, and love it. I think the way it resonates most with me now in terms of what I personally find pleasing can be summed up in the Autodesk-sponsored PBS film, design:e2. The point of view being that beautiful structures today must encompass social consciousness of our environment--that is where I look forward to seeing more "visionary visualizations" if you will.

Virgil Johnson

I think visualization is split into two basic themes that stand alone or overlap.

There is the artist with often stunning concepts. Something to be aspired to.
This is probably where the best of human endeavors come alive.

And there is the realist. (I was hit in the head with visual impact studies at an early age so you know where I stand.)

What kind of visualization happens depends mostly on what is needed and partly on what emphasis the software people wish to express.

I wonder if there is an order of events at play here as well.

Perhaps the artist in the architect and the artist in the Visualizer get together and form an ideal scenario.
Perhaps it is an end goal. It can also be used to sell an idea.

Later the realist comes into play helping in the design. (lights, color, space, etc.)
Now the design becomes real and can be manipulated in real terms to get close to the ideal concept formed in the first phase.

Then maybe back to the artist to work with the real to present the whole thing in its best terms.

I for one am going with the real world of visualization simply because there is a bigger market in working through the process of design.


virgil

nisus

Hi all,

I'm surprised to see (in a 4 page thread already) almost nothing of what I find important in architectural visualisation...

My emphasis for archviz are:
- For Technical Background: Practise, Respect, Tradition, Memory, Rules, Workflow and Experiment
- For Visual Qualities: Interst, Story, Client and Context

Light, Point of View, Materials, Depth/Space etc. are 'just presets/pre-occupations' of archviz to me... and not even suitable for 'all types' of arch viz... (i.e. a rough sketch does NOT need photorealistic materials...)
But than again, I'm Not ONLY focussed on 'realistic' nor '3D' only...

Anyway, these are only hints of my thoughts. Tell me what you think of it. If people are intersted in more information about this, I'd be glad to share it, but pls ask (or I risk another monologue)...

rgds,

nisus

__________________
www.ams.be / www.nisusarts.com

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=nisusCGA&p=r