Combining ArchiSketch/Maxwell and PhotoShop

[Anonymous]

Needed to come up with a concept image for a retail building that had a Early American Farm Village feeling.

Used a Sketch image and Maxwell render / layered in PhotoShop. It worked out easier than I thought. Notice the shadows don't match, that would take some thought to align.

[Anonymous]

Burginger,

Looks great.. I've done this a few times, myself.

Do the sketch rend with no shadows, and there's no mis-match. OR... Use a fixed 'sun' light source in both rends (not heliodon). Set it up for both rends with same azimuth / altitude settings and be sure photorend light is set for 'parallel' beam.

Cool effect... Clients / Design Review Boards love this look. Can sometimes be a big aid in 'selling' the project.

[Anonymous]

Dave wrote:
Cool effect... Clients / Design Review Boards love this look. Can sometimes be a big aid in 'selling' the project.

I agree with you Dave...those are the same reasons why I also started doing renders with a sketched look. Also for the fact that certain lines (important lines) show up thanks to the sketch output which would not normally 'pop-out' due to lighting settings or other similar obstacles.

[Anonymous]

I also use this method and have even gotten pretty good results using the infernal engine for the renderings.

Sketchiness is mandatory in the preliminary stages of design as far as I am concerned. It lets you focus on the important stuff since the client won't get hung up that the sketchy squiggle of a light fixture doesn't look like the one they wanted. It also leaves room for the client's imagination and creates room for discussion of the design.

Slick photo renders are great for board approvals, community reviews and job site signs but for design review they tend to close the conversation down to yes or no, like it or don't.

I know this has been said many times here and elsewhere but its important enough to be worth repeating.

[Dwight]

And even at the final stage of design, a tiny casting of a photoshop filter over the render disguises the nasty corners of the model and the lousy entourage.

[Anonymous]

Dwight wrote:
And even at the final stage of design, a tiny casting of a photoshop filter over the render disguises the nasty corners of the model and the lousy entourage.

Yes, I always at least throw in some sort of filter layer(s) even if it's just a transparency mask to tone down the saturation. Whatever it takes to get away from that hard "made by machine" look.

[Anonymous]

Matthew wrote:

Dwight wrote:
And even at the final stage of design, a tiny casting of a photoshop filter over the render disguises the nasty corners of the model and the lousy entourage.

Yes, I always at least throw in some sort of filter layer(s) even if it's just a transparency mask to tone down the saturation. Whatever it takes to get away from that hard "made by machine" look.

It would be interesting to wonder why we need so much to pretend that our renderings are done by hand rather than by machine.
I suppose that this is an issue already widely discussed but I find it quite intriguing that, after being obsessed by the hyperrealism, developers have such a demand for "handmade". But "handmade" electronic, of course.

[Dwight]

It is not that we need to pretend that they are done by hand. We would just like to disguise the sad fact that they are created inside an unfeeling, unthinking robot that has been given a half-finished, poorly constructed model with bad surface textures and figures carved from wood and plywood trees and driverless cars. Something a wee bit soft is all it needs.

It is ironic that the finest rendering is ruined when the Archicad model doesn't chamfer retaining walls, say. Take the edges off.

[Anonymous]

I know. I will be the last to promote the production of messed up presentations, hand or machine.
Moreover, by hand, we also cheat; hide the "straight" construction by all kinds of stuff.
What bothers me is what is developed, all these automatic tools "sketch and toons."
I do not dispute the electronic production.
I just noted the paradox of an increasingly strong demand for images made by the computer but who seem to be made by hand.
Our customers prefer the pastiche . A castle but in Disneyland.
Personally I like more and more the "Piranesi" approach. Of course, Photoshop, but rather brush and eraser, multilayered compositions, and not too many "automatic" filters.

[Anonymous]

Philippe wrote:

Matthew wrote:

Dwight wrote:
And even at the final stage of design, a tiny casting of a photoshop filter over the render disguises the nasty corners of the model and the lousy entourage.

Yes, I always at least throw in some sort of filter layer(s) even if it's just a transparency mask to tone down the saturation. Whatever it takes to get away from that hard "made by machine" look.

It would be interesting to wonder why we need so much to pretend that our renderings are done by hand rather than by machine.
I suppose that this is an issue already widely discussed but I find it quite intriguing that, after being obsessed by the hyperrealism, developers have such a demand for "handmade". But "handmade" electronic, of course.

The issue is most simply understood by looking at it the other way round. This is not about all the cool things computers can do. It is about what is the most effective output/result for the purpose at hand, which is to present, sell, and develop the design. This output usually consists in part of schematic sketches, drawings and diagrams. These are most effective when they focus on the salient issues and aren't cluttered up with a lot of distracting detail. Sometimes the presentation is just color coded translucent masses laid on a terrain map with associated area calcs for planning and feasibility. Other times call for nicely modeled buildings sketch rendered and finished by hand.

The computer is just one tool for accomplishing the desired results. It is becoming the primary one but that doesn't change the requirements for the end results.