What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

[Arcadia]

What is the biggest lightworks render you have done and how long did it take? This one was 60cm wide x 45h (although its been cropped a bit since) @ 300dpi and took 31 hours to render on a core i7 system with 9g of RAM. It wouldn't let me go any bigger than this as I got a memory warning. I was able to up-res it nicely in photoshop to 120cm wide to go on a builders advertising board.

[Arcadia]

Well Dwight I am a beginner. I already said I don't do imaging for a living. I've done maybe 35 renders in 3 years. I don't agree with your assertion that "any observer of your work think that you were simply a beginner". The general public wouldn't know a good render if it bit them on the ass. My client was extremely happy with this image and its only experienced eyes like yours who can pick flaws in my image. I know what I am good at and what I need to improve on so I appreciate criticism on my work as its helpful but there is no need to be so dismissive. The thread I started was simply about resolution and render time not how good my image is.

[Anonymous]

Arcadia, I am sure Dwight did not mean to be dismissive and you are right, a lot of clients haven't got a clue what an average or great render is. As long as they are happy, textures can be repetitive. ( they will tell you if the pick anything up they don't like right? ) I think with your little experience and having to use lightworks, lol, you are doing a fine job.

Keep it up and your renders will improve by itself.

[Dwight]

Thanks for defending me, but he’s right. I AM being dismissive.

I’m dismissing obsession with time-wasting, over-resolved renderings in situations where Archicad's surface textures lack the resolution to support them.

The retort “well, the client is satisfied” [with murky grey shadows and amateurish texture repeats, for instance] only reveals an uninformed client. Several of our colleagues produce renderings in pure white light because the client needs to match their paint chip when in reality, the passing sun and sky effects tint that chip away from a match all day long. In those cases, the client is an idiot, because the illustrator can easily show color decisions in different realities rather than an abstract condition.

It is our job [as designers AND illustrators] to inform clients about what is necessary in a situation – to have higher standards than they do.

And I reiterate: for maximum readability, images must be electronically ‘sharpened’ for specific distances and output methods - high rendering resolution is only part of the answer.

http://www.niksoftware.com/sharpenerpro/usa/entry.php

[Arcadia]

an uninformed client

Is there any other kind? I did a good looking render for a client that wanted a certain thing at a certain budget. And frankly what I came up with is a lot better than the sort of output I have seen from a lot of guys who do architectural imaging for a living. I'm sure if you look back into the recesses of your memory you will remember a time when your standards weren't as high and you were still learning. The fact is I concentrate my effort on design and documentation which frankly is a lot more important to my clients and the success of the job than a pretty picture and what little 'spare' time I get I generally put towards improving my documentation output or my service not my imaging. To be successful in business you need to understand where your strengths and your focus is, concentrate on that and not try and do everything. So don't be so elitist.

[Anonymous]

Dwight wrote:
Thanks for defending me, but he’s right. I AM being dismissive.

I’m dismissing obsession with time-wasting, over-resolved renderings in situations where Archicad's surface textures lack the resolution to support them.

The retort “well, the client is satisfied” [with murky grey shadows and amateurish texture repeats, for instance] only reveals an uninformed client. Several of our colleagues produce renderings in pure white light because the client needs to match their paint chip when in reality, the passing sun and sky effects tint that chip away from a match all day long. In those cases, the client is an idiot, because the illustrator can easily show color decisions in different realities rather than an abstract condition.

It is our job [as designers AND illustrators] to inform clients about what is necessary in a situation – to have higher standards than they do.

And I reiterate: for maximum readability, images must be electronically ‘sharpened’ for specific distances and output methods - high rendering resolution is only part of the answer.

http://www.niksoftware.com/sharpenerpro/usa/entry.php

Ok so you have been dismissive, which in this instance is totally unnecessary and kind of lacks of respect to others and their work.

Remember when you where a beginner did your renderings look better?

Critic is good but it has to come in a polite way and with encouraging words.