dear dwight and other lightworkers (?!)

[Anonymous]

can I get a 'negativ' type of photorealistic image which only shows the shadows cast in my model, and not the furniture etc.
How do I get the shadow edges to be 'soft'?
ps. looking forward to my book, then perhaps I won't need to ask such basic stuff...
many thanks
yours
jonathan

[TomWaltz]

tigr wrote:
Hi Krippahl,

You wrote "these ppl" so I felt it might be also me.

I am far far away from starting here another "which renderer is the best" topic. I think the best is the one which meet your expectations and do the job in the end. As long as you are architect it is your engineering and taste that client should admire more than brilliant picture, that is why I prefer LW. It's not easy, that's true, but has one great advatage - it comes with the package, so you can spend more time on your modeling than setting up shaders.
I'm happy that you find Art R useful because it is excelent piece of software, especially for those who doesn't like to "dig deeper". From the other hand if you would only get used to AC's LW philosofy than you might find it amazing (like me).

All the best.

Sounds like the same reasons we use Cinema 4D for the really high-end stuff. It took a little more to learn but REALLY shines.

Surprisingly, we slowly shifted back towards Lightworks. It worked for about 90% of what we do. Although, it also helps that we have a guy who really should be rendering for a living. He has "the eye" for picking the right view point and what to look at. Once in the computer, he knows how it should be lit and what story he wants to tell.

For him, it's not about the software. It's about making what's in his head appear on his computer monitor.

[Dwight]

If you are looking for better work than what LightWorks can provide, it means changing careers: becoming an illustrator.

Cinema 4D is the logical next step since it is relatively inexpensive and has a strong suite of tools, professional capability and a wonderful community.

All rendering software requires learning - it is only the expectation of automatic rendering that users find frustrating.

[TomWaltz]

Dwight wrote:
All rendering software requires learning - it is only the expectation of automatic rendering that users find frustrating.

I feel like we could replace "rendering" with "drafting" in that statement and it would still be true!

[Dwight]

I'm working on a tool to do just that:

Dwight's new parametric ArchiCAD building object:

Just put the building area and building type into the parameter setting and, voom... no more architects.

[TomWaltz]

I think there's an object on Objects Online that does that: Building Maker for $29.

Much cheaper than an architect!

http://objectsonline.com/customer/product.php?productid=115507&cat=0&page=1

[Anonymous]

hi dwight
so here's my very first and very white lightworks rendering then, with a tiny bit of photoshop work. all tips having been taken when given.
haven't really figured out the lights etc, but expect to soon with the imminent (I hope) arrival of my big book of howtodoits in lightworks from addressed author
yours
jonathan

[Anonymous]

Dwight wrote:
If you are looking for better work than what LightWorks can provide, it means changing careers: becoming an illustrator.

Hi Dwight, never got the chance to ask you if you did return the keys to Davis

As for illustrator, for a long time architects have been also illustrators.
It is not that far away that most of the architecture teaching was based on the beaus art principle, where every architect had to be a very good illustrator.

This is double true today. everyone expects you to present high end renderings with your first sketches, so there are only two ways about it:
Either you send them to a third party (illustrator) which I don't do for the same reasons I use ArchiCAD so as not to have someone else drafting my design, or you have to learn to do them yourself.

Like I said, I am a big Artlantis fan, and I really don't think using it slows me down, quite the opposite.

But, if I ever feel crazy enough to try out hardworks (or should I say herdworks...), then I would start by reading that incredibly amazing book called "LightWorks In ArchiCAD:"
PAYPAL: www.paypal.com: FUNDS to: info.beginnernomore@telus.net
US$95.00 in NA. US$110.00 elsewhere

[Dwight]

Seminar attendees and readers of that book know that LightWorks isn't hard, just marginally documented. Until now.

Your rendering uses two light source types. A similar LightWorks rendering would use three. Furthermore, these light sources can be saved as a module to be used in the future with just one step to place and set up. The three light approach is explained in the Quick Start Guide starting on page 27.

Readers of that book (and of this FORUM) also know to make slick surfaces rougher for improved light interaction and to provide warmer light color to eliminate deadly greyness in their images.

That book is a dense and colorful compendium of LightWorks knowledge and represents good value to any ArchiCAD user who wants better LightWorks images quickly without the added expense and difficulty of learning an additional application, not to mention the time of repeated file transfers.

[TomWaltz]

I have to agree with Dwight: Once you know what the buttons actually do and how they interrelate, Lightworks is not hard at all. It's not as powerful as some other programs, but I do find it pretty solid for most rendering work.

Dwight's book really is a critical part of the equation there, since GS's documentation is pretty sparse.

[__archiben]

krippahl wrote:
look ma, no tricky lightning, just heliodon and sky...

it's quite a nasty rendering though isn't it? i'm sure you would spend more time tweaking and massaging that model in artlantis if you were really going to use it as a presentation illustration?

same same in lightworks . . . i wouldn't know where to begin in artlantis these days (i used to use it), and so i would find that tricky. lightworks isn't hardwork if you know what you're doing. neither is artlantis. but if your experience is only with one or the other . . .

~/archiben