Mountain House Exterior

[fixeighted]

Hehe, I don't have a camera actually....I just did all the photography for a friend's website however.
I had to learn on the spot, knowing not much other than what result I wanted overall.
We went out, bought a camera and some kit and I got him to build what I thought would serve well as a backdrop.
Whilst they are not maybe the best photos in the world my process was solid, they are pretty consistent, and for the money the site looks
much much better than it did previously

https://www.felixlightingspecialists.co.uk/

I would love the time/money to explore photography more, but for the time being I'll have to make do with Vray

[glorybound]

Those are good! You should be proud of those.

A decade ago, the guy I mentioned would charge 2-3 thousand per shoot, plus travel costs and hotel if needed. I am not sure what he charges today. Everyone owns a camera, so why does he get paid good money? He finds clients who appreciate his talent and who will pay for it. I see people bewildered that some people get 2-3 thousand per render, thinking that it is impossible, but the same thing applies to us. I don't know what Open Range charges, so maybe his work pleases his client for what they are paying for.

I am now working with a developer that builds websites (https://www.space150.com/)(I am doing renderings for their client's website). Anything less than a $125,000 website isn't worth their time. We all can build a website, but why do some make good money?

We all have to up our game all the time to stay in the game.

[fixeighted]

Thanks; yeah I'm very pleased with the result from what was essentially a pretty amateur start point, ending in a pro outcome

I charged a stupidly low amount because of my lack of photography knowledge....now I know I'm capable I would certainly at least double that for a similar job.

That site is Squarespace based so yeah, simple stuff....actual pro websites are hard to build and I'm no html coder, so anyone that can do that deserves the cash

[OPEN_RANGE]

I was out for a few days days, back now. Hope this topic has not gone stale.

Bruce Hart, Glorybound, Fixeighted, you all seem to have problems with this rendering but did not express what those were. I am always keen to improve so if you have time please elaborate.

Lighting? I used vray sun/sky. Sky is instanced into dome light. Sun is set for the date,time, geo locate of site and then adjusted a bit to sit. It is "coming from across right shoulder" (per glorybound). What is wrong with that?

This all started as a Revit model made by the architect. I had to make a few minor adjustments to the Revit model and rendered it again, so update is shown below. I experimented with increasing the reflection on the siding, stone, timbers, roof, chimney cap metal. Also increased the radius value on the various vray edges textures I had in place on those materials. It all made some minor difference but not a sea change. My question is how reflective do reclaimed barnwood, rough sawn timbers, rusted metal and rough quarried stone appear? These are not inherently reflective materials?

I show below the samples of materials that were provided by the architect for reference. That's what I got to work from.

Also have a pdf set of drawings including a Landscape plan. The trees are speced as spruce and aspen, shrubs are dogwood and potentilla. Those are the plants I show. They are essentially the same in number, size and location as the landscape plan, adjusted some what to not screen the view of the building too much. The bulk of the site is to be re-planted with native grasses. This is going for DRB approval and the rendering has to more or less match the landscape plan. I did significantly tone down the aspen trees, (although the architect had no comment about that).

I'm also showing the backplate image. The house is pretty much situated where I show it. The ridge of the existing house to the right will be @ 14' higher than the ridge of the house I rendered.

Camera angle. This was the only spot on the site I could get the best angle on the important mountain backdrop and a favorable view of the house. The house is +/- matched into the view.

So....what is it that is so off with this rendering?

[glorybound]

I think the step you might be missing is color grading. The software can only bring you so far. I used not to like color grading, but now it is one of my favorite parts. Building the model is non-subjective, so you have to get into the subjective zone. I would also invest in better trees; those look to be from the 90s.

It doesn't take much to through things off. Full daylight would mean almost black windows.

[OPEN_RANGE]

Thanks Bobby!

So the windows look similar to the existing house next door? (There was the criticism earlier that you couldn’t see inside.)

Lighting looks OK to you?

Does color grading mean the same as tone mapping? I tried the vray filmic tone map and it was not good at all. (I always use it for interiors but it never seems good for exteriors.) What would your color grading process be?

I’m really questioning my self after hearing “worst rendering I have ever seen” and “this rendering has issues” and “I am glad I don’t work for your clients” etc., etc.

[glorybound]

It isn't the worst rendering; erase that from your mind. It was a butt thing for someone to say.

Color grading means pushing and pulling color; no filter; use your eye. Walk your area during the day, and you'll notice you don't see inside. I think we have to remember that photorealistic isn't always the objective. If your client wants to see the inside during the day, educate them and let them make the decisions. 95% of the time, when my clients take the lead, it is an image I wouldn't care as my own. I just finished one that is awful. They called all the shots and made rookie mistakes. I had a hard time charging him because it was so bad.

[OPEN_RANGE]

What do you like for purchased 3d trees? Esp want 10-20’ aspens with relatively sparse branches and leaves. Half the branches and leaves as is in the, somewhat new, cgaxis aspen trees used in this rendering. DOUBLE THX!

[fixeighted]

As Bobby says, it's not a bad image and you can do nothing about the architecture, but
to my eye it lacks some depth.

When I look at the photo I see a much wider variation in tone....darker blacks, under the eaves of the existing house, in the trees, the ground shadows etc.,
plus more saturation in the more foreground elements. When I compare the greens/yellows there is more variation.

So it's not massive changes you'd have to make, just those that bring the render into the same values as the photo

Definitely you'd add value by having better trees with tweaked shaders. You can easily prune these ones to your liking
if you can't find better ones available.
Given that you do a lot of these similar environments it makes sense I think...same with ground cover, it
wouldn't take long to get a workable library of varied stuff that once done can be copy/pasted
from one project to another.

[AEBI_VINCENT]

AEBI_VINCENT I don't understand the Grove St ref unless
you know where I used to live

Haha, sorry. It was a reference to GTA San Andreas because the graphics look exactly the same.

I’m really questioning my self after hearing “worst rendering I have ever seen” and “this rendering has issues” and “I am glad I don’t work for your clients” etc., etc.

It hurts me seeing you go mad over this feedback that you received because words can have so much impact on the sensitive artist. Know that there are FAR worse renderings than yours (which isn't bad at all), I don't even want to go into the ones the user posted to demonstrate his superior skills.
https://globeplants.com/ has fantastic trees and plants in my opinion. I often use cgaxis too, but their trees sometimes look very mediocre and without manually improving their materials, they really start showing their age.

I think your rendering only needs a little bit of color grading, as the respectable members above me already stated. You can get a lot out of any rendering by increasing contrasts, use the curves in photoshop for example. The blacks of the rendering must match the blacks from your photographic background. I'm no photographer myself because I don't have the passion, I would only imitate. So these things don't come to me naturally, but I get frequent consultation from a skilled photographer whos advice I consider an essential aspect of my renderings. It really helps!
But like you, I am bound by opinions and subjective tastes of our clients or my boss. In the end, the one who pays kind of dictates the look of the rendering, at least in my case and it looks like it's the same in your case. Sometimes you just have to work with an applied handbrake and can't go 100%.

[seandunderdale]

Id recommend using the location reference...there seems to be houses in the background of your shot. Go and try to shoot those at a similar angle and time of day for material reference. Just a quick glance at your empty plate / vs your render I can see some areas of your house, like the roof seem way more saturated than the wood materials in the shot. Materials tend to desaturate in direct sunlight, and your roof doesnt seem to be doing that which makes it feel off. Another point would be the lack of variation in the natural plants, and the semi uniform placement of them all. You photo plate has contrast, and sun intensity, whereas the rendered plants look a bit dull. This may be a client request, which would be fair enough, but what I would say to comments about seeing interiors, and clients making bad calls which make bad images is, its your job to take the client feedback onboard and implement it in a way that doesn't compromise the image, and use language they'd understand and appreciate to steer them to a place where the render looks photographic and artistically pleasing, but also product correct. This to me is the sign of a great artist, and one who will always be busy.

I think, at this res you uploaded, things like rounded corners on objects and small tweaks like that are playing in the margins. They wont make or break the image. Id get some decent photo reference of local houses of the type of lighting youre trying to match, and constantly refer to those. Even if you have to temporarily match the materials from the reference to get the lighting and contrast correct, then swap the material to the client ones. I do that with car stuff all the time. Ill render the car paint colour of the reference stand in car until I know my lighting is correct and matches the photo. Then Ill change my car paint to whatever the client wants, but I know my lighting is correct.

I do think some of the trees in from of the house dont help compositionaly. That cluster right in the middle feels weird to me, and Id use the trees more to frame the house rather than obscure it. The blacks in your pine trees next to the photo ones also show your shots overall contrast is a bit off, so Id use that as a guide also.

[glorybound]

I use Evermotion trees for the most part. iTrees, are good, but to tell you the truth, anything built within the last few years are good.

https://evermotion.org/shop/search/0/trees
https://icube3d.com/models/itrees.html

[OPEN_RANGE]

Thanks for the links to tree suggestions. I'm going to find the time to get a few better young to medium age aspens set up for use. Not sure I will be able to include them in this rendering.

Many thanks to all of you accomplished people who have taken time to post your helpful comments! This forum and this type of feedback has been indispensable to me.

I used to add a linear curves adjust to exterior renderings. I have recently switched to using the camera raw filter "clarity" and "de-haze". I have added back the linear curves adjustment and I think that may help with addressing some of your feedback. I google "color grading" and it seems to have a wide variety of meanings. Including curves adjustments.

Re-stating, the landscape trees and shrubs are +/- following a landscape plan re: species and location. This has to be more or less similar to the landscape plan or the review board will question it, which the architect does not want. I adjust from plan somewhat for clarity of building.

Regarding my clients. In this case and in most of my projects, the architect/clients/etc are generally a pleasure to work with. I try to present the best I can initially and if they want adjustments I make them. Occasionally a client demands some stuff I don't care for or gets fixated on some insignificant issue, I have learned to better tolerate that. I have probably gotten frustrated and alienated a client or two in the past, I always felt bad about letting that happen. IOW - It's generally not the clients who are influencing the overall, I take responsibility. Also, unfortunately, once they have seen a rendering and like it all, it can be risky to change or "improve" anything after that. Try harder on next one, etc.

I will post an update soon. Thanks again for all your valuable and inspirational help!

[luisgamino2]

Just the last words Open range


Try to be honest to yourself, You already know that You have been loading some renders that dont have Quality.

Time is for that, to get better and better and dont Say to your self ok i got paid and everything is fine.



First start with that, if Your client is satisfied with that work well that is fine for him, but try to improve for Yourself as a renderist.

If he told You use that materials, well take your time to find a Nice material to Match the one that your client showed to You, but find a material with Quality, that textures that You showed to us are a really bad textures.

That textures looks really horrible!!! The stone and the wood

In My work Open range if a wall doesnt has a Nice texture or the wall needs an adjustment sometimes in a real house i knock down a wall. I paid for that!!! If i did a mistake. architecs should be like painters and writers with the posibility to change something in the building.

Sometimes when i finished to build a house for a client i kept watching the house to see if i can do some small changes in order to produce a better work.

I'm going to publish My work here in the gallery forum, but this time i'm not going to upload the photos that i took from My Bad cel i'm going to upload the render, i don't care what glorybound and others users said, i take My time to do My work, weeks or Even months

I believe there is nothing Bad to be brutal honest, i always prefer to Say the truth Even if sometimes people don't like it.

Those images that i uploaded some days ago are not the best renders and they are photos from an old cel, but the next time i'm going to show the Best renders that i have.


I can Match what ever work i have seen here (glorybound, francomacko, seandunderdale along with others...!!!) Also using vray gpu for sketchup not 3d max and maya.

I work more like an artist Open range, since i design and render what i'm going to build.

House and the render should get the same Quality, i do both with pasión and energy, i don't think in money and at the end of time i get money too.

And sorry to Say that as an artist, architec and a renderist i hope You understand that those images that You have been uploading are not a great job and really needs an improve.

Be always true to yourself this is the first step, i have been using vray for sketchup for almost 15 years, i know how the software works.

Give me a week to show My Best work here. You are going to like it.

A universal architecture!!!

I hope You take it in the Best way... Always keep pushing your skills Even if You got a Lot of money.


Cheers Open range!!!

[francomanko]

I can Match what ever work i have seen here (glorybound, francomacko, seandunderdale along with others...!!!) Also using vray gpu for sketchup not 3d max and maya.

thats us told then...