Hell´s Kitchen Loft

[jarrys]

Here is my entry to Evermotions 2011 Interior Competition.
I got first prize

My interior was based on Hell´s Kitchen Loft by "Smith - Miller & Hawkinson Architects". All models were made by me, except the desk lamp (by tolas) and books (source unknown).
Textures: cgtextures.com
Artwork: Antoni Tapies

[



German.

[PsychoSilence]

Amazing renderings! Great sense of realism with the lighting.

[tricky]

Fabulous detail. It might as well be real! Texturing is really nice and I think possible (for me) the thing that makes the images. Its a strange thing what we do sometimes. Taking photos of cardboard boxes (for example) with all the 'this way up' type logos and then applying them to a 3d cube in Max just seems a bit...wrong. I can't put my finger on it without sounding rude, but it seems a bit...well...pointless. Deconstructing a cardboard box (or a book, or a paint pot etc) in the real world only to reconstruct it within the computer. Of course its going to look real because it is made from real photos of real things.

Does anyone know what I mean?

Apart from that, how did you 'place' all your paint brushes? I always find that kind of thing time consuming and difficult so that they don't intersect eachother.

[MoonDoggie]

Everything in our career is fake. I make fake things, for real people to convince them fake things are real.

[3ddesign]

[QUOTE=tricky;520486]Deconstructing a cardboard box (or a book, or a paint pot etc) in the real world only to reconstruct it within the computer. Of course its going to look real because it is made from real photos of real things.

Does anyone know what I mean?
QUOTE]

Yes, it means you're a 3D purist like I used to be. Then I figured out that my renderings looked better and were created faster and my clients paid me more if I shook off the purist attitude and did whatever it takes to be convincing, even putting the sun on the wrong side of the building. It's the old oils vs. acrylic, film vs. digital, paper vs. plastic; I say, do whatever it takes to get the job done and man, Jarrys got the job done and then some.

[MoonDoggie]

I don't think Tricky was being disparaging or anything, just commenting on the strange state of the things we do.

[mmikee]

Just awesome work . How long did it take to complete ?

Regards,
Mike

[jarrys]

PsychoSilence: Thanks!
Tricky: PF + physics.
3ddesign Thanks man!
mmikee: 25/30 days working 2 - 3hs per day (free time)

[oligophant]

i like your images german, congrats on your win

buen trabajo, un saludo.

[tricky]

[QUOTE=3ddesign;520495]

Deconstructing a cardboard box (or a book, or a paint pot etc) in the real world only to reconstruct it within the computer. Of course its going to look real because it is made from real photos of real things.

Does anyone know what I mean?
QUOTE]

Yes, it means you're a 3D purist like I used to be. Then I figured out that my renderings looked better and were created faster and my clients paid me more if I shook off the purist attitude and did whatever it takes to be convincing, even putting the sun on the wrong side of the building. It's the old oils vs. acrylic, film vs. digital, paper vs. plastic; I say, do whatever it takes to get the job done and man, Jarrys got the job done and then some.

I think you miss my point as I'm not talking about being 'pure' about anything.

Its amazing what we (well, you lot anyway!) can achieve these days. Stunning. The point, though, that I am trying to make is similar to the reasoning behind my dislike of the animated film, Beowulf (2007). I tried to watch it but I couldn't get the nagging doubt out of my head which asked: "What is the point of all this? They might as well use live actors for most of the shots rather than getting live actors to (try and) act in a bluescreen environment, only to then have them recreated digitally (and painstakingly) afterwards.". Of course, much of the monster type portions of the film call for CG animation.

The images you have created are highly realistic. As I said in my initial comment, they might as well be real photographs. However, would you go and shoot photographs like this and hang them on you wall? This is a seperate point, and highly subjective. Whilst they are beautifully rendered, are they beautiful? I will say again that this point is subjective, and you might just enjoy the still-life qualities of the images, and indeed hang them on your wall. No doubt the brief for the competition was to create the most realistic, detailed interior renders possible. On this you have entirely succeeded and are a worthy winner. I could take quite a few lessons from you I think!

[tricky]

Tricky: PF + physics.

Need to look into that!

[sewer]

Hello
Great render Jarrys
sorry for my question but what does "PF" ?

Best regards
s

[Neilg]

Particle flow.

Really nice work! it's pretty much flawless.
I'd have liked to see a wider shot to give the details a bit more context though.

[tricky]

I'd have liked to see a wider shot to give the details a bit more context though.

Agreed. You mention the architect, but we don't really see the architecture.
Fabulous clutter though

[jarrys]

The main shot is not finish, the composition is not the best, dof is incorrect, etc! but here goes anyway

W.I.P thread http://www.evermotion.org/vbulletin/...ad.php?t=85732






German