Archer

[glorybound]

It turned out pretty good. I forgot a pass that I needed for the grass, so this is straight from MAX. I waited a month for colors and ended up getting a short list of colors, like gray, dark gray, light gray .



Anyway, I'll probably now get a whole list of very specific things; you know how it goes.

[glorybound]

Yep, now the information comes in. They insisted I use their photographers backdrop, which isn't very good. I told him that I'll have to use the photo as a guide to illuminate the scene, and the photo is pretty dark, overcast, and grainy.

[Morne]

We'll Bobby all I can say is that you have a reputation to uphold. This image comes out with THAT backdrop, and your credibility goes down a few notches.

Maybe it will look better if you do a camera match?

[glorybound]

What, you don't like it I specifically told him, from day one, that the background image quality is important. I told him that the angle, time of day, and quaility will dictate the rendering. This is what his "photographer came up with".

[joconnell]

Fair enough on the quality but it's your job to make sure that the angle of your camera suits the photo you've been given - you can't change the photo but you can change your render camera - you'll get a far more natural result if you do that rather than showing up a client who doesn't understand.

[glorybound]

I was given a site plan, with an arrow, showing where the photo was taken. Apparently, the house is on a hill that drops off in the back, hence the tree tops peaking over the backyard.

[joconnell]

I getcha - once your render feels like it's using the same horizon line as the background - the buildings that are in the vertical middle on the left side of the photo have flat lines on their roofs so we appear to be level with them - the lines of your building are sloping downwards since we're below and looking up at them - the two aren't really matching here by eye unfortunately. For it to work you'll have to change your camera a bit.

[Neilg]

Your horizon lines are miles off.
This is the difference between them -

[glorybound]

I just found out the the photo was taken from the 3rd floor deck, in the back of the house. The owner called the photography, asking why the quality is so low and to conferm that the photo was taken from the mark on the site plan. Maybe, time for a new photographer . We'll see what happens. I have 4 of these jobs, sitting and waiting for the client to figure things out on their end. it causes havoc on cash flow.

[add101]

The perspective doesn't seem to match the background. Can you establish a vanishing point on the photo?
Perspective match could help https://knowledge.autodesk.com/suppo...1689C-htm.html but it's more tricky because the buildings are further/smaller in photo. I find using the lock 2d pan zoom for the viewport helps when aligning the reference lines.

[mikeh]

Nothing can help that design except a redesign. Doesn't matter how good the render is.
mh

[tricky]

Nothing can help that design except a redesign. Doesn't matter how good the render is.
mh

I think the owner must be the CEO of a metal cladding company

[glorybound]

I sent several followups, asking for a higher resoution image, and I finally got a reply.

"This is great - totally works" So, I guess that they are happy with a bad rendering.

[joconnell]

The problem is it's work with your name on it. Fair enough you're in the right that someone supplied you with a photo which doesn't work but it's your rendering which is using the incorrect camera for the plate - no one will know that the client supplied the wrong angle, they'll just see your render and either feel there's something wrong with it or if they know anything about cg assume you didn't know how to match the camera properly.

It's the client's fault totally but your standards that have to be maintained!

[glorybound]

Totally agree, however, they paid me for an image and I have to give it to them. I slapped the image in the back, to show the owner that the picture isn't high enough resolution to use, and I did nothing to match it. I wasn't going to spend time using an image that wasn't usable, however, I would have never guessed that they would like it. It is like clients using proofs as finals; there is nothing you can do about it. My first color proofs are usually with low resolution images that tile horribly; I am just making sure things are going in the right direction. I guess this is where a watermark could come in handy and could be a good way to justify having a watermark until you get paid.

The problem is it's work with your name on it. Fair enough you're in the right that someone supplied you with a photo which doesn't work but it's your rendering which is using the incorrect camera for the plate - no one will know that the client supplied the wrong angle, they'll just see your render and either feel there's something wrong with it or if they know anything about cg assume you didn't know how to match the camera properly.

It's the client's fault totally but your standards that have to be maintained!