Shadow and Light

[glorybound]

So, I must have had my feelings hurt, or something. I am working on an exterior architectural illustration and I mocked up a gray scale render, showing the view, and showing the composition. I have the entrance in light, sitting nicely on the bottom right third. The door is set back and dark, so it makes for nice contrast to draw the viewer into the house. The garage is about 30 degrees off the main front, so I have that in slight shadow; the sun is over my right shoulder. Also, I have more sky than foreground, so my horizon is on the lower third.

When I got this project the starchitect said that the owner didn't like the renderings they were giving her, so based on my portfolio they want me to do it. He gave me the renders they were doing, and let me tell you, they were bad. Not only where they really low quality, they had no composition. The front door was smack dab in the middle of the scene, horizon was smack dab in the middle of the render, and there was absolutely no contrast. When the architect told me that they want the same everything (view, lens, lighting) I prepared myself for disappointment.

After I send my gray scale proof, the architect said, "never have any of the image in shadow... you never do that!" as if I have no clue what I do. Now, long story short, does anyone have any theory on shadow in composition? Maybe I read it somewhere, or maybe I just like it, but I try to use light/shadow to draw the viewer to where I want them to go. I try to use a rule of thumb 2/3 light, 1/3 shadow, unless I want to break that rule for drama.

If the image looked awesome I would have learned something, but following his lead, it looks bad. It's flat, there is nowhere for the eye to land, and it's terribly boring.

[glorybound]

Here, is the work they do; the work I need to emulate.



Now, he seems to be a good architect, with a good reputation, so I am hoping that I am not the problem. In my mind I decided that, I work for him so do what he wants, but do we want to do bad work even if it pays?

[Bathyscaph]

Looks like a real challenge; I am surprised that an architect wouldn't have a better understanding of the issues involved. For what it's worth, I did a quick image search on Notan, found the most clear example, and that led me to this handy description, maybe it is useful in some way.

http://www.mitchalbala.com/notan/

[glorybound]

great, I'll read it.

[Raven]

Hey Bobby

This is the age old problem we face in our career choice. We seam to be one of the only industries ie. design and animation. where the client feels the need to question years of training and experience. Couldn't find it, but I used to have a very nice comic strip of the same applied to other fields, like medicine and engineering. It really is funny.

I actually have on the odd occasion told a client that they approached us for a reason. If they are not happy with that reason, they can always go somewhere else and I will not hold it against them.

I do find it a little odd that an architect does not understand shape and form, through the use of light and shadow. I would peg that as pretty much the base of all art. Architecture uses it all the time.
Then with regards composition, sticking to the basics of rule of thirds or golden ratio, does he not get that it is from thousands of years of collective experience that artist use these. As they are pleasing to the eye. As you said, unless you are going for something dramatic, but that is achieved by making the viewer "uncomfortable" in some way.

Not sure if any of this could help you sell it to the architect, but it may be worth a shot. As I said, I have had client that I ended up sending on their way, plainly because it would end up costing me more in the end, with them constantly "creative directing"

[andybot_cg]

ask him which of your portfolio renderings he liked - then show him how you composed that image and used shadow... maybe even throw a rule of thirds grid over it too.

[glorybound]

I am meeting with him tomorrow.

I have always been amazed at how some photographers can build a successful business when everyone has access to nice cameras. Is it skill, understanding of composition, or are they just likable people. Everyone has access to a computer, and the software is obtainable. So, to me, it's mastering your craft that gets you work. Or, am I full of myself? Some people would say that we have better software, or more powerful hardware. But, this is only partially true, if true at all. I have seen some nice work out of SketchUP. You can give someone a pencil and paper, but they can't draw anything but a stick figure. I know that drawing isn't a gift from God, but a craft you have to practice to get good at.

Okay... maybe I should find a nice leather couch and hire someone to listen to me rant.

[Morne]

Bobby, you are spot on. I find it everyday where people not doing archviz somehow know better than our years of experience. I hope the project turns out nice and you can convince the client to do what you do best. They obviously hired you because they like your portfolio. You've been doing this for YEARS!
If they now suddenly insist you do things differently (in essence adding an amateur render to your portfolio) is it worth it?
There is stylized art, and then there is "stylized art", then there is just plain junk
Don't sell yourself short!

[Raven]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKor...id=P-yHsaXDEiQ

Got this sent to me today.

[glorybound]

awesome! It made my day!

[glorybound]

Well, the meeting went great! It ended up, after him standing behind me to pick "his" sun angle, it was the exact one I picked. It was nice to talk to an architect who uses words like light balance and focal point. I think we just needed to sniff each other out. Or, maybe he trusts me know because I pulled out my few dozen books on composition, lighting, photography, and put them back on my shelf for him to hopefully see