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]

@tricky

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]

@3ddesign

@tricky

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]

@jarrys

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]

@cubiclegangster

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 Evermotion - 3d models store, 3d assets, scenes, PBR materials, cg news and tutorials

German

[jarrys]

@oligophant

i like your images german, congrats on your win

buen trabajo, un saludo.

Gracias oligophant.

[jarrys]

Thanks Tricky!
cubiclegangster, sewer… thanks guys!

[greysheep5]

@tricky

@3ddesign

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!

not a comment on this wonderful series of perfectly realistic renderings, they are amazingly real, but more a general thought…

i can imagine exactly how you feel about that tricky, as i have this feeling too.

let´s put it that way. for me there is no point in blank realism in renderings if they don´t follow the same principles good photographers use to make great photos. there is a certain skill in all this, a very high skill in computer graphics i might add, but besides that as you already said, i would never hang a picture of that on my wall if it were a photo. well ok i wouldn´t hang a rendering i am doing on my wall either, but that´s a different story. i guess if an architectural photographer would visit this loft in real to shoot it, the output would look very different.

so architectural rendering of this fashion, for me, has to be more like real photography and videography to kind of have a right to exist in an artistic way. but as tricky already said, that´s highly subjective and besides the point of those evermotion contests.

many of the images seen on the evermotion website lack this artistic sense, they are hyper-real but don´t have any meaningful purpose. no good composition, no story to tell, whatsoever…

i am often asking myself, who want´s to see a closeup shot of the first stair of an outdoor stairflight with the adjacent border of a stoney floor and some moss, dirt and grass? and maybe a garbage bin or mailbox next to it, and have the camera tilted in a strange way like in car commercial shoots when you are at it? even and more because all this may look like a bloody photo, would you make a photo like that in real life? this may have more to do with being proud about how beautiful and photoreal one can render than about having an artistic value…

for architectural photography and rendering to be good it also never hurts to have the architectural background i guess, which for example many of the better real architectural photographers and visualization companys have. one example that stands out for me with more realistic images is peter guthrie, but he has not only the skills and the personal interest of rendering the absolutly most stunning images, but also it seems the talent and the architectural background to capture the essence of a certain project and not bury it under it´s realism.

archviz in business may most of the time mean to sell ideas and dreams, at least for us it´s that way, often starting with the “selling” of architectural concepts when there is not more than a few 2d autocad schemes and paper scribbles. and most architects we know also don´t want us to put dirtmaps on their shiny and not even built structures, nor they want decals on - or even cardboard boxes in general - they have to spend money on if we model them. so there is no real point in photorealism there too, for us, as this all is very subjective… so maybe because of that i have my point of view, i may see this more of a job to do for a certain client than my personal hobby, which of course it kinda also is (because we all know CG is time consuming to master).

edit: and from what i can see on your website, you master it all jarrys! and i like your company´s other architectural renderings and competition designs more than this stuff you did for evermotion…

but it´s all a matter of personal taste of course. personally i tend to more like archviz companys like MIR, luxigon and artefactory which produce more arty dreamlike images than the realism of the perfect remodeled classic house on cgtalk or evermotion.

ok, enough said…

best regards,

christoph.

[flino2004]

I really like the quality of the renderings…they are very realistic!!
in this case, texturing would be in my opinion 80% of those renderings…lighting is realistic but so far dealing with only ambient light is much easier to get realistic images than direct light…it’s a constant for almost all the interiors that I’ve seen lately.
excellet job!!!

Fernando

[tricky]

@greysheep5

@tricky

not a comment on this wonderful series of perfectly realistic renderings, they are amazingly real, but more a general thought…

i can imagine exactly how you feel about that tricky, as i have this feeling too.

let´s put it that way. for me there is no point in blank realism in renderings if they don´t follow the same principles good photographers use to make great photos. there is a certain skill in all this, a very high skill in computer graphics i might add, but besides that as you already said, i would never hang a picture of that on my wall if it were a photo. well ok i wouldn´t hang a rendering i am doing on my wall either, but that´s a different story. i guess if an architectural photographer would visit this loft in real to shoot it, the output would look very different.

so architectural rendering of this fashion, for me, has to be more like real photography and videography to kind of have a right to exist in an artistic way. but as tricky already said, that´s highly subjective and besides the point of those evermotion contests.

many of the images seen on the evermotion website lack this artistic sense, they are hyper-real but don´t have any meaningful purpose. no good composition, no story to tell, whatsoever…

i am often asking myself, who want´s to see a closeup shot of the first stair of an outdoor stairflight with the adjacent border of a stoney floor and some moss, dirt and grass? and maybe a garbage bin or mailbox next to it, and have the camera tilted in a strange way like in car commercial shoots when you are at it? even and more because all this may look like a bloody photo, would you make a photo like that in real life? this may have more to do with being proud about how beautiful and photoreal one can render than about having an artistic value…

for architectural photography and rendering to be good it also never hurts to have the architectural background i guess, which for example many of the better real architectural photographers and visualization companys have. one example that stands out for me with more realistic images is peter guthrie, but he has not only the skills and the personal interest of rendering the absolutly most stunning images, but also it seems the talent and the architectural background to capture the essence of a certain project and not bury it under it´s realism.

archviz in business may most of the time mean to sell ideas and dreams, at least for us it´s that way, often starting with the “selling” of architectural concepts when there is not more than a few 2d autocad schemes and paper scribbles. and most architects we know also don´t want us to put dirtmaps on their shiny and not even built structures, nor they want decals on - or even cardboard boxes in general - they have to spend money on if we model them. so there is no real point in photorealism there too, for us, as this all is very subjective… so maybe because of that i have my point of view, i may see this more of a job to do for a certain client than my personal hobby, which of course it kinda also is (because we all know CG is time consuming to master).

edit: and from what i can see on your website, you master it all jarrys! and i like your company´s other architectural renderings and competition designs more than this stuff you did for evermotion…

but it´s all a matter of personal taste of course. personally i tend to more like archviz companys like MIR, luxigon and artefactory which produce more arty dreamlike images than the realism of the perfect remodeled classic house on cgtalk or evermotion.

ok, enough said…

best regards,

christoph.

I think we are definately sharing the same opinion here, and you put it better than I. We ‘try’ to add real elements such as dirt/muck/scattered leaves/warped refelections/pigeons etc to our images, but more often than not, they get pulled because the client wants something perfect (in his/her opinion).

They pay the bills - who am I to argue?

I heard a funny line on TV the other day:
“If less is more, imagine how much better ‘more’ would be!”