Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Over the last few years I've been putting more time and effort (and $) into bringing 3D modeling (Rhino) and rendering (MR) into my architectural design workflow. Although the clients value the multiple "clay" 3D images in the conceptual design phase, I've received very lackluster responses from them as well as other design professionals when I show either WIP or completed Maxwell Render images that I'm quite enthusiastic about. The prevailing attitude seems to be that they would rather see a hand-generated render, even if much poorer quality, than a well done photoreal image. I saw this also in Rusteberg's thread in the WIP of the Church Project where the client wrote "It would be nice if photo realism could be toned down some for softer water color effect".

This frankly has me quite disconcerted. So far I've only shown the clients standard USA letter size (8 1/2" x 11") images on photo paper. I don't know if my locale is a factor (mid/south USA), or if it's the clientele (traditional custom residential), or if it's a fairly universal reluctance to accept computer generated photo realistic images even if done very well.

What kind of responses are you all getting (probably would apply to architectural type projects)?

Joe

On a similar note -- I submitted a Wolverine (the superhero) cover that I had sculpted/rendered to an editor I was talking to at Marvel Comics and he said it looked too CG and rejected it... I took the exact same render and ran a blur filter on it and quickly drew some lines on top of it and sent it back and he thought it was the best thing I had ever sent him.

I knew then he was an idiot and simply biased against CG... I have outstanding "hand-rendering" skills in nearly every conceivable medium, if I wanted to produce a drawing/painting I would have submitted a drawing/painting.

I tried a few more CG pieces with him but he finally told me point blank that he wasn't going to accept any CG work from me and I should do more peices like the Wolverine cover

BTW, this was the last thing I sent him (Silver Surfer)


Now, I was willing to walk away from that relationship and I know that it is not so easy for others to do so... and actually at the time it was quite a blow, but that is how I ended up getting this video gig so it all worked out in the end.

Ironically my passion is real painting (Watercolor, Oils, Egg Tempera, etc) and while people are impressed by those skills what they really want is digi-paint (Painter, Photoshop, etc)... I have no idea why they say they want something that looks like a watercolor, the painting programs cannot replicate the complexity and richness of real paint and only come off as a poor imitation.

I'm not against Painter or Photoshop per se -- but if I had a choice of owning something done in oils versus something painted in "digi-oils" I would go with the real thing every time. The advantage of digital to me is simply speed and flexibility and 3D simply takes that flexibility to the next level.

I have no idea why people seem to want a crappier final product -- it may be a lack of refined taste in the same way that it amazes me that people gobble down McDonalds food.

Best,
Jason.

There was a software to do exactly what your clients wanted called Piranesi -- but they seemed to have taken it off the market late last month.

Best,
Jason.

The watercolor portrait painting below I did about 10 yrs ago but have done only a couple for architecture. Can't put my finger on why I have not done more watercolor hand renders which almost universally get raving reviews....might be partly some kind of addiction to cg, and large part the ability to edit/make changes (which occur often) without having to do a complete re-paint.

I actually have a copy of Piranesi but ended up getting similar responses to photo-realism....the clients KNEW it was not hand done. I liked them

Very nice portrait -- I could see that style going over very well, but it would cost more and take longer... my stuff varies alot but here's a recent watercolor piece.



There's no way I could tolerate a client asking for changes after completing a watercolor -- so digital it is for commercial work and if they don't like it tough

Here's a Maxwell render fed through the auto painting system in Corel Painter -- it won't fool too many people but shows where the technology will be headed towards.






Best,
Jason.

In the end, the lack of an artist, can never be made up by any renderapplication or SL. Even when its as simple as taking a photograph, you still need to have the eye of a photographer, the talent of a designer or mind of a poet to make people feel the mood. I find the work of Alex Roman very inspiring for that matter http://www.thirdseventh.com/index.php?/ ... he-detail/ and its just biased rendering...

The time spend modeling, rendering and post processing often absorbs the time needed to provide for atmosphere, mood and distance to dismiss less good work.
Francois

http://www.mediachance.com/dap/index.html

I hadn't seen that one before -- thanks!

Best,
Jason.

Yep, that should shut them up -- I like it. Fast, easy, and flexible... everything you want in a production environment.



As a painter I could choose to feel threatened by this, but from my POV it just frees me from the drudgery of having to slave over the clients whims and I can be free to have time to work on what I want.

Besides technology marches on, and being afraid of change leads to obsolescence.

Best,
Jason.

Glad to help

I give my customers two options usally, photoreal-ish or "paint-ish". Ive used Auto Painter several times and have had happy customers. So it works well enough i think.

Chris.

Chris Krüger wrote:Glad to help

I give my customers two options usally, photoreal or "paint-ish". Ive used Auto Painter several times and have had happy customers. So it works well enough i think.

Chris.

interesting one-click-ish app.
while trying the trial it seems that the calculations happen on one single core.
can you tell, is this a trial-restriction or does this software in fact not use multiple cores?
i have not been able to find s.th. releted in the documentation.
thx.

Not for Mac.... seem to see that more and more. I think I should invest in a Windows version and bootcamp my 8core.
tx Francois

If i read my task manager right it uses all available cpu cores.

Chris.

fv wrote:Not for Mac.... seem to see that more and more. I think I should invest in a Windows version and bootcamp my 8core.
tx Francois

There's always Snap Art

http://www.alienskin.com/snapart/

Chris Krüger wrote:If i read my task manager right it uses all available cpu cores.

Chris.

hm... here, it's about 15% that's being used.
and you use the licensed version or are you talking about the trial as well?