Just how photo-real should it be? - 3DAllusions

Gebo · #1 (**permalink**) 01-16-2008, 05:09 PM

I'm curious at to what other artists think about just how "real" images should try to be. For example, should you use depth of field to enhance realism or keep everything in focus to show off more of the architects design? Should lighting be true to life or should it be "enhanced" to better accentuate the given project. I've had a client tell me that the sun wouldn't be shining on the building from that direction so I pointed out that if I made it true to life, that side of the building would always be in the shade. He opted to keep the "enhanced" version in order to show off his design.

So what do you folks think? Do your clients like depth of field or the not as real photo_real?

kippu · #2 (**permalink**) 01-16-2008, 05:35 PM

in my opinion i guess its better to show off design rather than go for totally photo real...ultimately you should realise that you are doing this to sell the design and not go for reality ...so its okay to cheat

DOF . lens flare ,vignetting and other "gimmicks" that real world cameras bring out can be used if it brings out the design and the space that you have to visualize and not to show that you can do DOF ...

TheAllusionist · #3 (**permalink**) 01-16-2008, 09:09 PM

I think if you ask an artist, the answer would be that drama should be added, whether it is dramatic lighting, dramatic composition, dramtic POV............... We want to make art!

The Client for archvis is probably going to want photorealistic. Problem is with all the physical cameras and skys, global illumnitaion, almost anyone can produce photorealistic these days. I think the artist that impress us now have a style, the trick is to find a balance that clients will accept and the artist in us will be proud of.