Archviz post production

Hier findet man Beispielbilder
Here you can find sample images
Juan
Mitglied
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu 06 Oct 2011 08:08

Archviz post production

Post by Juan » Thu 25 Jun 2020 15:09

Hi all,

I wanted to show you my latest personal project, inspired by a photograph found in Pinterest.
Hope you like it :).


RAW LowRes:
Raw_LOW.jpg

Edited LowRes:
Edited_LOW.jpg

Here is the layer stack:
Layers.JPG

Here you can find the HiRes images:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoMv8bCdXlOduynBGvD ... A?e=IvwMhP
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoMv8bCdXlOduyrpj6- ... N?e=hxmt9F

Cheers,
Juan
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
der_fotograf
Mitglied
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2016 08:33

Re: Archviz post production

Post by der_fotograf » Fri 26 Jun 2020 07:15

The term »Archviz« means that this is not a photograph, but a computer rendering.

Though I can't see the large versions due to my strict browser settings, I can see that the shadow on the wall at the top has a blue tone, while at the bottom next to the bathtub a red tone. That is not logical and pretty contradictory — in this specific scene you can have only one single shade in the radiosity. There is only one single light source: the window. One single light source can only have one single color, not two. In addition, you have added a wet spot in the wall next to the shower — an architect wouldn't be amused, because this would tell him that there is a leak somewhere in the piping or that the plaster is not waterproof.

Too many layers — for what?
--------------------------------------------
Nur wenige wissen, wie viel man wissen muss, um zu wissen, wie wenig man weiss.
— Werner Heisenberg

gerryW
Mitglied
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun 01 Apr 2018 17:27

Re: Archviz post production

Post by gerryW » Fri 26 Jun 2020 08:19

Nachträgliches herumbasteln in der Bildbearbeitung ist immer die schlechtere Lösung.

Man sollte am Anfang beginnen, also beim fotografieren. Den Raum richtig ausleuchten usw.
Wenn man den Auslöser drückt muss das Bild, so gut wie möglich, fertig sein.

Wenn man einfach drauf los knipst und am Ende anfängt rum zu wurschteln kommt selten was Gutes bei raus - wie man sieht. Und mehr Arbeit und Zeit kostet es auch.

User avatar
dutchman
Mitglied
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu 21 Nov 2002 18:46
Location: 72793 Pfullingen

Re: Archviz post production

Post by dutchman » Fri 26 Jun 2020 21:10

Hi Juan,
I like it... Beyond reality... That's my thing.
You don't wanna sell this pic... It's an example. IT IS YOUR IDEA OF SEEING THINGS IN YOUR PERSONAL WAY.
Very nice idea with the wet spot on the wall. It was already there... but you brought the spot more visible.
Der Fotograf (his eyes seems to be better than an eagle) is right in terms of color. BTW...
No bother at all on my side. It don't cares, as long as the pic is for you!
Why didn't you make a B/W pic? And only the wooden "bath-bridge" could you turn(or leave) in a kind of brownish. Mask it in.
And make the shadows darker and the lights brighter... Try it.
Very nice job, because image editing extends the way of looking to a particular image.
It doesn't matter real or surreal. Editing makes the different... Both ways are good. Pics that take your eyes to things that never were there... till now.
Salvador Dalí, one of the most popular surrealistic painters ever and creator of the melting clocks! Ever saw a melting clock in your live?
Great, I wanna see more of your artistic work here.
If it IS a rendered image indeed... MUCH MORE OF MY RESPECT... 4,9 out of 5.
If it is an image (You wrote RAW-format... I guess from a camera?) 4.5 out of 5.
Do your best! Thumbs UP!
Best regards
Dutchman

Juan
Mitglied
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu 06 Oct 2011 08:08

Re: Archviz post production

Post by Juan » Wed 29 Jul 2020 10:17

Sorry for the very late response, I had a lot of work.

Thank you all for your comments.
der_fotograf wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 07:15
The term »Archviz« means that this is not a photograph, but a computer rendering.
Yes, I haven't tried to say the opposite. A image editor software can be used for so many things, not only for photograph.

der_fotograf wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 07:15
in this specific scene you can have only one single shade in the radiosity
There is a light bulb on the ceiling but out of frame that gives that tone, about 2500 ~ 3000 K

der_fotograf wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 07:15
In addition, you have added a wet spot in the wall next to the shower — an architect wouldn't be amused, because this would tell him that there is a leak somewhere in the piping or that the plaster is not waterproof.
That's why the HiRES picture, there are some wet steps on the floor indicating that someone had just gone to shower. Telling a story here, that's why the image is called after shower. This is a personal image not for a real state one.

der_fotograf wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 07:15
Too many layers — for what?
Pretty normal and standard in 3D rendering... and this is one that has very little amount of layers, just do some internet search about render layer passes in Photoshop and you will be amazed. Even, in real state photography the people use many layers to mask and paint light and combine different pictures with flashes all around the rooms and in the exteriors.

gerryW wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 08:19
Nachträgliches herumbasteln in der Bildbearbeitung ist immer die schlechtere Lösung.
Danke?

gerryW wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 08:19
Man sollte am Anfang beginnen, also beim fotografieren. Den Raum richtig ausleuchten usw.
Wenn man den Auslöser drückt muss das Bild, so gut wie möglich, fertig sein.
As I stated this is NOT a photograph. The work behind a render image is huge is not only press the shutter button... if that was the case everybody could do it.
You have to create the 3D models in a way that looks realistic with imperfections and control the 3D mesh so you don't overload your scene with extra polygons that will prevent it from rendering the scene. Then sculpting for some other parts and again, when sculpting you need to take care of the amount of polygons, then decimate the mesh and watching closely that the UV textures are not distorted by it.
After that the illumination and control the amount of render time and noise generated by the render engine, so you need to start putting fill lights to speed up the render and avoid extra noise, this requires crazy amount of test renders.
Then the materials... look in internet a nice texture image, then making them tileable to avoid obvious repetitions. After that you have to think how much reflective the material is and create a back and white image for that, then the roughness, displacement and normal maps, all this are derivated form one single picture that is taken from internet and so on.

I'm not planning to give here a masterclass or tutorial on how to create a 3D image..

gerryW wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 08:19
Wenn man einfach drauf los knipst und am Ende anfängt rum zu wurschteln kommt selten was Gutes bei raus - wie man sieht. Und mehr Arbeit und Zeit kostet es auch.
Above I explained it by touching the surface only, not going through that again. Just do some research about how to create the final render in post production.

dutchman wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 21:10
I like it... Beyond reality... That's my thing.
Thank you so much. :)

dutchman wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 21:10
You don't wanna sell this pic... It's an example. IT IS YOUR IDEA OF SEEING THINGS IN YOUR PERSONAL WAY.
Exactly, just a personal job here.

dutchman wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 21:10
Why didn't you make a B/W pic? And only the wooden "bath-bridge" could you turn(or leave) in a kind of brownish. Mask it in.
And make the shadows darker and the lights brighter... Try it.
That's a great idea, I will try it when I get a little bit of time and post here the result.

dutchman wrote:
Fri 26 Jun 2020 21:10
If it IS a rendered image indeed... MUCH MORE OF MY RESPECT... 4,9 out of 5.
If it is an image (You wrote RAW-format... I guess from a camera?) 4.5 out of 5.
Thanks, is just that in 3D we talk about the raw image that it comes straight out from the render engine which is never ever perfect.
So I will take the 4,9 out of 5 :lol:


Cheers,
Juan