Traditional Media is the New Black (and you know how great you look in black)
Once a decision has been made that a color rendering is required, then the final choice is between watercolor and a 3D computer model. There is relevant history that puts this decision in context, and several technical considerations that often guide recommendations.
History
Around 2001, 3D computer models gained new traction in the world of architectural renderings.
Art school digital media departments were releasing new graduates in large numbers who were truly competent with cutting edge tools. From the late 1980s until this time, it was possible (though often difficult or expensive) to find the highly-skilled, professional-level resources necessary for 3D work. After 2001 the talent pool became commoditized and the cost for service went way down. Part of this was the maturity of the software tools available as of that time.
A few years on, a visit to a sales center or real estate convention or event looked very different. In the late 1990s most artwork was still being rendered in traditional media. By the middle of the next decade that was no longer so. The trend went to such a degree that marketers depending on the new media for their brand presence found themselves lost in a sea of similar images. The pendulum swung back.
Recent Activity
Starting in 2006, our clients began to request traditional media once again as a clear preference. The reason was easy to understand. Preparing a tradeshow booth knowing that there would be a long row of exhibitors with flat screens and digital images, our clients saw the opportunity to create a point of difference with an “art gallery” booth presentation all in traditional media had become very attractive. This became reflected in sales centers, websites and printed materials, as well.
Today’s Decision
Recommendations for rendering style, media and perspective should always key on Purpose and Use. The driving factor for planning must always be purchasing enough artwork to accomplish the marketing goal – and no more. So, once the decision to go with color has been made, what guides the final decision for watercolor vs 3D?
Let’s get the little ones out of the way, and save the big one for last…
Use
If the image is for a presentation or strictly sales materials, it may guide our recommendation. We have found that for initial funding presentations, zoning or historic preservation approvals, etc watercolor has a higher success rate in conveying the message intended by the presenter.
The use may be for a 30 foot wide roadside billboard, or a 10 inch wide image in a brochure, or a two inch wide element in a newsprint ad, the same content may require different treatments to be effective. Watercolor, for example, never plays well in newsprint – especially small.
Context and Preference
If a property is selling high tech, then that may be enough reason to select a 3D computer rendering. In the context of fiber optics, coded wifi, switching stations, remote access, and other “smart-building” features it may just make more sense to have a high-tech graphic style.
Another context is brand continuity. If all the other existing marketing materials are photographic or previous 3D products, then a marketing manager may feel they have no choice but to keep to as photo-realistic an image as possible for anything new.
Even for completely new organization just establishing a brand, the big-picture decisions about the rest of a campaign may lead to a decision that 3D just fits better.
Do not discount the importance of “I just like it!” as a legitimate reason. Ultimately, the person who has to use the sales tools must believe in them to be effective. If there is a clear personal preference, then that is enough.
Exterior vs Interior
As a general rule, 3D is better than watercolor for interiors. Especially for high-end finishes including detailed materials, fixtures, etc there is too much lost to the media to allow watercolor to be an effective choice. The exception would be where a key interior design feature are the windows and the view from the property. We have seen clients decide that they want watercolor because they prefer the view out the window to be painted rather than built up from a 3D model library of landscape elements.
Cost
Hopefully no one is surprised that the big factor is cost. The additional explanation required here depends, again, on purpose and use, context and content.
Here are the factors affecting cost:
- Number of unique architectural details
- Single image or several renderings from different points of view
- Building only, or with environmental treatment
- One-time use, or need for iterative versions
- New construction or renovation
Number of unique architectural details
While it is normally true that 3D computer models are more expensive to create than any traditional media, there is an exception that proves the rule. If the content is a typical single family home, then watercolor will always be the more affordable choice, apples-to-apples.
However…
If the content has several of the same building on a site, or if it is a single large building with a large number of repeating elements, then it is possible to leverage the digital technology into a cost advantage. For example, a 20-story office tower might have hundreds of windows, but they are all the same window. In this case, the traditional artist still must render each element – each window – one at a time in painstaking detail. For the 3D computer tech, it is a simple copy-and-paste operation and there is no concern about consistency and continuity between each instance. 3D is a better and less expensive choice.
Now a 3-story brownstone with a lot of historically significant and unique architectural details will be a much more expensive 3D model – even though it is a small fraction of the size in the real world.
Single image or several renderings from different points of view
The other main advantage of working in the computer is that the artist can spin the model around inside its virtual space and render out additional views as separate renderings for a trivial additional cost. In traditional media, there is no economy of scale with additional views because the artist must begin from scratch with each new image and no time or production is saved. The contrast is extreme here.
There have been many cases where a client’s initial request was for watercolor elevations, and multiple streetscape and/or aerial views. We are able to offer a digital solution in this situation that may be HALF the cost of the rendering package compared to traditional media.
Building only, or with environmental treatment
Environmental details can significantly expand the Scope of Work, and depending on the requirement they can influence the recommendation toward either traditional or digital media. The difference will always come down to number of unique elements and how much is found within existing image libraries vs requiring the creation of original elements.
One-time use, or need for iterative versions
The other main place where we leverage the digital media is when the reason for the artwork is for use as a planning tool. Then the facility for easy editing and iterative versioning gains its greatest importance and 3D is the only choice. This particular job just can’t be done with traditional media.
New construction or renovation
Another service that is exclusive to 3D work is the photo-edit demonstration of a renovation or addition. We have frequently reduced the artwork budget to a small fraction of the original request through creating the renovated element as a 3D computer model, adjusting lighting etc and then incorporating this new element into an existing digital photograph. The result is a sometimes startlingly realistic before-and-after image set that can be very effective when making decisions about this type of construction.
Visit us online at architecturalart.com
Initiate a new job, or send a request to: inquiry@architecturalart.com
Follow our tweets at twitter.com/archit_art
