As an example of how we use this process to evolve our designs, this was a rendering that was prepared earlier on in our design process. When comparing this early image to the more current version above it, we were able to easily convey to the client the opportunity that was presenting itself at the front entry. Subsequently, a port cochere was created and an outdoor terrace added above it. All we had to do was create the images and they basically explained their value to the client all by themselves.
The main consideration here is that scale, proportion, materiality – all of it, is conveyed in a manner that does not require everyone to have 3D visualization skills. One of the items that I will admittedly confess to not originally thinking about, is just how effective this can be when focusing on the interior spaces.
I went digging back through our previous meeting presentations and found a few that focused in on one of the bedrooms. Again, we were discussing the use of a fireplace versus a wood-burning stove. The other consideration was the built-in cabinetry that’s just off to the right. This was an unprogrammed feature for this room but we felt that it was an important addition to the space.
When you use photo-realistic images, sometimes the conversation can focus on the materials used in the rendering that are not intended to be the finished product. For example, the stone texture we used to map onto the walls in these images is the right size and shape, but the color is off … and the client not surprisingly focused on this material and we had to explain that this was not the stone that we would be using. The same holds true for things like cabinet panel profiles, cabinet pulls, door hardware, etc. We do not have the time to model these sorts of items and maintain a) the production timeline, or b) our fee. We could model them but we can’t absorb that sort of time within the framework of our billing without charging for it … which kind of defeats the point in using these images the first place.