10 Reasons Why Your Render Sucks
Posted on 20. Jan, 2010 by Andrew Price in Articles
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Don’t get me wrong, I love 3d art, I really do. But after spending 7 years scouring the internet for inspiration I’ve become a little bit cynical. Now when I look at 3d art, I only see it’s flaws.
Are my renders perfect? Absolutely not. My portfolio is riddled with flaws. In fact almost every single piece of my artwork violates at least one of these ‘rules’. This article is to share what I’ve learnt as an artist and as an onlooker.
Here’s my top ten pet peeves…
1. There’s no point It doesn’t tell a story, it’s not advertising anything and it’s certainly not pretty. What exactly is the viewer getting from this? Nothing makes me close the window faster than a piece of art with no clear objective.
2. You use pre-made content Stock models are great for studios who want to save time and money by purchasing a pre-made model. But it has absolutely no place in your portfolio. Personally I find no pride in showing someone a render that I haven’t created entirely by myself, but that’s just me. If you don’t know how to model it, why not learn?
3. You’re copying something far more successful I love Wall-E as much as the next guy, but that doesn’t mean I try to mimic what a professional studio has slaved over for years on end. Why? Because unless it’s an uncanny comparison (which it won’t be) viewers will only spot its flaws.
4. You didn’t plan it on paper first It’s easy to tell when an artist failed to put their idea on paper first: it’s a confusing mess. They started with an idea, skipped the planning stage and jumped straight to their 3d program. Most artists cannot model/texture/render in 3d at the same speed as their imagination. The best thing you can do is put it on paper as soon as the idea strikes you, that way you have a reference in 2 weeks time when you’re sitting at your computer and asking, “what was I making again?”.
5. It’s cliche If I see another cave troll or big breasted warrior I’m going to puke. Be original and create something that everyone hasn’t already seen a thousand times.
6. It’s a test render Hey cool, you just got your head around the new array modifier! Don’t post it on the net. Test renders are exactly that. Tests. They are a learning experience that should remain on your hard drive.
7. It’s poorly lit Let me say this once and for all: Dark is not moody. If you want to create a moody atmosphere there are plenty of ways of doing it, but making your scene dimly lit is not one of them. Pick up a copy of Jeremy Birn’s Digital Lighting and Rendering to learn how to light your scene like a pro.
8. You don’t realise it sucks No one likes receiving bad feedback on their artwork, especially after you’ve spent weeks creating it, but to tell the hundreds of posters that they “just don’t understand it” is like throwing salt on the wound. If you want to progress as an artist you need to be able to take critiques on-board and learn from your mistakes.
9. It’s boring architecture Archiviz is great skill to have under your belt. There’s a lot of work available and it pays quite well, but that doesn’t mean it has to be boring and emotionless. Read my post on 20 Architectural renders that break the mold or watch Alex Roman’s amazing short The Third and the Seventh and you’ll pick up dozens of ways to make still architecture interesting.
10. It’s overly post-processed There’s nothing wrong with fixing the colour levels or altering the contrast in Photoshop, but when you start adding filters and chromatic aberration to hide your own incompetencies there’s a problem.
Well that’s me finished, what are your pet peaves?
71 Responses to “10 Reasons Why Your Render Sucks”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
-
22. Jan, 2010
[...] ° Programme / Tools / PlugIns +++ Silo 2.2 Beta +++ 3 Stunden freies V-Ray Video Training +++ Liste der Render-Vauxpas +++ Blender Multifluid Interactions +++ 51 Bangin’ Blender Tutorials +++ Production Instruction [...]
mk
24. Jan, 2010
Word.
muody
24. Jan, 2010
1. “There’s no point” – I agree, that’s often a problem.
2. Maybe. Sometimes it’s better to run a script that generates e.g. gears or trees, instead of trying to show how uber-pro I am by modelling it manually. I use photos of rust and leaks when texturing a model for the same reason. And that’s why my render sucks?
3. Ever heard of a fan-art?
4. If I’m able to finish it, there is no problem.
5. OK, you’re going to puke, I’m not. Using some extremely popular fantasy concept is a good way to show your pure 3D skills, that’s why you can see so many warriors and trolls in people’s portfolios.
6. Good test renders can be more inspiring than many finished scenes. I came across a fantastic Yaf(a)ray volumetrics example yesterday and I’m really someone posted it on the web.
7. “Dark is not moody”, yeah, say it to the makers of Dead Space game or 90% of horror movies.
8. My render sucks because I don’t realise it sucks?
Two last points make sense. But I knew this before reading “10 Reasons”. ;>
“20 Architectural Renders” were inspiring. Positive. Post more things like that, let it be “10 ways you can light your scene better”.
MKR
24. Jan, 2010
Generic vehicles. Posting an intricately detailed car or truck (or person) sitting there doing nothing would be like me posting up a life study drawing. It’s not a finished work of art all on its own. It’s just that: a study.
Make it do something, or I’m not going to care about it. The best implementation of this advice I’ve seen is this one: http://canisloopus.deviantart.com/art/Oops-29695194
It’s not just an ordinary car sitting there doing nothing. It’s fine to do if the subject is interesting on its own, but that doesn’t seem to be common.
Andrew Price
24. Jan, 2010
@muody
Will do
I realize now that I may have overdone the arrogance. I was going for controversial but I think I just came across as an asshole? At least that’s what people keep telling me
My future articles will be more positive. It was a good learning experience though
therealnoz
24. Jan, 2010
Oh get over yourself “jw”. First off, it was his own render. Second of all, he was listing things not to do which is completely justified. It gives some perspective to people who are just trying to do new things with blender before they have started improving the things they know how to do. I thought each point he made was well thought out.
Bigglesworth
24. Jan, 2010
While perhaps Andrew might have been a bit harsh, he still makes excellent points.
One of the things that attracts me most about digital art is the storytelling. Really, when a person looks at a piece of “art”, they want to be able to see something in it.
I don’t have much to say as far as stock models go. When I look at a piece of artwork, I tend to give more credit to the person who created everything than the person who just bought a great model. It depends on what you’re trying to do, really, and what you’re trying to show off. I can certainly see pieces of artwork where a stock model is appropriate if the model itself is not the point of the render.
I don’t have that much of a problem with “imitating” things. My liking of a piece really depends on what the purpose of the imitation is. Is it to grow in the modeling department? Copying is a great way to start. But most of the time I prefer pieces that are original.
Planning stuff out on paper is an excellent tip. I wouldn’t really say it makes or breaks a render, but if you can do it, do it as much as possible. Things tend to be a lot more organized that way.
Striving for originality is another excellent point. Try to be creative. There’s nothing arrogant about saying something like that.
Post your test renders as often as possible. That’s the best way to get critiques.
Being able to take critiques is also extremely important. If those who are offering them feel like they’re just talking to a brick wall, there is indeed something greatly wrong.
The last two points offer good insight. Try to be creative with architecture, and realize that laying it on a little thick with the post processing is probably unnecessary.
muody
25. Jan, 2010
That’s all true – as long as you want to be someone similar to a painter, a traditional artist. But most people that earn for living with Blender or other 3D apps working in game dev, advertisement or animation industry.
“Try to be creative” – sure. “I don’t have that much of a problem with imitating things.” – nevertheless, if you were a modeller in a big studio, they would expect you to follow concept artworks made by the 2D department. It’s another ability hard to learn – how to find and use references without being bounded by them.
IMO there’s no need to tell anyone such obvious rules. They will become obvious when the person gets a creative job or starts to participate in a bigger project (game, animation, anything). The real way to estimate your skills is trying to get hired on some 3D-related position, not sticking to the rules about what’s bad and what’s good.
Corniger
25. Jan, 2010
Well, I think it’s definitely all true.
For 6) I put up bad stuff in places so I can get critique because I don’t know any better yet – or videos of stuff that sucks because I want to make visible what’s going wrong throughout the process. You HAVE to put crap online
@cliché: I’ve read that in a copy of 3D magazine, too. Yet still, sometimes it’s just what REGULAR people like. Not editors/artists. It can be very hard, I imagine, to reinvent the wheel for the 4000000st undead Warlord in a game concept… It still will have to be an undead warlord, not some alien existence never seen before. So if you do that job, will you want to leave it on your drive?
I suck and I know it, but still need exposure for feedback.
Rev. Stump
25. Jan, 2010
All valid points. You might consider a postscript: “You need a thick skin in this business. Because your Mom likes your 3D sword doesn’t mean much. People are gonna be mean. If you can’t get used to it, you may wanna consider a career a Build-a-Bear.”
William
25. Jan, 2010
Nice points.
PS: You spelled realize wrong.
Brian Wright
25. Jan, 2010
@BlueSock,
I never said to use pre-made models stock. Although, I recommend beginners use stock models to get the hang of how everything works. There are plenty of ways you can alter stock models.. more specifically, by using morph targets and creating your own textures and maps. You can even bring them into Zbrush or other tools and change them up. However, if you have a great looking mesh of something already, why reinvent that wheel?
If you feel you need to reinvent everything from scratch, go for it. That doesn’t necessarily make your work any more original or spectacular. I would like to point out three feature films that are perfect examples of this failure: Final Fantasy, Beowolf and A Shark’s Tale. Models were original, but the films were horrible. A Shark’s Tale’s models, while original, looked downright amateur and the motion capture made it even worse. Beowolf’s figures looked great until they moved and spoke. I won’t even get into discussing models within video games. On the other hand, I have seen Daz’s Michael 4 and Victoria 4 both used with morph targets and new textures in astounding original ways.
Creating models from scratch doesn’t necessarily spell success to a project or idea. Likewise, using existing pre-purchased models doesn’t immediately spell failure. Success or failure is all dependent on the artist’s creativity and imagination combined with the technical skill and execution. Creating models is a means to an end, but not the end itself. The end is the final work and that is only partway dependent on the models used.
migero
26. Jan, 2010
well i fall at point 10
HTB
26. Jan, 2010
I just looked at my harddisk contents and I agree with all of it! what’s strange is that I knew the 10 points whenever I looked at other peoples work but never quite applied them to my own.
However i don’t really mind the cliches… so long as they are done by a true pro because i really appreciate them as technical masterpieces. creatures always fascinate me without fail, and the hero-women well as long as they have an interesting backdrop and are super perfect!
The only tests that should be posted should be fluid sims and 2.5 upcomings (smoke etc). NOTHING else! nothing. and tests dont need to be in forums, only youtube!
TurboTwit
26. Jan, 2010
I realize I may be in a minority of the people making comments here for saying this, but I actually think this is a good and informative article, thanks for writing it. I also agree with many of the points, especially the one about cliche. I’ve been using Blender for only a couple years, mostly for making models to export for video games, and I’ve actually been forced to make all my own models and avoid any stock because far too many modelers who make models intended for such use concentrate *heavily*, as one other poster mentioned, on making young, voluptuous women with exaggerated features which isn’t good at all for what I do – I look for and need a *variety* of models for the projects I work on, and don’t bother anymore to look through collections of stock models because of this. Seriously, it seems to me that many modelers need to get out more! As far as rendering pictures of entire scenes and such, I like to see something I haven’t seen before, not a recreation of something too many people go for. Thanks again for putting this up.
Tynach
26. Jan, 2010
Three point lighting in outdoor scenes.
You don’t see 3 seperate highilghts and 3 seperate shadows if there’s only one sun.
Nixon
28. Jan, 2010
hey there:)
tho i disagreed with lots of the stuff on the list and thought of it as discouraging and offensive first , nevertheless I’m impressed by the discussion this has spawned around the cg sites…after all people are expressing their thoughts in a passionate way and you get to see all the different approaches that they have towards CG in general.
So in a way following that discussion has yielded a huge ammount of insight on cg in the end. And i guess this is what i came here for in the first place.
maybe something controversial sometimes helps to get people to come up with the knowledge they have up their sleeves…
best regards
SMP
04. Feb, 2010
Well I though you may be harsh, I don’t think your an ass. I agree on many points. We need to be thick skinned because not everyone is going to like what we do. In fact if we find our selves in that position, then we are doing something wrong. I’m a big believer that no matter what the style of art is, it is all about the story. Give the viewer a reason to care. Whether it is 2d or 3d, lighting will make or break your piece. Why does impressionism work? …because the lighting gives it a sense of realism. Also when it comes to using stock models or whatever, as long as it isn’t obvious or the main subject in the image, its fine …as long as it works. I do see too much of the same styles of art out there and it makes it very hard to differentiate our selves from others if we stay to the same theme as others. I’ve been working on matte paintings and I have to keep myself from making an alien looking terrain. It has been done. Will I do one if the story dictates? …yes. So there are my two cents …for what it’s worth.
blogreader
07. Feb, 2010
Cliche like “10 reasons…” blog posts? This is such a load of promote-my-blog crap. Too bad a site associated with Blender stoops to this thoughtless level.
Andrew Price
08. Feb, 2010
@blogreader
Sorry you feel that way. It’s a shame blender users can’t have a little fun every now and then.
rkg456
15. Feb, 2010
I can agree with most of what was said, as well as see the other side as well.
Keep in mind the blog post IS titled “10 Reasons Why Your Render Sucks” so limiting the conversation to only final renders, the initial post was dead on!
It seems as though many took it as an attack on one’s talent as an artist!
It all goes back to one’s definition of 3D. I think many either confuse 3D and CG or in fact think that they are the same thing entirely, when 3D modeling is just one aspect of 3D.
I am a fan of Daz3d which is a provider of the afore mentioned troll, as well as large breasted warrior women. While those items are nice, and cheap (price) it depends on what you plan to do with them. Th realm of CG is vast, not all CG artists are modelers. In fact many professionals only rig, animate or texture. Then you have you modelers, and your post processing and editing team. Unless you want to hog all of the credit for yourself and be a one man shop, you’ll very seldom see one person handling the entire production from start to end. Now, if you are talking about hobbyists, or still artist, or just someone like me that likes to spend hours on end in front of my PC not really caring if I finish a project in a say week or even a year, then put yourself in their shoes…
If someone just wants to animate to tell a story, then why would they spend hours creating a model, textures, and vfx when they can purchase pre-made content to go with what ever nifty software that they could afford.
Now to the parts I agree with….. Planning. Very seldom can one man do it all! You will have to decide from the beginning the areas you intend to focus on be it modeling animating and so on, or at the very least take each part in phases or you will get burned out quickly and the project will fail. As for creating everything yourself, that has a lot to be said. It creates self worth, and pride in your accomplishments. What you have to consider is which piece of the puzzle are you trying to market yourself as. If you are just showing your end result renders because you are a designer, logo creator, or an illustrator, then yes all of the above in the initial post hold 100% true. If you are trying to market your mad modeling skills, or a nifty funny animation that just tries to tell a story, or impress a point, then color, and lighting may not really be all that important. In the end it really depends on why you are doing the project in the first place. In short, if you just want to model, who cares if the ball is blue or red and casts shadows…….
That’s just me though.