Hi Vrauckis,
I hesitate to give feedback here on content or aesthetically based questions. It opens normally a discussion where I found (more often than not on the web), the idea of productive critic is not met.
First of all, critique without knowing your target is not possible. It would be just an opinion, and as we all know, an opinion is not a proof for IQ, but everyone working hard deserves the best.
What I miss from your side is the idea, the target, or to express it in ‘70s terms: the message.
So far I see an “model” of a building, clearly introduced based on the round ground-plane. So nice, we see a model, but what is the story you like to tell? What is the feeling and impression your clients should have after seeing it? What was the “Corporate Identity” or the “Corporate Design” so far. Will that change with the move?
You ask for a feedback on the results so far, but how can anyone tell if that meets the idea one had to start the project? Perhaps you like to show exactly this kind of aesthetic? Are you asking for taste based input, or rendering input?
So far, what I can do is ONLY based of what I am able to see in the image itself, describe it and tell you my personal impression based on that, and what I think what is in front of me. Following any standard guideline of critique from art, e.g., photography, painting, graphic, etc. Just pure subjective impressions, as nothing was given.
So having said all of that, here we go.
The object feels like a model showcasing a projected architecture. We see a lot of details in Palm-trees (is that the main-object?). Is the building located at a larger road or on a parking lot, it might be a beach—if the colors were different.
The impression is clearly a model, with very little detail. The architecture feels like from the late ‘80/90s. Industrial/Investor design. Just enough shape to make it interesting, but not really rich in details, as that would cost a lot more. A building that showcases: we like to have it nice and prestine, but we are not in art or have too much money to waste. Just a huge box with perhaps a nice lobby. We are efficient and don’t waste money—could be the message of that building.
The camera angle and position is chosen to make it little. The camera is not used from a human position (except from a helicopter or a nearby tall building, in a nutshell, not a typical perspective). The use of tilt shift is avoided in the image as well a shallow depth of field. Both would make the model even smaller.
The content of the building, as it is in the center, must be the main object. The “visual communication” of it: it seems empty, not in use. No sign of life in it or outside of it. We get a rough scale of it based on the layers of glass bands; Typically, but not always used per story. From there we get a feeling that the surroundings is comfortable wide open for visitors. But obviously those are not included (Visually). Typically in architectural-models people and (mostly) cars deliver: a) a feeling of being used and b) an idea of the scale of the building. There could be a “c)”, to introduce the future clients, cultural based, or what kind of clients one like to promote with the visualization.
Those models are used to communicate about the object and how it fits into the landscape, or just to sell space before it is build. To model something like that, while it is already build has very specific reasons. Mostly to work out the positive aspects and have the negative ones (reality) out of the picture. As this is a subjective feedback, and I have written a doctorate on the subject, let me say: this view is used to communicate about the shape and structure of the building, it has no intention to demonstrate the day by day use.
Knowing that this image is produced for a company that will move into it, I miss “action” and the feeling that this move will provide for the clients. It shows only - new and clean.
What goes where, to give a client an idea where to find someone. Will the complete building be used or just a fraction? Wich leads to the question, what kind of feeling do you produce inside of the client with such an image. Subjectively it feels like a good new start, but will it contain all the “stuff” that the clients liked so far in the old place. Will that be communicated? As I don’t know the previous place, the change is only perceptible for the current clients. This information is missing here, so any feedback given to this images might fail, as the “before and after” is not a given here in the thread.
This image tells no story, nor makes it clear what will happen next. It leaves the viewer with the feeling, OK, this is a model of what they like to do next. (Will it happen at all and when?) The main part so far, I have more questions than answers.
To go now and discuss light-settings, camera-desicions, materials, and the complete idea to play it as model, seems wit out any ground to me. Too many open question. Of course everyone seeing it as a 3D artists would have some ides to push it further now. Here is exactly what I think should normally happen in a feedback thread, and why I don’t feel pushing that option here:
——>>>