Studio: rendart

Designer / Architect: Artem Tkatchenko

Personal / Commissioned: Personal Project

Location: Berlin Germany

The main purpose of the project other than to showcase my skills was to test Corona Renderer and its limits. I used the Alpha version of Corona for Cinema 4D here. The furniture models are mostly from design connected. The background was also modeled by me.

11 replies
  1. Akash Singh
    Akash Singh says:

    bull shit image you can never this much outside exposure standing inside, If you want to have this much light outside will be burned out phi-nominally, but here outside and inside exposure bracket is funny. It is not possible from a real camera. Bad photoshop. sorry to be rude.

    • ronenbekerman
      ronenbekerman says:

      How lucky we are we do not use real cameras 😉

      You are indeed rude! But let’s see what others have to say…

    • Thomas Vournazos
      Thomas Vournazos says:

      I rarely comment on forums. But this one was just to hard to resist.

      First of all, this is 2017 and not 2008, to be having this conversation again and again and again. I will only post this, after my super intense 2 minute search. There is not such thing as a real camera. People do whatever they want.
      You like it ok, pay for it. You dont like it, just dont like it. Dont just judge it like that. Or if you want to judge this by being rude, please do it also to the pro arch viz photographers around the world that also do the same…with their real cameras!! But please, post the replies too!!!

    • West
      West says:

      Um.. photographers do this all the time 😀 They use multiple exposures and composite the final image.

    • Giovanne de Souza
      Giovanne de Souza says:

      Different exposures > Composition… Actually, you can do everything with softwares. Doesn’t exist right or wrong, just different perspectives.

    • Brodie Geers
      Brodie Geers says:

      The exposure levels don’t bother me for reasons that others have already mentioned. The only thing that seems odd to me is that based on the interior, it looks like the sun is on the far left of the image which would put that building facade outside in shadow. However it looks like it’s being lit from the front (which would put the sun on the far right side of the image). I thought maybe it was just an issue of picking an image with the wrong lighting conditions for a background, but then read that the building is modeled (nice modeling job!). I’m guessing maybe in addition to a sun there’s also a dome light that’s maybe just too strong and is washing out the shadows on that building facade? Regardless, nice job on the image and nice composition.

  2. Cote
    Cote says:

    Great work!! Like everything.

    Akash i dont think you are a photographer,or at least hope so. The good ones use to take many photos from the same point with different exposures, even on outdoors photos. So the can avoid in post overexposed areas, or get the real world colors of the sky. Sorry to be rude, but they try to fix the bull shits cameras problems. Thank god my eye doesnt show to my brain ,when im at home, overexposed windows. This is cause our brain and eyes work much better than cameras, they are massive more complex than them and much clever than your poor comment.

    You show up, the difference between a bad technician, trying to mimic the errors of gadgets, and an artist, trying to capture the great beauty of nature.

  3. Francois Verhoeven
    Francois Verhoeven says:

    Hi Artem, impressive you can get this quality with a test. I am a photographer, architect and I think the image is great, Most if not all my “photo”clients (90% are architects) would assume its a real photo.

    Just a question on coronoa for c4d. I have the same set up with my iMac. I noticed though that real time rendering or progressive rendering is not an option. Which makes it less fun to use than for instance the Fire Engine of Maxwell or Vray progressive render instantly giving feedback. Or do you know if Corona can be set up the same way ?

  4. codoho
    codoho says:

    I agree the debate of the camera is an old one and lies in the realm of analogue versus digital.

    I think it needs to be more explicit what parameters are being tested within the software and what the architectural ramifications are. And how the author is conceptualizing the specific moves being made. Testing to test is not very interesting and/or critical. we need to be critical of light, form, function, material and perspective in regards to this medium of representation.

    As for the specific scene..
    the lighting choices are inconsistent:
    there are hanging lamps, track lighting, floor lamps and ceiling reveal light gaps. this could be interesting but I cannot exactly see how this is critical of the lighting condition. and it is further obscured when the curtain detail goes into the reveal of the light which doesn’t entirely make sense. how would the curtain manage to occupy the same hidden space as the lighting fixture.

    the wall and floor details are unresolved:
    the walls seem to be normal sheetrock construction with a traditional molding. the window has an inset detail and that doesn’t do much for the choice of windows and begins to conflict with the light reveal on the window side so that the lighting condition from the exterior begins to conflict with the lighting condition from the interior.

    inconsistent choice of color:
    brown leather, cream fabric, orange-ish leather dining chairs, bright blue stools, wood stool

    material choices:
    this relates to the wall floor issue. There is an inconsistent choice of wood between the kitchen unit (back) and the distorted tv unit (right) and the hardwood floor. it’s otherwise hard to be critical of the only “architectural” materials the floors and walls because it’s generic white with no indication of actual material. could be plastic, artisan plaster, polished painted wood, sheetrock. there is no indication of the corner detail when the wall turns a corner. far too clean of a joint. looks like plastic? but is most likely sheetrock. there is also no local differentiation in the surface articulation. no visible overlay mapping on any surfaces that produce a consistent-inconsistency.

    there is no engagement, acknowledgement or denial that this is occupying a digital space:
    this completely falls within the realm of normalized high end residential interior with no reveal or questioning of the software or literal constraints of 3d model space.

Comments are closed.