Overall the quality of the AutoCAD work was much better than I have seen before. A large number of you scored in the 60s with many getting 1sts for this component. The clear message that I got from the AutoCAD work was that if you knew how to draw you know how to create CAD drawings. Common mistakes were not using line weights or using line weights badly (i.e. making the walls a fine line and the toilets a heavy line) and exporting the drawings at low resolutions so they appeared pixilated. In fact poor resolution was a common problem across all the exercises with both Sketchup work and Photoshop work sometimes printed at 50 dpi or less (bearing in mind that we suggested that you print at 200-300 dpi).
SketchUp work was generally good and it was fun to explore your imaginings of your invisible cities. My only concern was that a number of you seemed to rely very heavily on models imported from Warehouse and although its wasn’t always possible to verify which were you own models and which weren’t (I gave extra credit to those people who listed the models they had used from elsewhere). There were a number of commonly used building types which gave the game away.
I think that the weakest aspect of this year’s submission was the Photoshop work. I think a few people had taken the brief to demonstrate their technical skills to the extreme without thought to the output of what they were doing and I was often greeted by muddy, confused, low resolution, filter heavy work. In some cases the printed output probably surprised people when it appeared darker and much less clear than on the screen but in other cases I felt that the Photoshop part of the work was rushed and underdeveloped.
I think the general rule for all these exercises when you get your mark back is that if you are getting a 2:1 or above (60%>) then you are of a good standard for next year but less that 60% you should spend some time over the summer developing your skills.
In previous years I have given prizes (all be it with no actual prizes ) to the best work and I wanted to celebrate some of the hybrid graphics here and explain why I liked them.
BEST OF THE YEAR – Rumen Dimov
My Favourite image of the year was Rumens Cover graphic (which was also used on the cover of his portfolio). While the image seems very simple it is composed of 8 different layers with subtle changes to lighting and contrast and light and the best use of filters I’ve seen. The result is seamless and beautifully framed.
MOST DISNEY LIKE – Michael Pybus
One of the thinks that surprised me about many of your interpretations of Invisible Cities was how conservative they were. But, just occasionally I was something that really explored the full fantasy potential of the project. This image by Michael Pypus could have come straight out of a Disney animation. It consists of more than 24 layers with some very subtle effects using highly transparent layers added on top of another to achieve images like fog for example. This sort of image is really not easy to do and you can’t get this kind of output from a 3D renderer.
MOST LIKELY TO BE FOUND IN PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 4
This is the kind of thing that you would never get away with in the design module but without the constraints of style or, indeed, gravity Muyan has created something which could either be a computer game level or the set of a movie. The work was also supported with some really nice preparatory drawings.
MOST SOPHISTICATED MODELLING: Ruta Austrina
While this model looks deceptively simple its worth noting that each of the bricks in the arch is a separate element and the model is precisely organised to allow all the cables to be properly joined up. I like the Lawrence of Arabia theme in the hybrid graphic as well!
MOST ACCOMPLISHED TEXTURING AND LAYERING – Rachel Leatherbarrow
Rachel worked with a combination of textures and drawing directly on to the models to create these ruins and this was accompanied by some simple but very affective Photoshop work to add some depth to the shadows and hint at the ghostly presence of people.
MOST…CYBERSPACEY: Matthew Pratt
With digital graphics and rendering there is, what we might call, a digital vernacular. Computers are very good a producing complex surface geometries and highly fluid/metallic textures. For this exercise Matthew really played with these techniques and the results are exciting. A word of caution though, unless you can work out a way of building out of pure mercury real buildings tend to be made of material stuff with seams and joints and it’s important not to get seduced by the purity of shapes and surfaces you can achieve in a computer.
No comments:
Post a Comment