Author Topic: When You Flip Through an IKEA Catalog, 75% of the ‘Photography’ You See is CGI (Read 5464 times)

jefftakespics2 · « **on:** August 29, 2014, 09:37 »

I find this somewhat sad. I supposed if I was a CGI artist I would applaud it.

"Today, reveals Enthed, about 75% of all IKEA product images are CGI, and rendered at ‘ridiculously high resolution’ so they’re good for everything from web viewing to wall-sized displays in IKEA’s stores. And as time goes on and rendering software continues to get better, traditional photography promises to play a smaller and smaller role."

"The real turning point for us was when, in 2009, they called us and said, “You have to stop using CG. I’ve got 200 product images and they’re just terrible. You guys need to practice more.” So we looked at all the images they said weren’t good enough and the two or three they said were great, and the ones they didn’t like were photography and the good ones were all CG! Now, we only talk about a good or a bad image — not what technique created it.”

http://petapixel.com/2014/08/28/flip-ikea-catalog-75-photography-see-cgi/

Difydave · « **Reply #1 on:** August 29, 2014, 10:05 »

Interesting, and as you say rather sad.
There was a discussion on jewellery photography on the iStock forums (IIRC) some years back. One member who was obviously in the know, said that the majority of jewellery seen in catalogues is 3D rendered.

Red Dove · « **Reply #2 on:** August 29, 2014, 10:43 »

Probably because it takes three hours and ten cups of tea to assemble anything you buy from them and when you have finished you realize you've gone and bought a load of overpriced crap.

michaeldb · « **Reply #3 on:** August 29, 2014, 19:02 »

Photographers are pretty much stuck with physical reality and Photoshop. For CG artists, reality is what you can make it, and is pretty much unlimited. Which skillset has the greater future? One is limited, the other is not.

Ubermansch · « **Reply #4 on:** August 31, 2014, 04:27 »

Where is that * hexagonal ikea key, always under the sofa.

Actually CGI is nothing more than photography applied to vector coordinates or what cgi artists call "textures"

Without photography, CGI models look mighty lame and bland. Its the photography that makes them come to life. That and the innate lighting algorithms in maya or whatever.

pkphotos · « **Reply #5 on:** August 31, 2014, 04:57 »

Quote from: michaeldb on August 29, 2014, 19:02

Photographers are pretty much stuck with physical reality and Photoshop. For CG artists, reality is what you can make it, and is pretty much unlimited. Which skillset has the greater future? One is limited, the other is not.

Both are unlimited

Mantis · « **Reply #6 on:** August 31, 2014, 08:28 »

When CGI first started to take hold I knew it would affect photographers. As CGI gets easier, like photography has (sort of) with the advent of digital ease and now phone pics, it will replace a lot of commercial work. But buyers still want cheap images fast and micro stock solves that level of demand. So I don't see this kind of industry being too threatened at least in the near future, say 10 years (this is just a guess).

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #7 on:** August 31, 2014, 09:16 »

suppose we combine both CGI and photo. is it really difficult to learn CGI? or would it be similar to
how most of us got to learn to use PS. is the transition that insurmountable for us?

can someone who is a wiz at CGI give me an insight ?
(cheers in advance).

i ask this question bcos...
i cannot see how a client would prefer all CGI, in the same way as someone would prefer a CGI pinup gal vs a real photo of a real woman

if this is the direction we r headed, porn will be all CGI by now, wouldn't it?

Ubermansch · « **Reply #8 on:** September 01, 2014, 00:54 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 31, 2014, 09:16

suppose we combine both CGI and photo. is it really difficult to learn CGI? or would it be similar to
how most of us got to learn to use PS. is the transition that insurmountable for us?

can someone who is a wiz at CGI give me an insight ?
(cheers in advance).

i ask this question bcos...
i cannot see how a client would prefer all CGI, in the same way as someone would prefer a CGI pinup gal vs a real photo of a real woman
if this is the direction we r headed, porn will be all CGI by now, wouldn't it?

Having built a triple A game recently from scratch I am sadly and without reservation qualified to answer your question (sadly because I would not do such a big project again on my own) lucky i had the time.

CGI is quite difficult. It takes a tremendous commitment in time. Particularly if you use opensource cgi software, which changes and truncates like the wind, meaning tutorials become useless with each new version. If you can afford maya ($5k last look) it is a lot more easy to follow the proprietary tuts, because their business relies on you learning to use and satisfactorily enjoy using that software.

That being said, its just geometry, extruding shapes and putting loops where creases belong. Then unwrapping the virtual object into a flat cut out, (creating cuts along object to give it a flatness) then applying textures and skinning the model if movement is required (walking animations etc)

Ikea furniture has and desires a clean fresh image, CGI is perfect for that sterile, seamless look. it looks fake, but in an advertising context its eye popping.

Not to say I look at porn (much) but frankly, theres tons of crazy monster porn and whatever you may, the imagination of these artists goes beyond reason (or even market demand)

CGI is fun but be prepared to sit out with your computer for hours rendering just one image, unless you pay a rendering farm.

Ubermansch · « **Reply #9 on:** September 01, 2014, 01:07 »

From photographers side, selling textures can be quite easy and lucrative. there is more and more of a growing demand. if you have ever looked at history channel lately they seem to be doing many shows with beautiful cgi effect. they look pretty amateurish to my eye, but im sure the producers thinks its the goose. I was the same b4 I got into it. Now im not so easily impressed.

A texture is a flat dull surface with little variation. Like photographing a close up of a brick wall in even light. That sells like crazy because in cgi, you can add geometric lighting detail with click of a button. So what to a photographer seems listless and dull, to a cgi person its glorious.

I upload tons of stuff to stocktal, they have a specific textures category and working pretty well. I spend all day photographing foot paths and rusty barrels from front side and top elevations then sell as kits. CGI guy makes a realistic rusty barrel out of it for some game.

People elevations, front, side, profile sell if not wearing clothes. (skin textures) In fact whatever you photograph, do front side and top to sell triple the amount. Vehicles, planes, ships (good luck getting top elevations. Secondlife is a 3d game and they are constantly looking for this stuff.

One other one is taking 10 shots of the sky at 360 degrees. They make skydomes out of this for games, sunsets, mornings etc. (skydomes are spheres cut in half and enlarged to create a sky for a game)

all i can think of for now, but theres lots more with textures most photographers are too focused on lighting and stuff, when simple pictures can sell in the right market.

Ubermansch · « **Reply #10 on:** September 01, 2014, 03:20 »

Just thought of another avenue, should anybody find it interesting.

Landscapes. Google OWN the images you see on google earth and cgi designers cannot touch these images legally (though they do with foolish regularity) If someone could provide beautiful landscape over view shots they make bank plain and simple.

You buy a 260 dollar remote controlled toy helicopter from ebay and mount an expensive camera on it. (watch your landings and use plenty of foam padding behind lens) Photograph 10 square miles of brush or city scape and sell it. They will buy 200 HD images to get a nice and legal landscape. You could sell it as a zip on stocktal for a reduced price. Or sell individually. Sounds crazy, but I have seen many people on youtube using toy remote controlled hellicopters photographing earth from above. And they atre just fooling around showing off their ingenuity, they could actually be selling this stuff.

Dont get me started on a camera mounted on a heavy duty weather balloons, space is only 400 miles pointing up. The images would be stratospheric! Weather balloon from statcom...300 bucks

bunhill · « **Reply #11 on:** September 01, 2014, 04:06 »

Quote from: Ubermansch on September 01, 2014, 03:20

Google OWN the images you see on google earth

No. It is possible that they own some of the content (I do not know). But I know for certain that much of it they licence currently from content providers.

Many jurisdictions have strict regulations with respect to commercial aerial photography using remote aircraft. Also - in some US states AFAIK there are laws which under some circumstances may be used against people photographing farms etc.

Ubermansch · « **Reply #12 on:** September 01, 2014, 05:20 »

Yes, they dont own the content, being peoples physical property, but google explicitly deny any use of that content in commercial use, which is what game developers would want it for. Its a big problem for many game designers. Painting realistic "ground" with photoshop or gimp on such a large scale is relatively impossible. Google maps would be perfect except u cant legally use it.

Appreciate the sober input. Obviously Im not advising anyone to do anything illegal. This is directed at adult, intelligent people who would do their own due diligence. The ideas are good.

Owning my own copyrighted photographs from space is a bit of a goal of mine.

bunhill · « **Reply #13 on:** September 01, 2014, 05:24 »

Quote from: Ubermansch on September 01, 2014, 05:20

Yes, they dont own the content, being peoples physical property

I was perhaps not clear. They do not own the images. They licence the images from content providers - satellite and aerial photography companies etc.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #14 on:** September 01, 2014, 16:07 »

Quote from: Ubermansch on September 01, 2014, 00:54

Having built a triple A game recently from scratch I am sadly and without reservation qualified to answer your question (sadly because I would not do such a big project again on my own) lucky i had the time.

CGI is quite difficult.....
CGI is fun but be prepared to sit out with your computer for hours rendering just one image, unless you pay a rendering farm.

thx much 4 the insight and experience, Ubermansch!
so it's closer to vector, huh? someone who already does vector would make the transition,
but not someone like me from scratch.
as u point out, the time is the crucial thing. would anyone go to all that for a few cents to what ?? 200 the highest earning per download on SS???

i suppose if one is that good at CGI, one would not even care to do ms anyway; one finds work with a corporation and get paid for it. i can see it as a good career for someone starting out in life.

markmagedotcom · « **Reply #15 on:** August 19, 2015, 05:58 »

Quote from: jrwasserman on August 29, 2014, 09:37

I find this somewhat sad. I supposed if I was a CGI artist I would applaud it.

"Today, reveals Enthed, about 75% of all IKEA product images are CGI, and rendered at ‘ridiculously high resolution’ so they’re good for everything from web viewing to wall-sized displays in IKEA’s stores. And as time goes on and rendering software continues to get better, traditional photography promises to play a smaller and smaller role."

"The real turning point for us was when, in 2009, they called us and said, “You have to stop using CG. I’ve got 200 product images and they’re just terrible. You guys need to practice more.” So we looked at all the images they said weren’t good enough and the two or three they said were great, and the ones they didn’t like were photography and the good ones were all CG! Now, we only talk about a good or a bad image — not what technique created it.”

http://petapixel.com/2014/08/28/flip-ikea-catalog-75-photography-see-cgi/

perfectly fits the fabricated and artificial life the Swedish live (just have a look at their hairdoes and kindergarten clothes in your average Swedish shopping centre, and you'll know what I am talking about). Sad though that this unreal childish world is being exported to our still more or less real world (outside cloudcoocooland Sweden and much of the rest of Scandinavia) by way of Globalist IKEA and stuff...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: When You Flip Through an IKEA Catalog, 75% of the ‘Photography’ You See is CGI (Read 5464 times)

jefftakespics2

Difydave

Red Dove

michaeldb

Ubermansch

pkphotos

Mantis

etudiante_rapide

Ubermansch

Ubermansch

Ubermansch

bunhill

Ubermansch

bunhill

etudiante_rapide

markmagedotcom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors