Jump to content
Product Design Forums

Treasurebox
Sign in to follow this  
Guest harg666

Rendering With Markers

Recommended Posts

Honestly... marker rendering is dying. Cintiqs are changing everything. A lot of design firms are abandoning them completely... doing rendering digitally = faster, cheaper, less waste, etc.

 

It still uses the same techniques, but I'd rather be good at sketchbook than prismacolors.

There are some techniques that aren't well-emulated by software (and be aware that I was a sketchbook beta tester and am generally a very big supporter of digital tools). As an easy example, here's an old, large marker rendering - Link. Notice the background with the bleeds and "bubbles". That's lighter fluid and a pastel mix ... with some lighter fluid drops for the bubbles. Took a few minutes. Emulating that in software at that resolution would take hours and still not look as organic.

 

But that's just a background. Who cares about that? I don't get paid to make crazy distracting backgrounds, I get paid to render a product, and the cintiq is a LOT faster than pens/markers/pro white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven
But that's just a background. Who cares about that? I don't get paid to make crazy distracting backgrounds, I get paid to render a product, and the cintiq is a LOT faster than pens/markers/pro white.
Well, I get paid to design product, not to render it.

 

What you seem to miss, cash68, is that there are two issues here:

 

- Design - which for me as a professional means using all the tools which one has available - mental and physical - in order to arrive at design solutions.

 

- Presentation - using the most appropriate tools to effectively communicate a finished design; sometimes that's just a quick pen sketch, and sometimes it's a more elaborate rendering.

 

For some reason, you focus on only one issue: presentation. Note all the other comments before your initial declaration. Unlike you, they're all talking like designers.

 

The opening post doesn't suggest why the information is sought or how the tools are to be used. You seem to be the only one who believes that the individual is only wanting to render presentation illustrations, or believe markers have no other use. That would be a mistake, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how lighter fluid/marker parlor tricks affect the design of a product in anyway shape or form. I'm not focusing on presentation, I'm focusing on SPEED. The cintiq is a very fast way, mostly because it has an undo button. If you screw it up, you don't have to start from scratch, you only print the best renderings, saving costs on paper and ink, and you can achieve a large variety of variations in a very short time period. I'm talking about it from an industrial design perspective, not a 'pretty drawing' perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven
I don't see how lighter fluid/marker parlor tricks affect the design of a product in anyway shape or form. I'm not focusing on presentation, I'm focusing on SPEED. The cintiq is a very fast way, mostly because it has an undo button. If you screw it up, you don't have to start from scratch, you only print the best renderings, saving costs on paper and ink, and you can achieve a large variety of variations in a very short time period. I'm talking about it from an industrial design perspective, not a 'pretty drawing' perspective.
You may think you are, but you're not. Your words betray you. And perhaps if you read my entire post with some level of comprehension instead of latching onto/quoting only one element of it - the part discussing the illustration/render issue - you would understand how something like that background technique applies.

 

As to exactly "how lighter fluid/marker parlor tricks affect the design of a product in anyway shape or form", you're inability to understand is completely reasonable from a student. But as a student, perhaps you should be asking how I connect the charcoal technique to that background technique. And then be inquisitive enough to ask why the car companies had us switch to charcoal in the first place.

 

But I guess if you think you know everything, and from your posts it's apparent you do, it's easier to be selective and write condescending crap like "parlor tricks".

 

A shame. Based on your deviantART gallery, what the car companies taught my class could be a big help to you.

 

-

 

Back on topic.

 

I have Powell's book. I didn't appreciate it at the time, but would recommend it simply because of the variety of techniques discussed; not only by industry (advertising, fashion, product, aso) but also different techniques within product design.

 

I also own:

 

- Rendering With Markers by Ronald B. Kemnitzer

- Quick & Easy Solutions to Marker Techniques by Yoshiharu Shimizu

 

Also recommend reading this entry on IDFuel: Dial "M" for Marker...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to be condescending, I just don't see the freaking point in an exciting weird distracting background. I'd rather have a simple vinette or nothing at all. It distracts from the product. So instead of being an asshole this time and just bragging about how much you know, please explain HOW such backgrounds provide any sort of advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven
I wasn't trying to be condescending, I just don't see the freaking point in an exciting weird distracting background.
No. I'd venture you don't have to try at all. Not when you can both protest your innocence and be an ass in the same sentence.

 

I'd rather have a simple vinette or nothing at all. It distracts from the product.
Personal preference, but rather than counter you, I'll go with you, since you insist on critiquing that background from a presentation perspective.

 

-

 

First, let me say that I'd agree that the background is somewhat distracting. However, I'd also say the background isn't nearly as distracting as you're blubbering on about.

 

"exciting"

"weird"

"crazy"

"parlor tricks"

 

If you tried any harder to express your personal distaste for the presentation, you might actually have to use a thesaurus. If anything is "weird", it's your overboard reaction; as if this is personal for you.

 

Second, there are different kinds of distraction. In my example, I'd argue the distraction comes by virtue of personal preference tied to cultural norms. By today's standards it's busy, but compared to plenty of other marker renderings of the early-90's, my background is relatively dull. Take this professional automotive rendering, for example: Link. I was seeing stuff far more crazy from a host of other designers. If anything, they inspired me to break away from simple vignettes and explore some options. This was one of those explorations. You might call it "A new way of looking at something I've seen before" (sound familiar?).

 

The other kind of distraction is due to poor technique. As it turns out, you provide an excellent example for everyone - Link. In your case, the background is drab gray, but it's certainly not neutral. The splotchy application of the marker - allowing the white of the paper to show through unevenly - draws attention away from the product render (which seems to use the same technique, unlike my example which uses two distinct techniques/media). And I don't even know what to make of those gray bands around the product (is it vibrating?). Consequently, the background isn't simple, it's simply a mess. Looking at this, I have to say that for you to authoritatively claim - as a student - that learning to use traditional media is waste of time, is well beyond the limits of your expertise.

 

So now we've discussed presentation. Thrillsville.

 

So instead of being an asshole this time and just bragging about how much you know, please explain HOW such backgrounds provide any sort of advantage.
Since you can't seem to get beyond presentation and you're a jerk, I have a better idea: Why don't you ask your instructors to help you? You are paying for an education, are you not? And if they disagree with what I'm saying, I'd be more than happy to engage them here, on this forum, on how using a variety of media can be used in the design process. In fact, I may just write your department chair and ask him to contribute. It'd be good to see if you're representative of what MIAD is turning loose into the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest toodef1

Easy Guys - we're just talking about rendering techniques ! Truth is you need to learn how to draw before even thinking about touching a wacom/cintaq. Sure theres arguments for an against, the counter argument for the wacom/cintaq route is that while it doesn't waster paper, but the whole computing system requred for it does blah blah. At the end of the day its just a tool. A tablets not going to make your images any better if you cant perspective/shade etc I'm a purest so I approach visulzing from the ground up.

 

1. Pens & pencils

2. Markers, Pens, Char (although i never bothered with charcoal, too messy)

3. Wacom/cint

4. @#$@#$ it all and go straight to 3D

 

At the moment - where doing ultra quick marker/pen sketches - where the concept is king - and that goes straight to 3D for full vis. I think it's about what suits the situ, and your going to be better of with ALL the skills !

 

Take it easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, I may just write your department chair and ask him to contribute.

 

I said I think the background is busy, distracting, weird, and somewhat of a parlor trick, you respond by calling me a jerk and other names, pointing out one of my old marker renderings as 'bad technique', and now you're threatening to call my instructors over my opinion of your backgrounds?

 

Wow. You're a piece of work. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven
I said I think the background is busy, distracting, weird, and somewhat of a parlor trick, you respond by calling me a jerk and other names, pointing out one of my old marker renderings as 'bad technique', and now you're threatening to call my instructors over my opinion of your backgrounds?
I respond to your obsession over critiquing presentation (for a rendering done around 15 - fifteen - years ago as opposed to the 1.5 years of your rendering ... which you edited out) by returning the favor; especially since the example I provided was quite clearly intended to point out the possible effects achieved through traditional technique and relate that to the potential difficulty of mimic'ing them digitally. It was you who went out of your way to harp endlessly on the presentation issue, which had effectively nothing to do with the point being made. That I chose to address the presentation issue and provide easily-found examples is due to your insistence, not my interest in discussing it.

 

And btw, you conveniently forget to include the part where you called me an "asshole". Selective much?

 

As to your assumption that I would call your instructor as a "threat", that's an assumption born of your own concerns. I couldn't give a dam n if you feel threatened; and certainly wouldn't assume that a smart person would feel threatened if they speak as you do and do so without anonymity. You don't hide who you are, so what's the issue?

 

Don't forget, it was you who asked me to teach you something. You're the one who opened the door to another issue: As someone who is sometimes asked by design firms and corporations where they might recruit, you've now given me cause to question MIAD's program where no previous cause existed.

 

You have no one to thank but yourself for where this discussion went, Rob; first by inserting your so-called expertise and telling an underclassman not to learn something, and then by being a condescending jerk when I politely explained why you were mistaken. Deal with it.

 

Wow. You're a piece of work.
More importantly, I work for myself. But even then, I still don't casually call other people in the industry "asshole". But by all means, keep digging your hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even KNOW it was your rendering, I just thought it was some generic rendering you found. I never meant to 'insult you personally' with my opinion of busy backgrounds, I was just stating how I feel about it. And yes, I do feel it's busy/distracting/weird/crazy. My point was that using a cintiq is an extremely fast way to make quick renders, and you respond by pointing out some obscure background technique that cannot be reproduced on a cintique. Okay??? Guess what? There are things you can do digitally that you can't do with markers.

 

Yes. I did say you were acting like an asshole, because you came across as one. If that was not your intention, and you were trying to be helpful in your responses, there was a failure of communication at either my end, or yours. I'm not sure which, but it seemed like you were very condescending with comments like "A shame. Based on your deviantART gallery, what the car companies taught my class could be a big help to you."

 

If you meant that as a friendly comment, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I've read it a few times now, and I don't see how it's anything but an asshole-ish comment though.

 

Also, I never said NOT to learn markers. Marker techniques apply to using tools digitally... I'm just saying that it seems like markers are being used less and less. Look at concept sketches coming out of pininfarina, or other major design houses. They're done digitally, probably using sketchbook pro/photoshop and a cintiq. If I had to choose between blowing $200 on markers and blowing through another $100 on paper, versus saving $300 and spending it towards a Cintiq 12x, I'd go for the cintiq. I've never stated that ignoring marker techniques would be a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven

Let's revisit this:

 

1) you don't address the opening post by providing requested book suggestions; instead you say, "Honestly... marker rendering is dying" (obviously suggesting, to some people at least, that learning traditional techniques is a waste of time) and "A lot of design firms are abandoning them completely" (further suggesting that learning traditional media is an unnecessary waste of time).

 

2) I respond by

 

  • a) claiming "some techniques ... aren't well-emulated by software".

  • B) saying "Different media with different advantages and limitations can help us see things that might not emerge from using the same graphic technique and tools day in and day out. Leaving comfort zones is, itself, a problem-solving technique".

  • c) observing that design firms are business entities and not necessarily interested in the careers of junior designers.

3) You respond, condescendingly, by focusing on one thing, the background of the example, and doing so only in the context of presentation: "But that's just a background. Who cares about that?"

 

4) I respond to you by evenly explaining there are two issues raised in my previous post, not just one.

 

5) You continue be condescending by arrogantly saying "I don't see how lighter fluid/marker parlor tricks affect the design of a product in anyway shape or form."

 

In my book, "Who cares about that" + flippant remarks like "parlor tricks" = assinine jerk.

 

6) I begin answering with the same attitude you're giving me: "But I guess if you think you know everything, and from your posts it's apparent you do, it's easier to be selective and write condescending crap like 'parlor tricks'. A shame. Based on your deviantART gallery, what the car companies taught my class could be a big help to you."

 

7) Because you can dish it out but can't take it, you continue to be condescending and then call me an "asshole" ... for replying to you in the same general manner you were previously addressing me.

 

8) In the spirit of playing your game, I respond appropriately.

 

9) You start whining.

 

10) I tell you I don't care.

 

11) You talk about not meaning to insult my rendering or something (although I've never said I was insulted by your critique of that 15 year-old rendering; it's your condescending tone in this discussion that's insulting), and then you start backtracking to cover your ass (probably because you didn't realize your real name was plastered on the work you link to in your otherwise anonymous profile).

 

Y'know, if you didn't have a book to recommend, why didn't you just keep your mouth shut in the first place? Rhetorical question. I already know the answer to that.

 

-

 

And with this post, I'm done trading barbs with you on this thread, as I doubt anything I share from my own experience would penetrate your student-level ego. The very fact you show up here suggesting people not learn something indicates to me you are averse to learning anything that doesn't come easily or obviously. That's the real "speed" issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I wrote a big response to each of your points, but it isn't worth it. I am not going to continue bickering with you. You are allowed to think things like spattling lighter fluid on marker backgrounds is a worthwhile skill, and I'm allowed to think things like such techniques are silly. There's room for both opinions without this place devolving into a battlezone.

 

PS: Nice portfolio. I notice your newer plates have an absence of fancy backgrounds. Cool. They look cleaner and more modern that way, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest hpy

I found that the Presentation techniques book by Dick Powell helped me with my marker work and formed a basis for my Cintiq work. It has step by step process to help you recreate what dick does, the designs may be dated but the marker/pastilles combination technique hasn't changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.