Myth Busting; Has 3D Product Rendering Killed e-Commerce Photography?

Keyword: 3D Product rendering

Here at 2MC Global we offer e-commerce businesses both 3D product rendering services and more traditional photographic solutions for their product marketing shots. As we’ve worked with photography for a long time, the medium occupies a special place in our hearts. Yet the fact is that most of our larger clients operate on a scale that just isn’t practical by photographic means alone. Indeed, before shifting to CGI product shots, over-reliance upon traditional product photography had become the weakest link in the chain for many of them.

The main purpose of this series of articles is to identify ways in which e-commerce businesses such as these can improve the efficiency of their digital imaging workflow; streamlining production, reducing costs, and making the chain more immune to the inherent disruptions associated with the age of COVID. Many of the potential solutions that we’ll be looking at over the coming months involve at least some degree of computer rendering. In a few of these cases, CGI is merely a way of enhancing - or making more economically viable - the use of traditional photography. But at other times we’ll be looking at scenarios where 3D product rendering replaces photography altogether. 

The fact is, though, that a few people still feel uncomfortable about using CGI images to promote their products for e-commerce. As someone who comes from a traditional photographic background, I can understand the aversion. What I’ve learned in the last few years, though, is that this point of view is invariably based upon outdated information. 

That being the case, before diving into the main topics of this series, I think it would be helpful to directly address a few of the most common reservations that some readers may have about 3D product rendering vs photography.

3D Product Rendering is Too Expensive

Unsurprisingly, by the time a new client comes to us at 2MC, they are usually already convinced that some degree of 3D product rendering is indeed the best solution for their business. However, if a few are slow to make the jump from purely photographic images to CGI, it usually has nothing to do with the suitability of CGI for creating product shots, and everything to do with apprehensions over costs.

Let’s be clear; CGI isn’t always the cheapest option. But for many e-commerce businesses today, it may be the only viable one. 

Certainly good 3D product rendering costs money to produce. But that doesn’t necessarily make CGI more expensive than traditional photography. In fact in most situations CGI will actually work out much cheaper. 

In large part this depends on scale. But you could also say that self-control has a lot to do with it too.

How so?

With traditional photography, most things are possible; but at a price. Everyone understands this. As a result very few creative briefs get written specifying truly outlandish scenarios in far-off locations (“the product is situated in the throne room of an alpine chateau, surrounded by giraffes”). And on those rare occasions when the creative department does run a little wild with a brief, you can bet that whoever’s holding the purse strings will abruptly bring them back to reality.

Likewise, it’s obvious that every extra variation you shoot of a photographic setup will increase the amount of time that must be spent on it; further upping costs. Consequently, on a traditional photographic production, people usually have little problem sticking to the core shot list.

With 3D product rendering, however, the sky is the limit. Actually, not even the sky; anything and everything is possible with CGI. While this can certainly be an advantage, the problem is that people often end up wanting anything and everything

Or 

For argument’s sake, let’s imagine that I’m an art director or member of a marketing team and I’m unsure what kind of setting I want to shoot a certain product in. It would be a very poor use of the production budget if I were to ask for three different studio sets to be built “just in case.” But as 3D rendering is a lot cheaper than set-building, many clients hedge their bets in exactly this way; asking for multiple variations where one would do. Clearly this increases the costs.

Just because the options with CGI are, theoretically, unlimited, doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t limit the options yourself. Stick to only the most important images - as you would do with photography - and 3D product rendering needn’t be prohibitively expensive at all.

Similarly, if you were to overhaul the product images of your entire inventory in one go, the bill for CGI could be huge. For a more efficient return on investment, my advice would be to start with your best-sellers, then work on any new launches, and only fill out the rest of your product range in 3D once you’ve recouped some costs through the first two channels.

It Takes Just 1/125 of a Second to Snap a Photo; 3D Product Rendering Takes Forever

Some people are wary of 3D product rendering because they are under the impression that it takes too long to produce; perhaps imagining stacks of ancient PCs whirring away for weeks on end to process a single product image. 

It’s true, 3D rendering used to be very slow. But it’s also true that the first digital cameras came with 3 megapixel sensors that were of no use to anyone. Yet that certainly doesn’t stop us from using the latest 80 megapixel digital cameras for our product shots today.

The idea that CGI renders are slow to make is not based on current reality. Aside from the huge technological advances that have taken place in recent years, at 2MC we work 24/7; making overnight 3D product rendering services standard. The result is that today 3D product rendering can often turn out to be much faster than traditional studio photography. Especially once all stages of photo production - location-scouting, set-building, shooting, retouching etc. - are factored in.

or

3D Product Rendering Doesn’t “Really” Show the Product

Some people still feel uncomfortable about using 3D product rendering for e-commerce due to ideas about “truth in advertising.” Typically this comes down to a perception that, because 3D product images are entirely computer-generated, they don’t “really” show the product. 

This hesitance is somewhat understandable. But it ignores the degree to which traditional product photographs must in any case be digitally altered in order to meet today’s professional imaging standards. Often to the point that they become more like illustrations than photos. 

How “Real” Is Traditional Product Photography?

Without getting into a philosophical discussion about “photographic truth,” it’s worth keeping in mind that most of the “photographs” used in product marketing today are not what they appear to be. Obviously brands want to show their products in the best possible light. In order to achieve this degree of perfection, a considerable amount of digital retouching will likely have been done to the image. So even if a product image may have started out as a regular photo, by the time it has been retouched, its ontological status as a photograph is rather less certain.

In practice, “retouching” usually involves duplicating, deleting, or in some other way altering sections of the original photo; often replacing them with pure pixels. Not to mention changing the colors from those captured by the camera to ones that either the photographer or brand considers more attractive than real life. 

This process is the absolute minimum that will have been done to any professional product image you see online. Often, however, a lot more digital work than this will have taken place. Indeed, many images are actually composites of several different photographs. If done well, the end results will look totally credible and the viewer won’t notice any difference. But let’s be honest here; there’s little about this process that is “real.” 

As it turns out, though, when it comes to product images, being “real” is not an important criteria. Instead what matters is that the final image accurately depicts the product; giving customers a clear idea of what they can expect to receive if they purchase it. How you arrive at that destination is irrelevant, though, and clear illustration of a product is achievable both by means of traditional photography and 3D product rendering. 

But 3D Rendering Just Doesn’t Look Real

Finally, some people simply aren’t convinced that the quality of CGI is good enough; “It doesn’t look like a photo, it seems fake,” they’ll say. This misconception arises from the fact that some examples of 3D rendering are, undoubtedly, better than others. And of course, it’s only when CGI has been done badly that you would know it was CGI at all.

Many people point to IKEA as an example of how lifestyle product photography should be done, unfavorably comparing 3D product rendering to the beautiful natural-looking images in the IKEA catalogue. The irony being that most of the images in IKEA’s catalogues today aren’t photos at all, but 3D rendering.

The in-house marketing and communications team at IKEA had already started combining photography and 3D rendering in its product images way back in the noughties; the first 3D product image made it to the catalogue in 2006, with a full 3D room-view appearing for the first time in 2009. One day the IKEA communications department got a call from the boss telling them to up their game. “You have to stop using CG. I’ve got 200 product images and they’re just terrible.” What this person didn’t realize, however, was that every single one of the offending images was a photograph; meanwhile the majority of the product shots that they’d approved were CGI!

Shocking news; bad 3D rendering is bad. Just as bad photography is bad. Anyone who is still under the impression that 3D product rendering doesn’t look real has been looking in the wrong place.

Final Thoughts

As we’ve just seen, none of the old arguments against using 3D product rendering for e-commerce stand up today. Indeed, for many businesses looking to produce e-commerce product images in a competitive manner, the best solution now will likely either be a combination of photography and CGI, or perhaps even all-out 3D product rendering. 

I started this piece by asking if 3D product rendering has come to replace traditional photography for e-commerce. The simple answer is that, yes, to a large degree it already has. The slightly longer answer, though, is that both traditional photography and digital product images have their place today, depending on your exact needs and case by case logistics. A more pertinent question, then, would be when is it most appropriate to use one technique rather than the other. 

As an example, although IKEA has massively increased the amount of 3D product renders it produces these days, the quantity of traditional photography the company shoots has also risen significantly in the same period. This is because overall demand for images has continued to grow exponentially, and in certain scenarios - ones that I’ll no doubt look at more closely in future articles - photography still has its advantages even today. 

In short, this isn’t an either/or scenario; both 3D product rendering and traditional photography remain legitimate tools. So it’s not so much a question of whether 3D product rendering can replace traditional photography, but how 3D product images can help you to improve your business moving forward - whether that happens to be alongside or instead of photography. It’s precisely this question that I’ll be addressing in future articles in this series. I hope you’ll join me!

In the meantime, if you would like to know more about the possibilities of either 3D product rendering or more traditional photographic solutions for e-commerce, don’t hesitate to get in touch with either me or Conor at 2MC and we’ll be happy to answer your queries.

By John Bramaan.