Photorealism vs. Illustration: ‘God is in the details’

I saw an illustration for a redevelopment project recently that didn't actually look too bad. 

Then I realised I was wildly mistaken. Because I was in fact looking at an illustration of the ugly and unloved 1960s brutalist building that was already there, made to look quaint and lovely through the medium of watercolour. 

So, a great image – but an appalling distortion of reality. 

A good example, though…

There is still much debate over the use of illustrations vs. photoreal CGIs in property developments, with many valid pros and cons for each. 

However, the majority of the ‘pros’ for illustrations are related to the lack of detail. Which, whilst beneficial in a few instances, generally – in my opinion, at least – come with consequences that far outweigh that benefit. 

And this misrepresentative illustration of that brutalist building is a great example of the biggest drawback of using illustrations in architectural visualisations: the very lack of accuracy and reality that comes from that lack of detail… and the potential repercussions that can bring. 

The pros and cons of illustrations 

Fans of illustration often argue that its greatest advantage is the very fact that you don't get bogged down in the detail. 

Architectural visualisations are needed at varying stages of a development project, including conception stage, and proponents of the artist impression claim that this allows you to conceptualise the early evolution of a design without being ‘held to details’ that perhaps would later be changed. 

They also claim that artistic illustrations lead those viewing them to focus on the most important aspect: the overall design and the overall concept of the project, rather than getting distracted by finer – potentially unimportant at that stage – details such as the colours of the interior, or the shape of the windows… 

All of which is true, meaning illustration is indeed good to have in your toolkit for the early conceptual stages. Particularly as it is generally a far quicker, and thus lower-cost process if only a few, 2D basic impression renderings are required. 

However, a good concept means nothing if the detail is subsequently poor. And this is where the problems with illustrations lie. 

The German architect Mies van der Rohe famously said, ‘God is in the details’, and he was absolutely right. 

Because by not focusing on the detail – even sometimes at the early stages – there is no way to accurately assess if a building is going to be ‘good’ or not. There is no way of knowing exactly how it will look once built, what quality of material is planned, how it is likely to blend in with its surrounding environment, how it will function in relation to its main purpose…

A lack of detail removes the ability to see through the potential of your early concepts… losing the opportunity for the design to be tweaked and enhanced, and losing stakeholders the opportunity to correctly understand the proposition. 

Photorealism, by its very nature, focuses on the details. It covers every angle and represents - as closely as possible - reality. Meaning it gives those looking at a design, whether that's planning officials, local residents, investors or end-clients, the confidence to make a decision knowing exactly what the final outcome is going to be. Everybody ‘knows’ what reality looks like, so there is a common understanding.

Illustrations on the other hand, require – by their very nature – that people use their imaginations… and as I've written about before, that in itself can be a very dangerous situation when you're looking to secure the planning permission, investment or sales that will ultimately define a project's success or failure. A conceptual illustration means something quite different to each person - there is absolutely no common understanding.

Essentially, a lack of detail in early visualisations presents the very real possibility of a project failing to get past conception stage, simply because it hasn't sufficiently been able to express its potential to the necessary parties. 

But that's not the only risk posed...

A lack of detail comes with another, completely contrasting yet equally problematic, risk. 

That of the end result being nothing like its promised proposition… 

The risks that come from a lack of detail

 In direct contrast to the projects that don't get past conception point, illustrations – or for that matter, all and any type of visualisation that is lacking sufficient detail – come with the risk of a completed project that looks or behaves nothing like that which had been promised… or, was expected.

 One of the most central aspects of architecture and design is a building's appearance, and the way in which a new structure stands out, or blends in, within its environment.

 Even the most basic of house designs can contribute beautifully to its surroundings if the right choice of brick, slate and window frame is made. It's the details that elevate a design from being just a structural shape, into being a striking, unique or beautiful entity. And it's the details that are equally capable of resulting in a diminished, disappointing or downright ugly structure when they are chosen poorly.

 Which means that the details simply need to be accurately portrayed in the visuals in order for the visuals to have any chance of accurately reflecting the reality.

 Just take that brutalist-building watercolour as an example. It's ‘technically’ a representative visualisation of that building, but the intricacies and details included in the watercolour – the touches that made it look ‘not too bad’ – simply don't exist in the reality. And unfortunately, the reality is the lesser of the two versions.

 In this instance, the building has already been standing for many decades, but just imagine if that were a recent building, erected… and approved… on the basis of that watercolour. I dare say there would be a fairly large number of unhappy stakeholders capable of causing a fairly substantial headache to all those involved in the project.

 Ultimately, designs illustrated with vague visuals – whether deliberately, through a poor job of representing the intended details, or simply because they are yet to have been fully defined – leave room for interpretation, which leaves room for those all-important details to differ substantially. And when it comes to property developments, interpretation and substantially differing details – particularly in late stages – generally aren't a good thing.

 If a specific material hasn't been defined, visualised and clearly represented upfront, it will need to be chosen at a later date. And different people are likely to make different choices – whether that's down to personal taste, from a budget perspective, or from one of availability… It may be with all the best of intentions, but one small decision on one small detail can in fact have a significant overall effect. And multiple small decisions, on multiple small details, an even greater one. 

 Value engineering – a legitimate method for reducing costs where possible during a development – also becomes a bigger risk with previously undefined visual details, for exactly the same reason. That ‘slightly cheaper’ material may have a far more noticeable, and negative, impact than one might expect – something that becomes a costly and headache-inducing realisation if it's only once the building is finished that this becomes apparent.

Ensuring a commitment to quality

 Illustrations are a beautiful – and warranted in very early-stage development conception – means of presenting visuals to early stakeholders.

 However, as you progress through the stages of your project, their inability to truly reflect the detail of a project means they are unable to ever present a truly accurate portrayal of a final structure.

 Photorealistic visualisations can drill down into the specifics of a project, ensuring the quality of a design is recognisable from the outset, and that there will be no nasty or unexpected surprises – whether to the buyers, the neighbours, the investors or the very architects and developers themselves – once the building is standing.

 The ability to easily adapt and amend a 3D CGI graphic to present a different angle, different lighting, a new choice of material and so on… in contrast to an illustration becoming obsolete and requiring a complete re-draw the moment a design or presentation change is required… is just one of the other benefits of photorealism over illustrations.

 But in our mind, it's the commitment to defining and highlighting the details from the outset that provides the greatest incentive for a photoreal visualisation.

 Because that commitment not only means you're committed to the development's overall quality, but it means you're committed to the development's overall – and long-standing – success, too.