Been following Karl for over 15 years. I've been teaching 3D (and partial photography) for about 10 years now. This move by Karl shows how in touch and relevant he is to the industry. Best 3D artists are the ones who think and execute like photographers.. think have better awareness of lighting and composition too. I totally agree about the efficiency side of 3D. For $19, I'm going to sign in. Anything Karl teaches is a guaranteed time and money investment. Rock on Karl!
Very good point to make about Karl Taylor, he's giving us photographers a heads up so we don't get left behind. I believe that the photographers who were not left behind in recent years are the ones who's editing, retouching/Photoshop skills such as background replacements, liquifying model's bodies and clothing for ecommerce, retouching their blemishes etc are the ones that could make the transition to CGI. I'm kind of proud that my own daughter recently has been acknowledging that I've been ahead of the game because I was photoshopping digital clothing on to models I photographed 13 years ago. I like to level up their shoes by creating the most up to date heels, changing the colors of their shoes to match the outfit etc. She said I was also ahead of the game when several years ago I filmed a video of her with my Iphone of her walking outside like it was a runway (all the world is a stage), she said, lots of Influencers do that now, walk down the street like it's a runway. That's why photographers need to just go with their instincts and be creative, always be several steps ahead of your competition. I believe the photographers that are great at Photoshop have already been doing mixed media, compositing their photography to create virtual environments that were not photographed that way originally, adding jewelry, a belt, shoes, changing the colors etc. shaping the hair with liquify.
The best 3d artists are ones who set healthy, natural creative boundaries, so much 3d in still or moving image is over the top because natural boundaries do not exist. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or it will become an exhausting parody of itself in no time at all. However... you will be behind the curve if you think learning just 3D is a relevant adaptation now, it's AI you need to be learning... arguably, 3d artists are MORE at risk than photographers.
@@chumleyk I kinda agree, understand the art itself is the most important and that what going to make the difference between AI artist , however , it is not going to be a huge difference between people the Ai will carry 95 persent of the skill
This pandora's box reminds me of all the doubts and fears I felt in the first decade of the century. For years I used film photography and suddenly pixels and digital photography came along. They were no longer silver salts, they were pixels. The transition was not easy because my head was buried in the sand and I just wanted film... At the end of the day we are artists and visual creators. Thanks for this video Karl and the whole team.
Fantastic video and message! Funny while watching this video I had a flashback when I was at university taking Photography classes remembering my professor of advance photography and lighting who suggested to all of us students to start taking computer classes, this was in 1992 and as Karl Taylor mentioned by 2005 it was all Digital. Thanks Karl Taylor & Team for creating great content on your channel!
@@VisualEducationStudio By the way Karl Taylor the only way Fashion will be affected by this technology will be locations, as the images you showed of the car campaign the same can be done with the location and drop in the model. Again, thank you so much for all the knowledge you share and much more success to you!
I've watched this 3 times and I'm glad Karl has incorporated 3D modelling into his workflow. I've been using 3D since 1995 in architectural rendering. Eventually there came a time when there were too many 3D artists competing in the same field and quoting such low prices. They weren't that good but they were so irresistibly cheap! So in 2010, I started fashion and product photography alongside my 3D work. How I got into fashion photography is a whole story in itself but I enjoyed it so much that I subscribed to Karl Taylor's channel for free advice. However, I did find that I could use my 3D skills in product photography as well as fashion. I didn't like plan it that way but these old 3D skills were actually relevant in today's digital world. Even back in 2005. I could take on projects that others had to turn down or had to hire a 3D artist to do the job. Back then, there weren't many good 3D artists in Asia. They could get 3D work done in Europe or US but at very, very high prices. There goes your profit. By combining skills in photography and 3D, I could build sets behind the fashion model. All I had to do was match the lighting environment. Product photography was much easier. A furniture maker wanted photos of his kitchen cabinets in a real kitchen. But the products weren't built yet. All they had were blueprints. I got the job because I could build the cabinets in 3D and comp them into the real kitchen photo. I have been very lucky to have learnt 3D way back then. Oh yeah, one important thing. You need some serious Photoshop skills to work in 3D, creating bump maps, specularity maps, displacement maps, alpha channels and seamless material textures that look like real.
That's really cool! In terms of doing textures in photoshop, there's tools like substance designer and substance painter that make it much much easier to make and modify textures with insane detail. It's all procedural with tileable textures too, and works similar to photoshop with it's layered structure being non-destructive
Fantastic advice. I've been a product photographer since 2003 and with all the faking of shots and mockups due to current supply chain issues, this sounds like a very good solution to getting high quality imagery.
This has me feeling a little doom and gloom. Just got into photography after years of pursuing what other people pushed me into. Invested a lot of money into equipment as well. I have done 3d editing and it is nothing like the fun I have when shooting with a camera.
Photographers have had to become very good at Photoshop to be competitive, at least in my market that is true and what sets me apart above the other Photographer's in skill level without hiring retouchers. There are stock sites with CGI renderings that can be bought for very cheap so I would think the only companies that are needing CGI are the biggest brands and they are hiring a CGI artist to create something from scratch. In my market I'm sure my clients would be happy with me compositing something with Photoshop rather than build it from scratch with a CGI program. There are lots of CGI and Photography environments on stock sites that allow you to drop the photo of the product into a scene/environment. Stock sites have lowered the value of photography and CGI work but if you are great at Photoshop and compositing, I doubt most companies will be hiring someone to create an entire image from CGI, only the largest brands could afford it, I would think. I think CGI would be interesting to learn, especially the animated CGI.
Being a photographer, and learning to be. 3D artist are completely different mediums. I don't think it's simply an upskilling from photography. It's massively different
Exactly! I have several friends all the way at the top of the 3D world, an ex girlfriend and an old roommate from over 20 years ago. Not at all in the same realm of skills or even personality types. Photography and 3D are not interchangeable skill sets. I'm currently very good friends with a top tier car photographer for major exotic brands. He's more of a 3D artist and way less of a photographer type than one would think. Sadly this is "learn to code" coming for everybody. I could have gotten into 3D back in 1998 but, it's not how I'm built as a creative.
not really, if you take away the modeling aspect, 3D is basically virtual photography. and modeling is becoming even less of a daunting task with photogrammetry programs becoming more prevalent and accessible
Thank you Karl. Your Karl Taylor Education platform is soooooo worth the money and time. I said to myself before joining Karl Taylor Education…..I’ll watch all the shows quickly for 2 months and get out….well I have completed year 1 and still a member. I don’t see me stopping anytime soon either. 👍. $19.00 a month is worth it!
Product CGI artist here ✋ I do artworks for P&G, Unilever and Nestle. FMG (fast moving goods) is a perfect sector for CGI, especially for say a shampoo bottle which has multiple fragrances, multiple variants and in multiple countries/languages. To swap a label in minutes and have it lit exactly the same with exact same angles as one made last month, across the other side of the world is a major pull for big companies using CGI over traditional photography.
Product photography done in studio can be easily replaced with CGI and you got the advantage of cutting time when you need multiple version (angles) of your product. Also you save time in postproduction. When you need some lifestyle shots of your products, that's a different story and I believe photography is still the only way.
Long time viewer and subscriber. Thank you Karl for making the effort to research this, it's something that I've considered the first time I've heard the words KeyShot. I've been in and in-house product photographer for 10 years-4 companies now. This is an eye opening video that would benefit a lot of 'us'. Thank you and many future thank you's.
i used to work as a 2D/3D artist for a pc game project for several years and now im in the photo/video space and this is my take on it: while 3D graphics are getting more and more realistic, its always just a 3D model someone made. a real product photo has a real connection to the product and i cannot get over the fakeness of some product renders. at first glance sometimes its hard to tell CGI and real life apart, but at some point some fakeness always jumps to the eye. it might be the wrong surface material, color, form or just whole details of the product missing (machine marks, seams, imperfections, the background or something the 3D artist just deemed unnecessary, like a battery cover) - at the latest when you receive the product and it doesnt look like the render the illusion pops and all of a sudden the product doesnt feel legit anymore - a disconnect between the presentation and the actual product. theres a place for perfect CGI, but i prefer my product pictures to be the real thing. i can imagine that in a sea of fake product pictures those with high quality analog style photographs will stand out and be associated with higher quality and be a more desirable, trustworthy and honest product / brand, while everyone else is effectively selling you an illusion with varying degrees of honesty. sure, we product photographers clean, polish and visually optimize the products, maybe remove some scratches or nicks from the product, but theres still plenty of flesh to a real picture. everything has its place, photography and CGI will coexist and go hand-in-hand. for some tasks CGI will be more efficient, but photography will always be more confidence inspiring for the customer and therefore CGI wont replace product photography as a whole.
Lol, if you're thinking renders look fake, take a look at some of the work industrial designers do, where we can replicate 1:1 surface finishes in the blink of an eye....Commercial photographies days are numbered. No one feels emotional connections with product shots, period. No one is going to inspect a blown up image on a billboard with a telescope to notice differences between real photos and a CAD Render.
Great vid BTW, your depth of knowledge on the product photography side, and your understanding of the power of rendering/modeling made this a great watch.
Thank you very much Karl for bringing this very interesting topic to debate. I completely agreed with you that we better to be aware how the CGI technology is useful in many cases and how effective in a commercial photography sphere. I’ll up skill myself to make my services better. Btw, I kind of want to see you also learning with us by Ethan. Lol I’m sure that you will come across with many good questions from our side to Ethan. I really enjoyed the another tutorials with Viktor you sat next to him. But at this time, I would like you to create a CG model too.
Thank you it was so amazing video! I am a CGI artist and I don't want to price myself less than a photographer. But I see many who do and don't really understand the value they are producing. Every one of us should as well learn sales and pricing, value based pricing too. For example if a high end photography studio can charge 50k for a project or even many more than why a 3d artist should charge less for the same provided value? It would as well be good to know what top studios are charging because every company is so silent about their prices.
One of the hardest aspect of 3D modeling, is getting unique textures and other assets. Creating seamless textures is also extremely difficult since it is hard to get access to good cameras and lenses that have sufficient corner to corner sharpness and detail and good lighting to exactly match a real world object.
You can use Substance designer to create whatever you need from scratch in 16bit with a nondestructive workflow fully seamless. But it takes time and is a skill in itself.
I love when people say that Blender or another software is not as good. I have been using Cinema 4d, 3ds Max, Houdini, and Blender for the past 10 years. If you are good, the software does not matter.
Great discussion as always. Working my way through your CGI courses on KTE already. Looking forward to your course on how you manage to personally work 97 Hours/Day!
Great video. Got both right. The first one, by the shadows. They look better. The shadow on the cgi watches are very big. Almost a replica from the boxes. The second one got it by the edge of the glass. For all the light applied, the edge of the glass were darker than it should.
I have a client that is partially moving to some CGI. I searched and found that a lot of the providers are located in Europe and especially Eastern Europe. Because of the extensive finish options in their line of product, regarding my client’s specific situation, shipping over seas would have been extremely costly, so I ended taking over anything that requires actual photography for that project. The way I look at it, CGI is there to stay and grow, but I am not so sure photo studios will stay in that market for long. I think many companies are better taking CGI in-house because possibly in many cases, owning the actual native file (like .blend), has more value than paying for a single exported document. Big names brands can afford outsourcing it but most likely can also afford taking it in house. I also think that few companies can benefit from in house CGI team to the level Ikea can and does. Ikea has the perfect line of product with simple design, few options, few colors and can deliver most of its extensive line on 6 continents. Cost of CGI per product sold for them may just be next to nothing. For that reason, I don’t consider the Swedish brand the model to follow blindfolded, it is more of an exception. In any case, there will always be a connection between photography and CGI images so just like learning coding basic html 20 years ago, it’s not a bad idea to stay informed on the progress and techniques involved in these software.
The image on the right looked more organic from the start. Even before zooming in, I could tell. There's just not enough detail on the left image and the colours are off, even some metal accents do not look like the original does.
Totally agree. Maybe he did it in a bit of a rush or I don't know but there are issues. Some of the rounded edges are rough and unfinished, also the textures look artificial at places.
I think the future therefore is a combination of both. Unless the clients provide a 3D model of their product (or at least a .cad blueprint), especially if it's something very detailed like a luxury watch or smth otherwise there's no way a 3D artist can recreate a very detailed product efficiently. I'd say if client brief requires it - shoot the product and place the image in the 3D created environment. The problem with your first example (watches), CGI version does not look exactly like the product itself, so as I said, clients must provide the exact 3D model beforehand in order to make it efficient.
Once CGI gets to a certain point I do believe its going to be like the argument of mixing audio in the box or out of the box. As long as you make believeable results that mirror the real thing its going to come down to bottom line.
29:20 If instead it was taking a plate of glass and dropping it on a pebble on the floor to get a crack pattern, it's probably a lot easier in real life. I've seen no less than 18 different ways of doing it in 7 different software in my research over the last few days.
As a consumer, I prefer to see an actual photograph of a product I'm buying than a 3D render. That's just me, though. As a photographer and someone who has been trying to learn CGI and 3D modeling over the years, I can tell you it's not that easy. Especially as a photographer, when you are modeling something, there's this thought in the back of my head all the time, "If I just photographed the damn thing, I'd done it already," and I'm still subdividing my default cube, plane, or whatever on the screen. Of course, CG artist would achieve it faster in their realm, but could they take the photograph? I hate that we have to become superhumans to be successful these days. I wanted to be a photographer, not a CG artist. It's more complicated than it looks when you launch Blender and start modeling.
I think a hybrid of the techniques is really the way forward. For example, the background could have been rendered and then real products overlaid. Lighting is tricky in this case of course, but with advances in AI it might be possible for computers to analyse the light hitting the product and render the background accordingly.
I rethought my entire photography business a year ago due to 3D rendering and CGI. My $.02... Add in the advancements in prosumer cameras in cell phones where the image is good enough for 80-90% of social media use and photography becomes another commodity meaning I don't care what genre you shoot, work will become more scare and pay will be lesser than it already is. This is why the average photographer focuses on weddings. It's one that can't be duplicated but its not what I would ever consider.
Old news. I've been doing this 3D stuff as a profession 10+ years. Limitations of 3D are still a problem. 3D is still an approximation of reality and you lose a lot of quality in lighting and color. Not to mention that certain lighting properties are still very hard to do if not impossible. Also you tend to render in up to 4K which is not enough to preserve small detail and quality. Sampling is a big issue, hence the approximation. 3D is not photography, not even close. If you're a freelancer than ok, but real high end 3D is crazy expensive and requires a team of people and longer production times not to mention animations where you need a rendering farm (array of computers) to output a series of images with passes (color, specular etc). Then you do compositing. I mean a lot of work because clients tend to believe everything is "more" possible in 3D and argue about what reality is and everyone has its own mind on that. So, no it is not that simple. and it 3D costs go up really quickly. Let's say a regular, well made packshot is min. a week job if done with agency but usually much more than that.
imo it depends on the 3d artist I think it can be done 100% in 3rd, same as the car commercials use the Blackbird ( check it out very cool ) some parts will go to 3d some stuff can be done faster in camera.
I was thinking about this just the other day, partly as I'm learning C4D and Redshift and I can see how incredibly realistic the results can be. Being able to photo-realistically model products, plus the ability to animate them means product photography days are probably numbered for many (not all) shots
For certain shoots where it is straight forward lit product photography on plain white like for Amazon, photography would be faster and cheaper. On high concept ideas like making those black blocks and a complex light setup, then cgi could be less expensive and possibly take less time, provided the product model is available already. So it all depends. I don't think CGI will replace photography totally, just some of it for sure! A lot of vitamin bottles and supplement bottles and packaging on sites showing Pet Supplements and Human Vitamin Supplements are nearly all 3D template bottles and packaging when shown on clear white backdrop for Amazon, with graphics added to the surfaces and quite realistic as the Photoshop files in PSD have multiple layers with reflections, shadows etc. rendered by an expert, as a template which a designer buys the 3D template. The graphic designer only has to add the "text/photo layer name of product with graphics" wrap onto the bottle or 3D box package, which is applied to one of the 3D surface in PS just below the reflective tranluscent layers. I know because I have used them). Karl, you probably have seen these. Products appear on sites like Pet Smart or other vitamin store sites.
"No one gives a monkey." I had to look up this phrase XD, it's a fun expression. This topic has been on my mind too. As usual, enjoyed your photography talks and knowledge. I feel the threat of photography drying out. Was thinking about 3D/CGI courses earlier and recently invested myself in learning video editing. In fact, will focus on the motion graphic. More or less, I think these skills are all good to have and helpful to each other.... just hoping to get myself some more assets.
Karl as per my understanding doesn´t matter if you do the photography or CGI since you can match the expectaion regarding the quality and price am I right? And anyway you will need to learn photography in order to provide a good quality of CGI delivery to client, so the best to do is if you are a product photographer is just to add this new skill, in other words nothing has changed, photographer need to keep improving his skills
My business partner and I have already started fusing these 2 principles in our work...Studio lighting saves time and he makes the environments. and extras like smoke or other simulations like water
IMO, AI is advancing in leaps and bounds, it can generate images and artwork that take seconds rather than hours, compared to CGI or photography or art. Mid-Journey is one of the most notable AI platforms that is rocking the art and photography arenas. If we don’t want to be left behind the CGI wagon, we need to start taking a serious look at AI.
The best 3d artists are ones who set healthy, natural creative boundaries, so much 3d in still or moving image is over the top because natural boundaries do not exist. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or it will become an exhausting parody of itself in no time at all. However... This video's advice is 1-2 years out of date for 3d artists and 5 years for photography. You will be behind the curve if you think learning just 3D is a relevant adaptation now, it's AI you need to be learning... arguably, 3d artists are MORE at risk than photographers because there will always be a market for real (creatively or legally)
Why has stock photography died? I've been doing it for a couple years and only make maybe $50 a month now, but before I was making a decent amount. Is it just oversaturated?
A great deal of product photography is dying just like stock photography has had its demise. Modeling will be hit as well. Technology will only get easier and better year after year. With comparisons looking close right now imagine how much better the CGI will be in a few more years.
First of all, one of the persons that brings cgi to the level of the realism that is jawdropping is Marek Denko. You can simply watch what he has done with legos that really is on another level. Second is that there are tools today that you can play with your lights realtime like UE5. Third, these days there is a technology called photogrammetry that is developing so quickly that soon you will be able to 3d scan everything with lot's of details in matter of minutes. The scanned materials are here for a while now. So the 3D industry is going forward with a crazy like speed. And one thing you didn't mention about cgi is that you can set up single scene for a product line up and render them "exactly" the same as each other. Or you can shot one product in multiple scenes in exact same angle with no effort. You can test various materials in just minutes to see witch one fits best for your products or scene without having to really make them. Or starting to advertise and marketing of a product before even you produce it and evaluate your design with minimal cost. There are many advantages in cgi but there's many in photography too that you are the best one to name them.
Some materials cannot easily be faked. I have been working in the watch industry, and at some point I took a job with consumer electronics people who wanted to do smart watches. The were planning to use 3D images of the products. I tried to tell them it was a bad idea but they were adamant… until they came back and admitted it wasn’t working out. There is a randomness in the brushing of metal or the pattern of leather that you can’t fake your way out of. In the end, for my industry, it’s much faster to shoot the real product and to post process it than to try to synthetics each it…
People can't tell between a CG Image and a real photo now, especially with Ray Tracing technology. But both of them still need a person to make the image. We can say both of them are basically a photographer with a different tools
Wrong, A.I. can make an image. It only needs a person (creative at add agency) to prompt it. Sure, the technology isn't quite good enough yet (why does that model have 6 fingers?!), but see you back here in a year?
Not "doomed" - I am sure some will still prefer the old school ways, just like many still enjoy listening to vinyl records. But for producing campaigns where turnaround time from idea to digital launch is an important factor it seems beneficial to be able to outsource the work overseas and save both time and money. And let us not forget - also saving us the hazzle from having to deal with mega-ego photo artists. :)
I’m 20 minutes in so far. TLDR: this is going to be like learning how to do web development with React as someone with zero experience . Most (clever) people ultimately figure it out. It’s a minefield. Embrace the suck. This is not like making music with FL Studio! What’s particularly interesting and equally frustrating about this field is that it’s sort of a Wild West at the moment . I thought it would be easy to DIY this stuff on my own. Starting out and trying to learn and grasp the fundamentals of 3D/CGI/VFX (or even the basic nomenclature or proper vocabulary (ya gots to know what to Google right)) is a massive uphill battle. So, props are due to whomever is able to figure this out on their own - and create compelling content with it. Now, the awful thing about all this (it gets worse) is the software - not only knowing which one to use but also the pricing, the plugins, what’s good, what’s bad , and so on. I believe we’re quickly approaching a point where technical proficiency and creativity are going to be necessary skills to have in order to excel in this field . Seriously, the software is a major boner killer . But there’s another fascinating flip side to this field as well where we end up with a ping pong effect - check out a company called Runway ML as an anecdote to my rapidly devolved comment. I think hybrid machine / human solutions are where the party is really going to get started. I mean … just look at how good deepfakes are 🔥
I'm not sure. But I don't think pivoting from a product photographer to an 3D artist, is not a real safe bet. Why? Because you will have to compete against the whole world. Literally. So, you have to compete also to 3D artists from India, the Philippines etc. Good luck :(
The client will care if the CGI does not provide an accurate rendition of the product. If the consumer sees a difference between the CGI image and the actual product it will cause discontent with the brand. I could clearly see a difference with the presentation of the two images. The photographed watch showed a distinct difference where the glass of the watch meets the steel body of the watch. The CGI did not represent this correct. Until this can be exact I don’t see this gaining traction, however I’m extremely picky when it come to these details.
nothing beats the real deal.... great work KARL! 3d will never be as real because its fake out the gate.... the only thing that maters is whether the creator of the product cares and can pay for the masters skill set..... many are willing to give up quality for whatever reason they come up with. I think a mix of the 3d and real shots is ok but Nothing beats the real shot when it comes at that high quality.
If it was not for the blocks, you as a pro, and me with my NIkon Z6ii could have got a bit of black felt, had our studio and lights already ready and coudl have taken a few shots in ten minutes. As I say a pro would already know where to postion the lights and what power etc. Could a CGI guy do it it ten minutes? I doubt it.
As I commented a while ago on another Video regarding the topic of CGI and real life photography: Isn‘t it strange, that e.g. in Blender we have to add all those imperfections for photorealistic look, that every photographer wants to get rid of in real life photography? As a photographer myself I would be more than happy, if all the optical weaknesses would be gone. Now starting with 3D rendering I have to add them artificially 😉😂🤪
Absolutely. I have clients that wanted me to "clean up" their product a little more with each new job. Then they got to the point when the delivered product didn't match the client expectations. That's when they asked me to live it alone unless there was a manufacturing default in the sample I shoot. They are moving to some low level CGI but I think they will keep my services because I really know everything about the product since I have a physical contact, I am reliable and I can deliver faster than CGI.
Fashion photography is already heading towards the CGI direction. Fashion designers are using 3d softwares like marvelous designer & clo3D to create their clothes with specifications that are transferred to real world production, fashion filmmakers are using softwares like Autodesk Maya & Unreal engine to create short film adverts for top fashion brands. As with beauty photography its only a matter of time, open libraries of realistic digital humans like meta humans & daz3D will only get better in the future. The age of synthetic media is inevitable, Skilling up in this field is highly advisable in my opinion.
Nice segment. Morover look like you did not use for the CGI images a physically based render engine or even better a spectral render engine. The result can be much better than the examples you shown here using this kinf of engines instead than "cartoonish" render engine (BTW open source physical based engine and spectral render engine exists)
There will be images that would take longer to do in CGI than with a camera. On the other hand, if we had the tools and knowledge that Karl has, we wouldn't spend extra and unnecessary time assembling all the gadgets and procedures that the complexity of an on-camera shot requires if we can make it a respectable CGI job in less time. That's what all this is about using resources in the most effective and cost effective way. And the client thinks the same way (especially high-profile clients) they usually want the best possible work at the best cost and at the best price. Some photographers have to stop being romantic and nostalgic. This is a business.
Trouble with 3D is that it's to perfect. Our brain picks up on it and there's a disconnect. The best 3D artists take time to create flaws. True realism is imperfection.
not sure about fabric, check out texture artist like Pauline boiteux she make believable fabric, and fabric simulation software like marvelous designer also really easy to use.. human by far is the safest bet if you're photographer, i've only seen like 3 or 4 artist who make believable human.. and it usually just face close up
Amazing value to have CGI tutorials included with the already amazing photography education. Just watch the latest Mad Hatter tutorial to see the value of this platform.
The really big thing for my clients has been the ability to change colors and materials in the final shot after the fact. A combination of 3D render over a photo original has served some of that purpose. But I think going to 3D to save them even having to make prototypes for photography is going to be increasingly attractive.
like many software is free until enough people is using it then the company start charging money. Updates and cost of maintaining mostly are the reason but we all know that nothing is for free
Here you are talking about CG, while product photography was actually killed by the fact that gear and knowledge became mainstream (who did it?) and many people are now able to produce shots that are on the level of yesterday's high end photography.
I do not get this idea that fingerprints or dust speckles make product photography more "realistic". In the realm of reality, good old product photography shot in 4x5 or 5x7 film sheets had to be and WAS absolutely speckless. Client would have not paid the job, and the assistant would have been fired if any imperfection wouldn't have been found. Product photography has always been about making real what's not real. This obviously before stamp brush of photoshop.
Da sempre le società e gli Imperi che hanno perso la loro forza militare e le loro capacità creative, manufatturiere e artigianali sono inesorabilmente finiti. La nostra civiltà sta correndo verso lo stesso destino.
Indian Product photography is DOOMED, companies either hire and extract every second from a photographer or are willing to give as low as 1 usd per product with editing xD (I have heard people saying it, if i face someone personally quoting that, i will laugh on their face and walk out. Im into product photography from 2010 6-7 years in job, rest freelancing in own studio.
i think the AI generated product renditions is where its heading, in a decade or so the software will be advanced enough the skilled lighting knowledge won't be needed either as it will be AI generated. how long will it be before you are doing a fashion on a cgi mars using models in your studio, might be one for you to try pretty soon
CGI is fine, untill it will be requiered by law that all adds need to state wether it is a photograph or a 3D model of the product. And the whole CGI advertisment to the consumer will feel like: "oh, so you don't trust your product to look good when being photographed?"
Ha Ha As an aaueur I had to do some product photogrpahy. And getting the lighting correct is very hard. I know. I chose the wrong image! But looking at your photos the ligting on the watch is much more natural - but is that even required these days. You mention all the expenses to make the photos. You are being unfair there. Ok you needed the blocks to be made. But if you are a Product photographer, you have a camera, and the lighting already, and you don't need a big studio. And you can amortise the lighting and the camera over many jobs Ok you chose to hire an assistant - but that was not neccessary!
This reminds me of how 80s films used to be filmed and created. Say Star Wars. They had miniature sets made, and massive studios etc. Compared to today. CGI, green screens. Job done. Maybe it's my ages, but I still prefer the 80s movies.
Modern movies don't catch me precisely because of that (with the exception of a few). They all look damning fake. As soon as I feel that the producers insult my intelligence, I no longer want to see anything.
Nice comparison, I was able to identify the images, but I have to stop the video and pay attention. I also used my knowledge of Karl Taylor. style and craftsmanship of light. If the history predicts the future, eventually the law will limit the use of CGI in adds, at least without a note. Companies will start to demand better than reality cgi models, consumer protection will trigger and politicians will act. Now, there is a window for that, fi corporations take long to start abusing the cgi. Used products for local car dealers for example, and food photography all are sensitive to missleading class actions than new products.
That's not a territory where you can find much info. If you go to site /place that specializes in CGI, not only do they not provide a pricing guide, but they tend to grossly exaggerate the cost of photography. I think the video is fair comparing realistic expectations and getting into details regarding when photo is better and when CGI is.
Been following Karl for over 15 years. I've been teaching 3D (and partial photography) for about 10 years now. This move by Karl shows how in touch and relevant he is to the industry.
Best 3D artists are the ones who think and execute like photographers.. think have better awareness of lighting and composition too. I totally agree about the efficiency side of 3D.
For $19, I'm going to sign in. Anything Karl teaches is a guaranteed time and money investment.
Rock on Karl!
Very good point to make about Karl Taylor, he's giving us photographers a heads up so we don't get left behind. I believe that the photographers who were not left behind in recent years are the ones who's editing, retouching/Photoshop skills such as background replacements, liquifying model's bodies and clothing for ecommerce, retouching their blemishes etc are the ones that could make the transition to CGI. I'm kind of proud that my own daughter recently has been acknowledging that I've been ahead of the game because I was photoshopping digital clothing on to models I photographed 13 years ago. I like to level up their shoes by creating the most up to date heels, changing the colors of their shoes to match the outfit etc. She said I was also ahead of the game when several years ago I filmed a video of her with my Iphone of her walking outside like it was a runway (all the world is a stage), she said, lots of Influencers do that now, walk down the street like it's a runway. That's why photographers need to just go with their instincts and be creative, always be several steps ahead of your competition. I believe the photographers that are great at Photoshop have already been doing mixed media, compositing their photography to create virtual environments that were not photographed that way originally, adding jewelry, a belt, shoes, changing the colors etc. shaping the hair with liquify.
The best 3d artists are ones who set healthy, natural creative boundaries, so much 3d in still or moving image is over the top because natural boundaries do not exist. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or it will become an exhausting parody of itself in no time at all. However... you will be behind the curve if you think learning just 3D is a relevant adaptation now, it's AI you need to be learning... arguably, 3d artists are MORE at risk than photographers.
@@chumleyk I kinda agree, understand the art itself is the most important and that what going to make the difference between AI artist , however , it is not going to be a huge difference between people the Ai will carry 95 persent of the skill
This pandora's box reminds me of all the doubts and fears I felt in the first decade of the century. For years I used film photography and suddenly pixels and digital photography came along. They were no longer silver salts, they were pixels. The transition was not easy because my head was buried in the sand and I just wanted film... At the end of the day we are artists and visual creators. Thanks for this video Karl and the whole team.
Fantastic video and message! Funny while watching this video I had a flashback when I was at university taking Photography classes remembering my professor of advance photography and lighting who suggested to all of us students to start taking computer classes, this was in 1992 and as Karl Taylor mentioned by 2005 it was all Digital. Thanks Karl Taylor & Team for creating great content on your channel!
Thank you Alexander
@@VisualEducationStudio By the way Karl Taylor the only way Fashion will be affected by this technology will be locations, as the images you showed of the car campaign the same can be done with the location and drop in the model. Again, thank you so much for all the knowledge you share and much more success to you!
I've watched this 3 times and I'm glad Karl has incorporated 3D modelling into his workflow. I've been using 3D since 1995 in architectural rendering. Eventually there came a time when there were too many 3D artists competing in the same field and quoting such low prices. They weren't that good but they were so irresistibly cheap! So in 2010, I started fashion and product photography alongside my 3D work. How I got into fashion photography is a whole story in itself but I enjoyed it so much that I subscribed to Karl Taylor's channel for free advice. However, I did find that I could use my 3D skills in product photography as well as fashion. I didn't like plan it that way but these old 3D skills were actually relevant in today's digital world. Even back in 2005. I could take on projects that others had to turn down or had to hire a 3D artist to do the job. Back then, there weren't many good 3D artists in Asia. They could get 3D work done in Europe or US but at very, very high prices. There goes your profit. By combining skills in photography and 3D, I could build sets behind the fashion model. All I had to do was match the lighting environment. Product photography was much easier. A furniture maker wanted photos of his kitchen cabinets in a real kitchen. But the products weren't built yet. All they had were blueprints. I got the job because I could build the cabinets in 3D and comp them into the real kitchen photo. I have been very lucky to have learnt 3D way back then. Oh yeah, one important thing. You need some serious Photoshop skills to work in 3D, creating bump maps, specularity maps, displacement maps, alpha channels and seamless material textures that look like real.
That's really cool! In terms of doing textures in photoshop, there's tools like substance designer and substance painter that make it much much easier to make and modify textures with insane detail. It's all procedural with tileable textures too, and works similar to photoshop with it's layered structure being non-destructive
12:24 - 12:50 pretty much all you need to watch, really.
Great video. Very very good points and some serious food for thought. Nice work Ethan 👍
Fantastic advice. I've been a product photographer since 2003 and with all the faking of shots and mockups due to current supply chain issues, this sounds like a very good solution to getting high quality imagery.
This has me feeling a little doom and gloom. Just got into photography after years of pursuing what other people pushed me into. Invested a lot of money into equipment as well. I have done 3d editing and it is nothing like the fun I have when shooting with a camera.
Photographers have had to become very good at Photoshop to be competitive, at least in my market that is true and what sets me apart above the other Photographer's in skill level without hiring retouchers. There are stock sites with CGI renderings that can be bought for very cheap so I would think the only companies that are needing CGI are the biggest brands and they are hiring a CGI artist to create something from scratch. In my market I'm sure my clients would be happy with me compositing something with Photoshop rather than build it from scratch with a CGI program. There are lots of CGI and Photography environments on stock sites that allow you to drop the photo of the product into a scene/environment. Stock sites have lowered the value of photography and CGI work but if you are great at Photoshop and compositing, I doubt most companies will be hiring someone to create an entire image from CGI, only the largest brands could afford it, I would think. I think CGI would be interesting to learn, especially the animated CGI.
Photographers will always be needed :)
Being a photographer, and learning to be. 3D artist are completely different mediums. I don't think it's simply an upskilling from photography. It's massively different
Exactly! I have several friends all the way at the top of the 3D world, an ex girlfriend and an old roommate from over 20 years ago. Not at all in the same realm of skills or even personality types. Photography and 3D are not interchangeable skill sets. I'm currently very good friends with a top tier car photographer for major exotic brands. He's more of a 3D artist and way less of a photographer type than one would think. Sadly this is "learn to code" coming for everybody. I could have gotten into 3D back in 1998 but, it's not how I'm built as a creative.
Some things are simply beyond learning for some people. 3D programming aint no walk in the park
not really, if you take away the modeling aspect, 3D is basically virtual photography.
and modeling is becoming even less of a daunting task with photogrammetry programs becoming more prevalent and accessible
Thank you Karl. Your Karl Taylor Education platform is soooooo worth the money and time. I said to myself before joining Karl Taylor Education…..I’ll watch all the shows quickly for 2 months and get out….well I have completed year 1 and still a member. I don’t see me stopping anytime soon either. 👍. $19.00 a month is worth it!
Thank you Karen.
Product CGI artist here ✋ I do artworks for P&G, Unilever and Nestle. FMG (fast moving goods) is a perfect sector for CGI, especially for say a shampoo bottle which has multiple fragrances, multiple variants and in multiple countries/languages. To swap a label in minutes and have it lit exactly the same with exact same angles as one made last month, across the other side of the world is a major pull for big companies using CGI over traditional photography.
Thank you for your comment, do you also use Blender or some other software?
Product photography done in studio can be easily replaced with CGI and you got the advantage of cutting time when you need multiple version (angles) of your product. Also you save time in postproduction.
When you need some lifestyle shots of your products, that's a different story and I believe photography is still the only way.
CGI will always look FAKE.
Correct me if i am wrong.
Long time viewer and subscriber. Thank you Karl for making the effort to research this, it's something that I've considered the first time I've heard the words KeyShot. I've been in and in-house product photographer for 10 years-4 companies now. This is an eye opening video that would benefit a lot of 'us'. Thank you and many future thank you's.
i used to work as a 2D/3D artist for a pc game project for several years and now im in the photo/video space and this is my take on it: while 3D graphics are getting more and more realistic, its always just a 3D model someone made. a real product photo has a real connection to the product and i cannot get over the fakeness of some product renders. at first glance sometimes its hard to tell CGI and real life apart, but at some point some fakeness always jumps to the eye. it might be the wrong surface material, color, form or just whole details of the product missing (machine marks, seams, imperfections, the background or something the 3D artist just deemed unnecessary, like a battery cover) - at the latest when you receive the product and it doesnt look like the render the illusion pops and all of a sudden the product doesnt feel legit anymore - a disconnect between the presentation and the actual product. theres a place for perfect CGI, but i prefer my product pictures to be the real thing. i can imagine that in a sea of fake product pictures those with high quality analog style photographs will stand out and be associated with higher quality and be a more desirable, trustworthy and honest product / brand, while everyone else is effectively selling you an illusion with varying degrees of honesty. sure, we product photographers clean, polish and visually optimize the products, maybe remove some scratches or nicks from the product, but theres still plenty of flesh to a real picture.
everything has its place, photography and CGI will coexist and go hand-in-hand. for some tasks CGI will be more efficient, but photography will always be more confidence inspiring for the customer and therefore CGI wont replace product photography as a whole.
Lol, if you're thinking renders look fake, take a look at some of the work industrial designers do, where we can replicate 1:1 surface finishes in the blink of an eye....Commercial photographies days are numbered. No one feels emotional connections with product shots, period. No one is going to inspect a blown up image on a billboard with a telescope to notice differences between real photos and a CAD Render.
Yes 🙌 100% agreed
98% looks fake cgi
I tried many on upwork paid 150£ per image looks good but fake not touch my hart so photos always be there
Great vid BTW, your depth of knowledge on the product photography side, and your understanding of the power of rendering/modeling made this a great watch.
Thanks Matt.
Thank you very much Karl for bringing this very interesting topic to debate. I completely agreed with you that we better to be aware how the CGI technology is useful in many cases and how effective in a commercial photography sphere. I’ll up skill myself to make my services better.
Btw, I kind of want to see you also learning with us by Ethan. Lol
I’m sure that you will come across with many good questions from our side to Ethan. I really enjoyed the another tutorials with Viktor you sat next to him. But at this time, I would like you to create a CG model too.
Any plans to make more of these videos along with the chats with your studio staff ?
Thank you it was so amazing video! I am a CGI artist and I don't want to price myself less than a photographer. But I see many who do and don't really understand the value they are producing. Every one of us should as well learn sales and pricing, value based pricing too. For example if a high end photography studio can charge 50k for a project or even many more than why a 3d artist should charge less for the same provided value? It would as well be good to know what top studios are charging because every company is so silent about their prices.
Thank you so much for answering my question Karl! Got definitely encouraged to learn CGI.
One of the hardest aspect of 3D modeling, is getting unique textures and other assets. Creating seamless textures is also extremely difficult since it is hard to get access to good cameras and lenses that have sufficient corner to corner sharpness and detail and good lighting to exactly match a real world object.
Exactly. At my current work we photograph fabric, we tried 3d and get decent results but still can't seem to get perfect seamless textures.
You can use Substance designer to create whatever you need from scratch in 16bit with a nondestructive workflow fully seamless. But it takes time and is a skill in itself.
I love when people say that Blender or another software is not as good. I have been using Cinema 4d, 3ds Max, Houdini, and Blender for the past 10 years. If you are good, the software does not matter.
Great discussion as always. Working my way through your CGI courses on KTE already.
Looking forward to your course on how you manage to personally work 97 Hours/Day!
Great to hear John. I used to work 97 hours per week (not day) but I take it easier now :)
22:00 listen to the different abilities of the camera center to one collective wow
Great video.
Got both right. The first one, by the shadows. They look better. The shadow on the cgi watches are very big. Almost a replica from the boxes.
The second one got it by the edge of the glass. For all the light applied, the edge of the glass were darker than it should.
I think the safest still life sub genre will always be food. No one wants to advertise with rendered food
there’s an even big industry going back to photography instead of cgi… PSA car group, Toyota group,… pioneers in cgi, all back to photography
I like the handbag and other videos. Good for small company or hobbyist that want to keep on learning.
I have a client that is partially moving to some CGI. I searched and found that a lot of the providers are located in Europe and especially Eastern Europe. Because of the extensive finish options in their line of product, regarding my client’s specific situation, shipping over seas would have been extremely costly, so I ended taking over anything that requires actual photography for that project.
The way I look at it, CGI is there to stay and grow, but I am not so sure photo studios will stay in that market for long. I think many companies are better taking CGI in-house because possibly in many cases, owning the actual native file (like .blend), has more value than paying for a single exported document. Big names brands can afford outsourcing it but most likely can also afford taking it in house. I also think that few companies can benefit from in house CGI team to the level Ikea can and does. Ikea has the perfect line of product with simple design, few options, few colors and can deliver most of its extensive line on 6 continents. Cost of CGI per product sold for them may just be next to nothing. For that reason, I don’t consider the Swedish brand the model to follow blindfolded, it is more of an exception. In any case, there will always be a connection between photography and CGI images so just like learning coding basic html 20 years ago, it’s not a bad idea to stay informed on the progress and techniques involved in these software.
Still a great class. Have to watch over again and others. Thanks
Good show Karl, I started with KTE CGI courses, I really enjoy & benefits from Karl Taylor Ed KTE!
The image on the right looked more organic from the start. Even before zooming in, I could tell. There's just not enough detail on the left image and the colours are off, even some metal accents do not look like the original does.
Totally agree. Maybe he did it in a bit of a rush or I don't know but there are issues. Some of the rounded edges are rough and unfinished, also the textures look artificial at places.
I think the future therefore is a combination of both. Unless the clients provide a 3D model of their product (or at least a .cad blueprint), especially if it's something very detailed like a luxury watch or smth otherwise there's no way a 3D artist can recreate a very detailed product efficiently. I'd say if client brief requires it - shoot the product and place the image in the 3D created environment. The problem with your first example (watches), CGI version does not look exactly like the product itself, so as I said, clients must provide the exact 3D model beforehand in order to make it efficient.
thanks for valuable information, I feel great I judged on first view the left was a cgi , it was a tuff call
Once CGI gets to a certain point I do believe its going to be like the argument of mixing audio in the box or out of the box. As long as you make believeable results that mirror the real thing its going to come down to bottom line.
29:20 If instead it was taking a plate of glass and dropping it on a pebble on the floor to get a crack pattern, it's probably a lot easier in real life. I've seen no less than 18 different ways of doing it in 7 different software in my research over the last few days.
As a consumer, I prefer to see an actual photograph of a product I'm buying than a 3D render. That's just me, though.
As a photographer and someone who has been trying to learn CGI and 3D modeling over the years, I can tell you it's not that easy. Especially as a photographer, when you are modeling something, there's this thought in the back of my head all the time, "If I just photographed the damn thing, I'd done it already," and I'm still subdividing my default cube, plane, or whatever on the screen. Of course, CG artist would achieve it faster in their realm, but could they take the photograph? I hate that we have to become superhumans to be successful these days. I wanted to be a photographer, not a CG artist. It's more complicated than it looks when you launch Blender and start modeling.
great video thanks for information !
I think a hybrid of the techniques is really the way forward. For example, the background could have been rendered and then real products overlaid. Lighting is tricky in this case of course, but with advances in AI it might be possible for computers to analyse the light hitting the product and render the background accordingly.
I rethought my entire photography business a year ago due to 3D rendering and CGI. My $.02... Add in the advancements in prosumer cameras in cell phones where the image is good enough for 80-90% of social media use and photography becomes another commodity meaning I don't care what genre you shoot, work will become more scare and pay will be lesser than it already is. This is why the average photographer focuses on weddings. It's one that can't be duplicated but its not what I would ever consider.
Old news. I've been doing this 3D stuff as a profession 10+ years. Limitations of 3D are still a problem.
3D is still an approximation of reality and you lose a lot of quality in lighting and color. Not to mention that certain lighting properties are still very hard to do if not impossible.
Also you tend to render in up to 4K which is not enough to preserve small detail and quality. Sampling is a big issue, hence the approximation. 3D is not photography, not even close.
If you're a freelancer than ok, but real high end 3D is crazy expensive and requires a team of people and longer production times not to mention animations where you need a rendering farm (array of computers) to output a series of images with passes (color, specular etc).
Then you do compositing. I mean a lot of work because clients tend to believe everything is "more" possible in 3D and argue about what reality is and everyone has its own mind on that.
So, no it is not that simple. and it 3D costs go up really quickly.
Let's say a regular, well made packshot is min. a week job if done with agency but usually much more than that.
imo it depends on the 3d artist I think it can be done 100% in 3rd, same as the car commercials use the Blackbird ( check it out very cool ) some parts will go to 3d some stuff can be done faster in camera.
The blackbird is such a cool product, the thing it can change length etc is ace
I was thinking about this just the other day, partly as I'm learning C4D and Redshift and I can see how incredibly realistic the results can be. Being able to photo-realistically model products, plus the ability to animate them means product photography days are probably numbered for many (not all) shots
For certain shoots where it is straight forward lit product photography on plain white like for Amazon, photography would be faster and cheaper. On high concept ideas like making those black blocks and a complex light setup, then cgi could be less expensive and possibly take less time, provided the product model is available already. So it all depends.
I don't think CGI will replace photography totally, just some of it for sure! A lot of vitamin bottles and supplement bottles and packaging on sites showing Pet Supplements and Human Vitamin Supplements are nearly all 3D template bottles and packaging when shown on clear white backdrop for Amazon, with graphics added to the surfaces and quite realistic as the Photoshop files in PSD have multiple layers with reflections, shadows etc. rendered by an expert, as a template which a designer buys the 3D template. The graphic designer only has to add the "text/photo layer name of product with graphics" wrap onto the bottle or 3D box package, which is applied to one of the 3D surface in PS just below the reflective tranluscent layers. I know because I have used them). Karl, you probably have seen these. Products appear on sites like Pet Smart or other vitamin store sites.
"No one gives a monkey." I had to look up this phrase XD, it's a fun expression. This topic has been on my mind too. As usual, enjoyed your photography talks and knowledge. I feel the threat of photography drying out. Was thinking about 3D/CGI courses earlier and recently invested myself in learning video editing. In fact, will focus on the motion graphic. More or less, I think these skills are all good to have and helpful to each other.... just hoping to get myself some more assets.
Karl as per my understanding doesn´t matter if you do the photography or CGI since you can match the expectaion regarding the quality and price am I right?
And anyway you will need to learn photography in order to provide a good quality of CGI delivery to client, so the best to do is if you are a product photographer is just to add this new skill, in other words nothing has changed, photographer need to keep improving his skills
Yes you are right on all counts.
My business partner and I have already started fusing these 2 principles in our work...Studio lighting saves time and he makes the environments. and extras like smoke or other simulations like water
I could instantly tell which watch shot was an actual photograph because of the highlights on the watch face.
Great stuff! As always.
Thanks!
IMO, AI is advancing in leaps and bounds, it can generate images and artwork that take seconds rather than hours, compared to CGI or photography or art. Mid-Journey is one of the most notable AI platforms that is rocking the art and photography arenas. If we don’t want to be left behind the CGI wagon, we need to start taking a serious look at AI.
The best 3d artists are ones who set healthy, natural creative boundaries, so much 3d in still or moving image is over the top because natural boundaries do not exist. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or it will become an exhausting parody of itself in no time at all. However... This video's advice is 1-2 years out of date for 3d artists and 5 years for photography. You will be behind the curve if you think learning just 3D is a relevant adaptation now, it's AI you need to be learning... arguably, 3d artists are MORE at risk than photographers because there will always be a market for real (creatively or legally)
Why has stock photography died? I've been doing it for a couple years and only make maybe $50 a month now, but before I was making a decent amount. Is it just oversaturated?
Great Video!
I think there will be market for product photography and AI but you really have to double check your work.
A great deal of product photography is dying just like stock photography has had its demise. Modeling will be hit as well. Technology will only get easier and better year after year. With comparisons looking close right now imagine how much better the CGI will be in a few more years.
I could see it from afar
First of all, one of the persons that brings cgi to the level of the realism that is jawdropping is Marek Denko. You can simply watch what he has done with legos that really is on another level. Second is that there are tools today that you can play with your lights realtime like UE5. Third, these days there is a technology called photogrammetry that is developing so quickly that soon you will be able to 3d scan everything with lot's of details in matter of minutes. The scanned materials are here for a while now. So the 3D industry is going forward with a crazy like speed.
And one thing you didn't mention about cgi is that you can set up single scene for a product line up and render them "exactly" the same as each other. Or you can shot one product in multiple scenes in exact same angle with no effort. You can test various materials in just minutes to see witch one fits best for your products or scene without having to really make them. Or starting to advertise and marketing of a product before even you produce it and evaluate your design with minimal cost.
There are many advantages in cgi but there's many in photography too that you are the best one to name them.
🙏Hello sir.sir one tutorial on tiles photography.plz
Some materials cannot easily be faked. I have been working in the watch industry, and at some point I took a job with consumer electronics people who wanted to do smart watches. The were planning to use 3D images of the products. I tried to tell them it was a bad idea but they were adamant… until they came back and admitted it wasn’t working out. There is a randomness in the brushing of metal or the pattern of leather that you can’t fake your way out of.
In the end, for my industry, it’s much faster to shoot the real product and to post process it than to try to synthetics each it…
People can't tell between a CG Image and a real photo now, especially with Ray Tracing technology. But both of them still need a person to make the image. We can say both of them are basically a photographer with a different tools
Wrong, A.I. can make an image. It only needs a person (creative at add agency) to prompt it. Sure, the technology isn't quite good enough yet (why does that model have 6 fingers?!), but see you back here in a year?
Not "doomed" - I am sure some will still prefer the old school ways, just like many still enjoy listening to vinyl records. But for producing campaigns where turnaround time from idea to digital launch is an important factor it seems beneficial to be able to outsource the work overseas and save both time and money. And let us not forget - also saving us the hazzle from having to deal with mega-ego photo artists. :)
I’m 20 minutes in so far.
TLDR: this is going to be like learning how to do web development with React as someone with zero experience . Most (clever) people ultimately figure it out. It’s a minefield. Embrace the suck. This is not like making music with FL Studio!
What’s particularly interesting and equally frustrating about this field is that it’s sort of a Wild West at the moment . I thought it would be easy to DIY this stuff on my own. Starting out and trying to learn and grasp the fundamentals of 3D/CGI/VFX (or even the basic nomenclature or proper vocabulary (ya gots to know what to Google right)) is a massive uphill battle. So, props are due to whomever is able to figure this out on their own - and create compelling content with it. Now, the awful thing about all this (it gets worse) is the software - not only knowing which one to use but also the pricing, the plugins, what’s good, what’s bad , and so on. I believe we’re quickly approaching a point where technical proficiency and creativity are going to be necessary skills to have in order to excel in this field . Seriously, the software is a major boner killer . But there’s another fascinating flip side to this field as well where we end up with a ping pong effect - check out a company called Runway ML as an anecdote to my rapidly devolved comment.
I think hybrid machine / human solutions are where the party is really going to get started.
I mean … just look at how good deepfakes are 🔥
With the rise of A.I., you need to make an update video entitled: "Is CGI product imagery DOOMED?!"!
I'm not sure. But I don't think pivoting from a product photographer to an 3D artist, is not a real safe bet. Why? Because you will have to compete against the whole world. Literally. So, you have to compete also to 3D artists from India, the Philippines etc. Good luck :(
The client will care if the CGI does not provide an accurate rendition of the product. If the consumer sees a difference between the CGI image and the actual product it will cause discontent with the brand. I could clearly see a difference with the presentation of the two images. The photographed watch showed a distinct difference where the glass of the watch meets the steel body of the watch. The CGI did not represent this correct. Until this can be exact I don’t see this gaining traction, however I’m extremely picky when it come to these details.
nothing beats the real deal.... great work KARL! 3d will never be as real because its fake out the gate.... the only thing that maters is whether the creator of the product cares and can pay for the masters skill set..... many are willing to give up quality for whatever reason they come up with. I think a mix of the 3d and real shots is ok but Nothing beats the real shot when it comes at that high quality.
If it was not for the blocks, you as a pro, and me with my NIkon Z6ii could have got a bit of black felt, had our studio and lights already ready and coudl have taken a few shots in ten minutes.
As I say a pro would already know where to postion the lights and what power etc.
Could a CGI guy do it it ten minutes?
I doubt it.
Great food for thoughs indeed! Thanks Karl
As I commented a while ago on another Video regarding the topic of CGI and real life photography:
Isn‘t it strange, that e.g. in Blender we have to add all those imperfections for photorealistic look, that every photographer wants to get rid of in real life photography? As a photographer myself I would be more than happy, if all the optical weaknesses would be gone. Now starting with 3D rendering I have to add them artificially 😉😂🤪
Absolutely. I have clients that wanted me to "clean up" their product a little more with each new job. Then they got to the point when the delivered product didn't match the client expectations. That's when they asked me to live it alone unless there was a manufacturing default in the sample I shoot. They are moving to some low level CGI but I think they will keep my services because I really know everything about the product since I have a physical contact, I am reliable and I can deliver faster than CGI.
Fashion photography is already heading towards the CGI direction. Fashion designers are using 3d softwares like marvelous designer & clo3D to create their clothes with specifications that are transferred to real world production, fashion filmmakers are using softwares like Autodesk Maya & Unreal engine to create short film adverts for top fashion brands. As with beauty photography its only a matter of time, open libraries of realistic digital humans like meta humans & daz3D will only get better in the future. The age of synthetic media is inevitable, Skilling up in this field is highly advisable in my opinion.
what an amazing video congrats.
Nice segment. Morover look like you did not use for the CGI images a physically based render engine or even better a spectral render engine. The result can be much better than the examples you shown here using this kinf of engines instead than "cartoonish" render engine
(BTW open source physical based engine and spectral render engine exists)
fwiw for food photography and videos, CGI is used on a regular basis for commercials.
Is it as much fun as holding the camera and setting up your scene? ... for me I don't think so
I still believe photography is efficient
There will be images that would take longer to do in CGI than with a camera. On the other hand, if we had the tools and knowledge that Karl has, we wouldn't spend extra and unnecessary time assembling all the gadgets and procedures that the complexity of an on-camera shot requires if we can make it a respectable CGI job in less time. That's what all this is about using resources in the most effective and cost effective way. And the client thinks the same way (especially high-profile clients) they usually want the best possible work at the best cost and at the best price. Some photographers have to stop being romantic and nostalgic. This is a business.
Yes!
Trouble with 3D is that it's to perfect. Our brain picks up on it and there's a disconnect. The best 3D artists take time to create flaws. True realism is imperfection.
not sure about fabric, check out texture artist like Pauline boiteux she make believable fabric, and fabric simulation software like marvelous designer also really easy to use..
human by far is the safest bet if you're photographer, i've only seen like 3 or 4 artist who make believable human.. and it usually just face close up
In ten years the only work that will be left is grinding in a factory/warehouse or sitting in a grey cubicle.
Did he purposefully render (left photo) a thumbprint on the top watch band to throw a little extra "realism" into the mix?
Yes, I mentioned that in the video.
@@VisualEducationStudio Ahhh sorry I missed that. I got a phone call and had to mute for just a minute.
Amazing value to have CGI tutorials included with the already amazing photography education. Just watch the latest Mad Hatter tutorial to see the value of this platform.
Thank you Miguel.
the automotive industry was heavily into cgi, but the course has changed back to photography
CGI looked decent, but Karl’s pic murdered the CGI from the jump. I spotted it in like 10-15 seconds.
Isn't part of the problem the fact that modern photography aspires to look like it's CG rendered?! ........ be careful what you wish for!
Maybe I got lucky. But those first side by side images. It was obvious the one on the right was the real world image.
The really big thing for my clients has been the ability to change colors and materials in the final shot after the fact. A combination of 3D render over a photo original has served some of that purpose. But I think going to 3D to save them even having to make prototypes for photography is going to be increasingly attractive.
like many software is free until enough people is using it then the company start charging money. Updates and cost of maintaining mostly are the reason but we all know that nothing is for free
Blender is not only free, it's open source as well and will remain like that, it's the core of their company.
@@vaidotasdarulis and its been free for years, and they KNOW large studios like disney etc use it.
Here you are talking about CG, while product photography was actually killed by the fact that gear and knowledge became mainstream (who did it?) and many people are now able to produce shots that are on the level of yesterday's high end photography.
I create mockups using real photography. Clients much prefer that to computer rendered mockups.
Someone is scared. Meanwhile, us render monkeys are taking your work from you, bit by bit.
I do not get this idea that fingerprints or dust speckles make product photography more "realistic". In the realm of reality, good old product photography shot in 4x5 or 5x7 film sheets had to be and WAS absolutely speckless. Client would have not paid the job, and the assistant would have been fired if any imperfection wouldn't have been found. Product photography has always been about making real what's not real. This obviously before stamp brush of photoshop.
"Product photography has always been about making real what's not real." LOL, this sentence makes no sense!
I guessed right. I thought the strap on the left looked fake. Lucky guess!
Da sempre le società e gli Imperi che hanno perso la loro forza militare e le loro capacità creative, manufatturiere e artigianali sono inesorabilmente finiti. La nostra civiltà sta correndo verso lo stesso destino.
The 3D bottle is wrong though, the shape is off and the cap differs from the product as well, so there's another downside to the CGI.
Indian Product photography is DOOMED, companies either hire and extract every second from a photographer or are willing to give as low as 1 usd per product with editing xD (I have heard people saying it, if i face someone personally quoting that, i will laugh on their face and walk out.
Im into product photography from 2010 6-7 years in job, rest freelancing in own studio.
i think the AI generated product renditions is where its heading, in a decade or so the software will be advanced enough the skilled lighting knowledge won't be needed either as it will be AI generated.
how long will it be before you are doing a fashion on a cgi mars using models in your studio, might be one for you to try pretty soon
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
CGI is fine, untill it will be requiered by law that all adds need to state wether it is a photograph or a 3D model of the product. And the whole CGI advertisment to the consumer will feel like: "oh, so you don't trust your product to look good when being photographed?"
Ha Ha
As an aaueur I had to do some product photogrpahy.
And getting the lighting correct is very hard. I know.
I chose the wrong image!
But looking at your photos the ligting on the watch is much more natural - but is that even required these days.
You mention all the expenses to make the photos.
You are being unfair there.
Ok you needed the blocks to be made.
But if you are a Product photographer, you have a camera, and the lighting already, and you don't need a big studio.
And you can amortise the lighting and the camera over many jobs
Ok you chose to hire an assistant - but that was not neccessary!
CGI ?? You are in the wrong time CGI was a problem startting since 2010, I am now worried about CGI as well as NEW Threat AI
This reminds me of how 80s films used to be filmed and created. Say Star Wars. They had miniature sets made, and massive studios etc.
Compared to today. CGI, green screens. Job done.
Maybe it's my ages, but I still prefer the 80s movies.
Modern movies don't catch me precisely because of that (with the exception of a few). They all look damning fake. As soon as I feel that the producers insult my intelligence, I no longer want to see anything.
Thats how NASA has been getting away with it for decades. I have been doing it for about 10 years in commercial work.
Yes.
Nice comparison, I was able to identify the images, but I have to stop the video and pay attention. I also used my knowledge of Karl Taylor. style and craftsmanship of light. If the history predicts the future, eventually the law will limit the use of CGI in adds, at least without a note. Companies will start to demand better than reality cgi models, consumer protection will trigger and politicians will act. Now, there is a window for that, fi corporations take long to start abusing the cgi. Used products for local car dealers for example, and food photography all are sensitive to missleading class actions than new products.
CGI can be more expensive too right!?!?!?
That's not a territory where you can find much info. If you go to site /place that specializes in CGI, not only do they not provide a pricing guide, but they tend to grossly exaggerate the cost of photography. I think the video is fair comparing realistic expectations and getting into details regarding when photo is better and when CGI is.