From time to time, we get requests from client candidates; they are usually unsure if they should use photography or go and take the 3D path and get 3D renders. So how can you decide if you need 3D design and render or go with photography?

The primary question is if the product is ready?

If your answer is no, my next question would be when will it be ready? For architectural projects, it's usually no, and usually, there are many months, even years, to complete it, but they want to put the project on sale as soon as possible. In that case, 3D is the absolute choice.

3D rendering is an integral part of any architectural project because it provides many benefits that can't be replaced. The first one is the possibility to visualize an idea before it is built in reality. The final render offers a life-like depiction of the exterior design with high-definition textures, light effects, and other rendering details.

There are also cases where our clients want to sell the idea to investors; in those cases, there are plans designs but nothing yet actually built. Again 3D is the best choice, and those renders can be integrated into actual scenes backgrounds. This will help investors to visualize and "buy" your vision.

A couple of months ago, a five-star hotel asked me if we could create their rooms in 3D and get renders, no problem. I learned the construction of the rooms was about to be finished in a month or two, and as it was wintertime, there was no urgency to try to sell the rooms. I discouraged them from 3D render route and got actual photos. It would be less costly for them, and the time it would take us to design and render the rooms would be almost the same.

A simple idea becomes a full-fledged building with all of the details and accurate surroundings. That makes it much easier to sell the design, as clients will see how the building will look in the end.

In conclusion, if you don't have the product and won't have it anytime soon, the only option is a 3D render.

If you have the product ready, you should check which solution serves your needs? In my opinion, 3D architectural renders can be perfect, even too perfect sometimes, and they require higher budgets as a lot of man-hours need to be put in to create high-end results. Therefore I opt for architectural photography if the building is in place and ready.

When the product is a smaller item, an electronic piece 3D can be a better choice, even if the product is at hand. The reason is that productions are not perfect shoes; electronic devices have a lot of details that need to be cleaned up and corrected. 3D will have none of them, creating an ideal product look. It's even possible to insert the 3D renders into actual lifestyle shots; still, solid product shots in lifestyle shots would be a better option if the client has the budget.

It's Easier to Present Projects Through 3D Renders.

We already mentioned that 3D renders act like an effective visualization tool that helps investors get a good idea of what the building or the product will look like when it's built. In other words, 3D rendering can help designers share their vision with others much better than drawings and 3D models. Today, 3D renders look like real photos, giving people a chance to see the future. It's the perfect tool to impress investors and sell their designs without problems - the more detailed the design, the better the chances of selling it.

3D rendering allows designers to improve their designs on the go. According to incoming comments, designs can be enhanced and changed before a final design goes into production or construction.

You might have a few products packs or the same pack with different variations that you just need to replace labels. Creating one 3D design, multiple renders might be a more cost-efficient option, and quality is likely higher for product visuals.

Most of the time, photographers charge a daily rate for the work, plus any preproduction or production costs are added. Therefore if you have a few items to be shot, they will still charge the daily rate, plus retouching (post-production) cost will be added on top.

Your product requires a model; in 3D, you can create anything but anything. Though creating organic things, animals, plants, and humans are very difficult, and any trained eye will detect they are fake. Therefore for those cases, photography is a far better choice. I'm well aware that there are avatar models with many followers on social media, though I can easily understand they are not real. If you want that kind of a fake look, of course, for fashion, 3D can be an option but otherwise still with fashion photography for now.

If you’re still unsure what you need you can contact us and we’ll give our honest opinion on your project. Also if you have any suggestions, comments or criticisms feel free to write us.