Thedus' Art

[Thedus]

Thanks, Hudson.

And now that you mention it: I do have some new art to share.  Nothing ground shattering, but I do have some work to add.  I'll post it this weekend.

BTW - Welcome back Hudson! 

[Hudson]

Thanks a lot, and I'm looking forward to the new stuff.

[Thedus]

OK... new stuff.

One of my clients creates oral hygiene products, and needed three views of a gingival gap. This is not the same teeth and gums seen in a previous piece.  Those teeth didn't hold-up when viewed from above, and I never created a tongue for that mouth, so I did this from scratch.








For the same client:






My previous employer is now a client of mine (...don't you just love irony!).  They came to me with a huge job for Chi-Chi's.  There were 25 products in this line.  Here are three:








Kinda self explanatory:






And this is from a personal project.  This is the Stun Gun from the first season of Space:1999.  The overall scene is not finished - these are just test renders of the finished model.  Once the rest is done this will be incorporated into the scene.

[Nev]

I've been wondering... Why order computer generated images of your products when you could just take pictures of your products and use them in your ads?

Awesome work, btw.

[Thedus]

That's a good question, Nev.  And one that's come up more than once when talking to prospective clients who are more familiar with using photography.

Most of my clients come to me with products that don't exist yet.   They are either in the concept phase, or they are approved, but the product hasn't launched yet, so there aren't any (or many) physical samples available.  In the concept phase there are likely to be no physical samples, so I'm brought in  (as it were) to create a near photographic likeness of the product for the purposes of pitching, or gaining buy-in to push the product through to the point of being produced.  I'm working with a client on a project right now that is like this.  There are absolutely no physical products to present when making a pitch so the client is having me create models and renders of each product to help illustrate what they look like individually, and on a store shelf.

In a situation like this the client would need to go to a comp house and have a comp made of the concept - and that would cost a great deal of money - especially since concepts can change frequently before they are approved (or killed).  When dealing with me I can make the necessary changes in design (shape, size, material, placement of art, etc.) much quicker and more cost effectively than dealing with a comp house.  ...BTW, a comp is a limited run/one off replica designed to look like the product in nearly every way - and they can be expensive to have produced.

When a product is beyond concept and approved for production there need to be images of the product made for advertising, internal circulation, internal libraries, field-selling by sales reps to get the product put on as many shelves as possible in as any stores as possible, and so on.  If a product has not yet launched nearly every aspect of it's design is happening at the same time; the approval of tooling, the acquiring of dielines from vendors to create art mechanicals, creating of print ready art on said dielines, creation of in-store collateral, advertising images, packaging images, marketing decks, sales kits, internal distribution materials, and so on.  All of this is happening and there are no actual products available - they wont be available until right before the product launches.  As a result companies still need to rely on comps to fill photography needs.  So, the companies have to pay to have the comps made, pay to have them shipped to a photographer, pay the photographer, and then  pay the retouchers to adjust and correct the photos.  ...That's a lot of money being shelled-out for a photo.  I can do all of that and not even need a physical sample (it helps, but it's not necessary).  So my clients can save a lot of money by using CG.

Some of what I do is to create images of existing products.  These are usually for advertising or packaging.  But again the clients can save money by using CG over photography.  Another plus is that clients can save their money if they have multiple products that share a common structure, but only change their artwork, or color, material, or something.  I only have to charge for the applicable modifications to a product that I've already modeled for them.

There's also the fact that once a scene is done and saved all of the camera and lighting parameters are saved in the scene, so if they ever want to use the same set-up fr another product, or a revised version of the product/line extension I can just drop in the new/modified model and re-render.  I recently had a  conversation with a photographer while I was on a consulting gig a few weeks ago and he said that it was a near nightmare to recreate the camera and lighting set-up that he used for a photograph two years prior
when a client came at him with an updated model of their product, and wanted it in the same style shot as the previous model.

...Hope that helps answer your question.

[Nev]

Thanks, sure did.

[Hudson]

More great work from one of our resident geniuses. 

[Thedus]

...awww shucks. 

[locusta]

Great, great work Thedus. My professional respect.

Thanks allot for sharing.

Love all of them, especially the BG Viper is Killer KEWL!!!

The Stun Gun is awesome a well. I love those retro movie probs.

Great modeling and very crispy renders.

Thumbs up mate!

Cheers

Markus

[Thedus]

Many, thanks, Locusta. 

Much appreciated, man.