Which is best for new product design marketing: 3D rendering or photography? 3D rendering and photography are the two most commonly employed methods for producing marketing images in every business category. Each is sophisticated but not so overly complicated that only a handful of people can use it. In many ways, photography is more user-friendly, and everybody can capture a few photographs of a product and use them for marketing purposes. On the other hand, 3D rendering requires much more than a camera, and it may take months of practice to create a rendering from scratch.
Table of contents
The difference between the two doesn’t stop at the ease-of-use aspect. Assuming the object is the same, almost nothing except the final images can be considered similar. For most people, the main distinguishing factor is the range of equipment each method utilizes. Photography requires a camera and a computer for post-processing tasks, whereas 3D rendering is a computer-only affair.
Photography is done in the real world, and a computer only comes onto the scene once the image has already been captured. Some may argue that a photo studio contradicts the very definition of the natural world due to staged sets and elements. There can even be superimposed or removed objects after post-processing. It doesn’t matter because the point is that the job of producing a photograph can only happen with a physical camera to capture an image of a physical object. Whether or not the resulting picture is identical to the one initially charged is another discussion entirely.
No camera is necessary for product 3D rendering design, and the bulk of the job takes place in a virtual space on a computer screen. Even the objects are virtual, most likely 3D models, although some rendered images are conversions of photographs (or built using photographs as references). However, an actual rendering process is entirely virtual until the final image is printed on physical media.
RELATED: 3D Rendering furniture vs. photography: which is better for your furniture company?
New product design marketing – 3D rendering vs. photography
* Photography for marketing
No one denies that photography is one of the most efficient tools for conveying and delivering a message. The adage, “a picture is worth a thousand words,” rings true to the marketing paradigm and everything else, from traffic signs to history lessons, from tourism to political campaigns. In any business of any industry where the capture of a still-frame finds a purpose, photography is a particular mainstay. With heavy utilization of post-processing edits, modern photography is a capable instrument for communicating ideas. Designers and engineers can use photos to turn an otherwise lengthy discussion about product concepts into a concise one. The images may also facilitate a comprehensive exchange between buyer and seller.
As far as advertising is concerned, photography has been around in the industry for more than a hundred years. The world has witnessed many developments in the art of still-image production since then, and now photography is considered a “traditional” approach to creating product marketing images. Despite its traditional status, marketing agents and advertising executives at companies big and small still rely on this method, even going to great lengths to prepare expensive equipment and elaborate sets to capture a single photograph that helps them achieve the desired promotional effects. In short, photography is a tried-and-true practice of producing high-quality visual works for commercial purposes, be they advertisements, proofs of concept, or artworks.
* 3D rendering for product marketing
Unlike photography, the process for creating a 3D rendering of a product image is constrained to a virtual workspace. Although it produces an image that looks similar to a photograph at the end of the process, none of the visible objects exist in the real world. These objects are merely digital representations of their physical counterparts. For example, a pond in a rendered promotional image of a new goggles design may look identical to an actual body of water you see in nature. Still, every single detail of the pond is computer-generated.
RELATED: How do manufacturers and retailers use 3D product rendering and visualization?
It takes a lot more time to make a 3D rendering than a photograph. With a camera, you click a button, and the image is ready to print. Thanks to smartphones, it is also possible to do minor post-processing edits without using a computer. When you compare that point-and-shoot exercise to 3D rendering services, which may require hours to produce an image, photography has the advantage in terms of practicality. However, nobody takes a snapshot of a product and expects to mesmerize the customers with it. Professional photography is not as easy as many think; quality post-processing is skill-demanding work. A quality photograph is required to produce a quality image at the end of the process.
If an impactful marketing image is an ultimate goal, 3D rendering is in no way any less versatile than photography. Thanks to the CGI (computer-generated imagery) function, a virtual workspace may be a more powerful station for producing effective visual advertising material, thanks to the CGI (computer-generated imagery) function it possesses. No pixel you see in the image is captured; each is generated.
Going back to the goggles example previously mentioned, it makes sense to publish a marketing image of the new design by depicting the product in or near a body of water. Creative render artists can recreate the same scene without much difficulty. Still, they can go far and wide with their imagination and develop a more spectacular image, for instance, a pair of goggles worn by a cheerful alien lying near a body of water on the moon’s surface. Photography can also do that, but that requires a lot of help from CGI, while 3D rendering can produce such an image.
Generated pixels open the floodgate of creativity and imagination, making the impossible possible, at least in pictures. The render artists have total control of the visual aspects they want to produce, so therefore an image can be photorealistic, artistic, or imaginative. Professional rendering software can imitate and simulate all factors contributing to photography works, such as lighting, depth of field, and camera angles. Everything is possible without the render artist ever leaving their desk.
RELATED: Best 3D rendering software used for 3D product rendering at 3D design firms
Major differences
All things equal, photography and 3D rendering may produce the same high-quality product image. An image captured by a professional photographer and a 3D rendering created by a professional CG artist is equal in details. What sets them apart is the method employed to achieve the visuals.
* Photography – environmental factors
Photography relies on many factors, including lights and the environment in which the product is captured, to produce a quality image. Most of those factors are difficult to control, especially for outdoor photography, as the sun can be too harsh, the moon too dim, the wind too intense, and the natural backdrop too messy. Indoor photography is much less challenging.
* 3D Rendering – software & artist capabilities
A 3D rendering only depends on the software capabilities and the artist’s computing power at their disposal. The most significant limitation is the artist’s imagination. These limitations are not much of a problem when creating a realism-based rendering but will leave any fantastical imagery much to be desired. The lack of creativity and inadequate skill in using complex visual effects make it difficult to produce a scene otherwise impossible in the real world. Conversely, artists specializing in fictional themes may find it challenging to recreate even a commonly observed natural phenomenon.
RELATED: What types of 3D rendering services do product design pros & industrial design firms offer?
* Timeline
Another key difference is the timeline that photography and 3D rendering require to produce the final image. A camera takes mere seconds to capture a shot, and the whole undertaking should be done in a matter of hours if you add the time for preparing a studio and post-processing. A render artist has to spend a day or two to create an image of reasonable quality, assuming that all the 3D assets necessary for the process have been prepared beforehand. Creating the image from nothing requires the render artist to draw the support first, and this alone can take hours, or even days, depending on the complexity and number of assets.
* Image resolution
Image resolution also matters. A photographer can change the setting for image resolution with just a few buttons, and the camera is ready. The captured image stored in the onboard memory card is already at the given resolution. Due to hardware limitations, it is a much longer process in 3D rendering, but technology like cloud computers and render farms can help improve image-generating speed. However, both methods can produce up to 4K images or a higher resolution.
* Viewing angle
Viewing angle is a difference that potentially puts 3D rendering at an advantage over conventional photography. Suppose the marketing image for the new product design involves placing the product at the top of a high-rise building and requires a bird’s eye view. Photography tackles the challenges of using a high-altitude drone or flying the photographer on an aircraft. It is entirely possible but costly—an expenditure that most small companies are likely to avoid. Although 3D rendering is not cheap either, it offers more flexibility in viewing angle with only a computer and no additional equipment.
RELATED: 3D rendering: what it is and why you should care
The Case for Photography
Photography is the most true-to-life form of a still image. A photograph depicts an object as is, with all its imperfections. For marketing a new product design, photography can be ideal for reasons as follows:
- Authenticity: A camera captures whatever objects the lens can see. There might be unwanted spots and dots in the image, and post-processing can improve the annoyances, but a photo presents the natural thing to the viewers. What the viewers see in the image exists in the real world. Also, some people want to have a look at the real thing regardless of the photography quality.
- Suitable for finished products: A photograph can only capture a physical object. If the new product design is ready to market or you already have a prototype, photography is the quickest way to spread the word and start a marketing campaign.
- Living objects: When the marketing material for the new product design requires the presence of living things (human, animal, or vegetation), photography is the best option. Some products look better when someone or something is putting them to good use, such as fashion accessories or pet products. Photography remains the most capable tool for capturing facial expressions and emotions.
The most significant advantage of them all is speed. However, big companies are not likely to use candid snapshots of new product designs for marketing purposes. If they want to use photography, they have the resources to hire professional photographers to do the job. Things can be different for startups trying to save money on marketing. Instead of spending thousands of dollars on the photographer and a studio, it makes more financial sense for them to purchase a decent camera and a photo box, then learn to do the job themselves. It is quick and practical.
The case against photography
Many things make photography an excellent choice for new product design marketing, but equally, plenty of factors go against it. There are some situations where photography limits users from acquiring optimum results. Product photography is done in an outdoor environment; for example, it may present its own set of particular challenges that even the most experienced photographer cannot overcome easily.
Weather: Say you want to introduce a climbing shoe design featuring a new type of rubber sole. One of the requirements for the project includes picturing a climber wearing the new shoes at the edge of a cliff. The marketing material needs the climber’s facial expression, so you opt for photography. No matter how good the camera setup is, a rainy day can put the work to a halt for hours. Clouds, wind, or even a scorching sun introduce difficulties. An outdoor photography session needs the weather to be just right, but the weather is not something a photographer can control.
RELATED: 3D Virtual photography: what it is and why you should use it
- Limited correction opportunities: A photographer almost always takes dozens of shots with multiple settings regardless of the product. Once the photo shoot is completed, it is done. The photographer will work with whatever is stored in the memory card. There can be just a few images or many from the photoshoot. It is good to have a reasonably good number of shots on the safe side. The photographer can pick the best image or one with the most potential from the lot. Post-processing can only do so much in terms of retouching, let alone substantial changes to the result, which means photography is at times a risky endeavor.
- Expensive: If the new product comes in various colors, materials, and features, you may need marketing materials for each. A different studio setup for every variation adds to the total expense, which usually is charged by the hour.
Photography can be costly, but it doesn’t have to be. No rule suggests a marketing image for a new product design has to be of the best quality. Going the “amateur” route is a viable option, where you take a snapshot under a simple yet effective lighting configuration indoors. As long as you can highlight the most critical part of the new design and are willing to learn some post-processing techniques to improve the result, the photo should be good enough for online publication. It may not be as good-looking as the work of a professional, but it will be a job nonetheless without all the complexities.
The upsides of 3D rendering
In some situations where 3D photorealistic rendering services are the obvious better choice. In addition to the advantages mentioned above with viewing angles and the use of fantastical imagery, photography cannot possibly outshine CGI in terms of:
Precision: Once again, a computer is the only device a render artist needs to produce 3D rendering. An experienced artist will do as the project brief says, down to the tiniest detail, to the point where the result is as instructed. With 3D rendering, precision is a matter of certainty rather than probability. Every step of the process is predictable and under the complete control of the artist working on the project. There are very few (if any) external factors that might affect the process.
RELATED: Tips for 3D rendering with photorealistic results at your firm
- Versatility: CGI technology allows a render artist to create a virtual space to either represent the physical world around us or take the viewers into the realm of imagination. In either case, computer software generates the virtual space where the artist can replace, remove, repair, and manipulate every pixel to achieve the objectives. You may want the climbing shoe to appear worn out from extensive usage, pictured inside bear’s footprints, or displayed on the Hillary Step. CGI has the power to create all those scenes out of nothing.
- Reusability: Unlike post-processing a photograph, 3D rendering is photo manipulation in its entirety. When you want to make changes of any sort to the original render, you don’t have to start the process all over. As long as all the files, including the 3D assets, are intact, it is not a complicated process to alter the image. You can quickly change product color, dimension, background objects, atmosphere, and camera angle. Although the image has to be rendered again, it is a relatively simple job. The old files are reusable for all future renderings as well.
- Timing: A significant advantage of 3D rendering over photography is that the former doesn’t require a physical object. In the context of marketing, 3D rendering allows you to start a promotional campaign before the product is ready to launch. A professional render artist can use a rough sketch as a reference to create a photorealistic 3d image from a drawing. Sometimes an artist only has a text description of an object to work from, yet the result is just as impressive.
3D rendering is by no means an easy undertaking. Apart from mastering CAD software and a good understanding of human perspective, it takes almost obsessive attention to detail to get an image geometrically correct. Experience will make it perfect.
RELATED: What are 3D renderings & why your company should use them
The downsides of 3D rendering
Today, 3D rendering is close to infallible for product imagery, and it is versatile, precise, flexible, and at times playful. However, there are still a few downsides that make the method somewhat unsuitable for specific projects.
- Cost: Many consider 3D rendering a more affordable option than photography, but this is not always true. When done correctly, to meet the highest quality standards (photorealistic details), 3D rendering is time-consuming and cost-demanding. The process requires considerable computational power, yet it will still take four to five hours to generate a decent rendering. As in the case of photography, professional render artists do not provide their services for a small amount of money. Many factors determine the price, such as the complexity of product design and the rendering time. An intricate design rendered at 4k resolution within 24 hours may cost thousands of dollars for one render.
- Dizzying choice of specialists: You’ll come across hundreds of freelancers on just one website you’re searching for the right 3D artist. Even limiting your search to professional studios, any internet search engine still gives dozens of results. Prices vary depending on their portfolio and qualifications. Given many options, it is not always easy to decide who to pick. Before deciding, take a good look at the portfolio and compare prices between at least three or four different companies/freelancers. Specialization also matters; for example, an architectural render artist probably is not the best option when you want to render a new product design, and vice versa.
If you decide based solely on price, it isn’t easy to sway your opinion from leaning towards photography. It is relatively cheaper than 3D rendering and quicker as long as the scene is neither overly complicated nor outdoors.
For visual appeal, artistic touches, and versatility, 3D rendering is the obvious choice. Moreover, 3D rendering allows you to present the new product design in still-image format and 360-degree view and animation for an improved marketing effect.
How Cad Crowd can Help
Cad Crowd can help you achieve photorealism to captivate your client’s eyes. We can help you choose the best 3D rendering method for your needs, whether real-time or non-real-time rendering. Contact us today, and our friendly representative will help you get started. Click here to receive a free quote.
