Photorealistic Renderings in the Age of AI: Are They Worth the Hype?
Overview: AI has made rendering faster than ever, but the real question is what decision the image needs to support. Start looser, and get more detailed as decisions get made.
When I was in design graduate school, and later as a Teaching Assistant, getting a "presentation-quality rendering" was a project in itself. Even after all the time spent on space planning, selecting furnishings and finishes, and building the 3D model, producing the realistic renderings often required for presentations took extensive time. Depending on your mastery of the program (typically 3ds Max at the time) and how well you anticipated changes, you might budget several days of work to create one high-quality rendering. The amount of time I spent in the computer labs helping students prepare for presentations was fairly substantial.
A typical process may have looked like this:
Import the model file and establish baseline program settings
Set up cameras and views
Place light sources, both ambient and fixture-related, and analyze the lighting at different times of day
Check that materials are mapped correctly, including pattern match, scale, and finish type (matte, glossy, and so on)
Run test renders to evaluate each scene and decide what needs to change
Generate the final high-quality image. Its size and intended use largely determined the render time, which could mean 24 hours of computer time or paying a render farm
Post-process in Photoshop to crop and fine-tune the overall look
If the design model changed, re-sync the files and check whether the render needed adjusting all over again
The workflow also depended on what program the model was built because they sometimes added more complex steps to the process
Nowadays, the landscape looks completely different. Some tools render live inside your modeling software. Others don't need a full 3D model at all, only a screenshot, an exported view, or even a 2D line drawing or sketch.
Being able to generate these "faster and easier" renderings doesn't automatically mean a photorealistic rendering is better for the project at hand. In a January 2024 Architectural Digest piece, Are Photorealistic Renderings Worth It?, designers on both sides of the question agreed on one thing: timing matters. Several prefer looser, hand-drawn visuals early on and save detailed photorealistic images for once the project has been specified. Since then, AI tools have advanced quickly, which makes the question even more relevant. The best question then to ask may be:
What is the purpose of generating photorealistic images, and what decision(s) do the rendered images need to support for your project?
Matching the Image to the Decision
Here's how I think about the options, from lightest to heaviest.
1. Clean 3D Views, No Realistic Rendering
For a number of years, my go-to approach was exporting clean views straight from SketchUp with no photorealistic rendering. They communicate layout, scale, and proportion without the extra time and cost, and an image that looks like a working model invites conversation. Clients feel freer to ask “what if that wall moved?” than when an image looks finished. One designer in the Architectural Digest piece describes the risk of showing photorealism too early as “implied permanence.”
2. AI Rendering
MyArchitectAI and other similar tools can take a screenshot, exported view, or sketch and generate a rendering in seconds, with no complicated set-up. I recently tried it with images I had already exported from various model files, some of which had no materials applied. With a few prompts, the lighting came out as intended, including from a newly added peninsula fixture, and I was able to prompt for different materials. I could also add and remove elements in the view without going back into the 3D model.
Below is a side-by-side of a white-line kitchen view and the render I created from it using prompts. (Example A) It took some practice to learn how to word the prompts, but once I did, it took under five minutes. The next pair (Example B) started from a view that already had textures applied. It took minimal time, needed no real edits, and was impressive right out of the gate.
Example A
Left: white-line SketchUp view of a kitchen model.
Right: MyArchitectAI render from that view using a few prompts for finishes (AI-generated).
Example B
Left: textured SketchUp view.
Right: MyArchitectAI render from that view, created in minimal time with no added edits (AI-generated).
The tradeoff is that these AI tools interpret an image rather than reproduce it, so finishes and details can drift from what is actually specified. Of my first five scene renders, most came out very close to what I had modeled. The hardest part was learning how to word prompts for views that had no textures or were missing fixtures. They weren't perfect, though: in one, two cabinet pulls were missing, and you had to look closely to notice. That's why I review each image carefully and treat the results as concept visuals, ideally labeled as AI-generated.
Business of Home reports that general-purpose AI image tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney still struggle with scale and accuracy, particularly with patterns and textures. My own experience with ChatGPT was similar, with details that looked invented or were missing and lighting that looked overstylized. Purpose-built architectural render tools, like MyArchitectAI, tend to stay closer to the original view and the built in prompts that can be used help to fine tune the image easier than having to come up with your own prompts.
Below is a comparison of renderings for a bar area derived from the same 3D Sketchup Model view.
The rendering on the top was produced using MyArchitectAI, while the one on the right was created with ChatGPT. Neither image is completely accurate; for instance, note the presence and absence of cabinet pulls in both renderings and the variation in how ambient light influences the cabinet colors.
Note: the light fixture over the glass door was intentionally added differently in the ChatGPT view to test out a prompt.
3. Real-Time Rendering
Enscape works inside modeling programs like SketchUp (how I used it), Revit, and Rhino. The rendering stays live in the model, so lighting and material changes show up almost immediately and design changes take far less work to adapt. In my experience, final renders typically took less than half the time I saw in 3ds Max. It still depends on the quality of the 3D model and needs a capable graphics card, but it’s a strong middle ground when a client needs to confirm finishes and see how a space feels.
Above: Two "real-time" Enscape render, produced directly inside the 3D SketchUp model.
4. Traditional Offline Rendering
3ds Max, typically paired with a render engine such as V-Ray, remains the choice when maximum realism and control matter, such as marketing-grade imagery or animations for a property that isn’t built yet. The cost is everything described above, plus the price of the software and your own hours. Larger firms often hire outside rendering services instead. A January 2026 Business of Home article, Will AI Put Renderers Out of Business?, notes that a high-quality rendering can cost upward of $1,500, a cost many designers pass on to clients.
When Photorealism Is Worth It (and When It Isn’t)
Lighting is where photorealism earns its place. Daylight shifting through a room or warm fixtures changing the feel of a finish are hard to judge on a flat plan, but they define how a space feels. When lighting is the question, it can be worth the investment.
Developers, builders, and remodelers often ask for photorealistic renderings, I think because they feel it’s expected in sales, and for marketing a space before it’s built, a polished image really can do the work. But from a design standpoint it’s often more than a decision requires.
A render shows a best-case scenario of perfect light, no clutter, and flawless finishes, and one designer in the Architectural Digest piece warns that clients may expect an exact replica. I’d also be mindful of liability: when a rendering looks like a promise, it can be treated like one, so label images as conceptual. Every added level of polish adds cost, and every round of revisions multiplies it, so match the level of finish to the question being asked.
A Simple Guide to Choosing for Your Project
Working out layout and flow → clean 3D views
Exploring ideas and mood quickly → AI rendering
Confirming finishes and lighting with a client → real-time rendering
Marketing or high-stakes presentations → traditional photorealistic rendering
Rule of thumb: start looser, and get more detailed as decisions get made.
Questions About the Right Visualization for Your Project?
Whatever the tool, the goal is the same: helping people see what's possible clearly enough to make good decisions. If you're a builder, developer, contractor, or homeowner and you're not sure what level of visualization your project actually needs, send me a message and let's talk it through.
