Making-of by Sigurd Kvernmoen, Sigssoft 3D

A request for a more coastal landscape can change much more than the vegetation in a render. It can affect the foreground, the distance to the trees, the treatment of exposed rock and what appears through the windows. On Hulvika, a cabin project in Son, Norway, those connections became an important part of our review process with Tinde Hytter.

The commission covered two exterior and two interior images of two cabin models. This article follows the decisions behind that small set: how we clarified references, reviewed cameras, refined materials and checked that the images described a consistent place.

The first exterior brings together the terrace, dark timber and surrounding meadow. Architectural visualisation: Sigssoft 3D for Tinde Hytter.

1. Establish what the references are meant to do

Drone photographs arrived with the project material. Before building the surroundings, we clarified their role with the client. For the close exterior views, they were references for the landscape we would model. A separate aerial photomontage was commissioned later.

That distinction shaped the work. We needed to understand the proposed cabin positions, the direction of the shore and the character of the terrain. We also needed to agree how the undeveloped ground would be interpreted in the presentation.

A useful question at this stage is: what does each reference establish? A plan may establish position. A photograph may explain vegetation or terrain. Keeping those roles explicit helps identify the information that still needs clarification before it becomes a detailed scene.

2. Resolve orientation before refining the composition

An early review clarified that the living rooms and terraces faced the sea. To show those elevations from outside, our camera would look towards the cabin from the seaward side, with the inland landscape behind it.

This is a simple spatial relationship with a strong effect on composition. The exterior image could describe the terrace, glazing and approach to the building. The interior image could show the outlook towards the water. The sea did not need to appear behind the cabin for the exterior to contribute to the coastal story.

Our practical takeaway is to review viewing direction alongside composition. Mark the camera and its subject on a plan, then identify what belongs behind that subject. It gives everyone a shared basis for discussing a view before materials and lighting make it feel finished.

3. Translate landscape feedback into specific edits

The client's feedback helped define the coastal character more precisely. During the reviews, we discussed the prominence of rock, the position and density of trees, and the ground cover around the terraces. Later feedback specified natural low grass with some flowers.

Each of these comments affected a different part of the image. Ground cover established the immediate setting. Tree placement influenced the openness around the cabin. The treatment of rock affected whether the scene suggested a coastal site or a more mountainous landscape.

We find it useful to turn a broad description into a short set of visible decisions. In this case, that meant reviewing vegetation height, the balance between grass and rock, and the spacing of trees. These are concrete elements a client can respond to in the next image.

The second cabin model. Grass, flowers and tree coverage were reviewed across both exteriors so the two images would share a recognisable setting. The surroundings are interpreted project visualisations.

4. Separate material character from overall brightness

The dark timber generated several specific material discussions. We adjusted the transparency of the cladding finish and reviewed the distinction between the timber and the painted window frames. Another comment concerned a surface that appeared weathered. Updated material samples were reviewed before the final images.

Those comments illustrate why a dark facade benefits from more precise questions than whether it looks too dark. Can the timber grain be read? Does the finish appear new or weathered? Are the frames distinguishable from the boards around them?

Interior lighting was also part of the exterior review. The client asked for more light inside the dark cabins. In the finished views, the illuminated rooms give the glazing depth and allow the viewer to read something of the spaces behind the facade.

5. Give camera studies a focused review task

For the interiors, we prepared several camera proposals and asked which views should be developed. The review included a clear choice of emphasis: kitchen and living space, or the outlook through the windows. Selecting the views at this stage gave the subsequent material and lighting work a defined composition.

An early living-room camera study, shared to discuss composition. Materials, lighting and surroundings are provisional. It is a different composition from the finished kitchen view below, not a before-and-after pair.

The finished kitchen view demonstrates how several functions can be explained in one frame. The worktop runs along the left, the dining table anchors the foreground, and the seating area remains visible beyond. The windows place the illustrated coastal outlook alongside those everyday activities.

For a review, this suggests a useful sequence of questions: can the room arrangement be understood, does the furniture support that reading, and how much attention should the outlook receive? A camera study gives those questions a visible subject.

The kitchen composition connects cooking, dining and sitting within a single view. Its material finish and landscape belong to the completed presentation.

6. Check the revisions across the whole set

A final review addressed the landscape visible through the windows and its relationship to the exterior images. Grass and tree coverage also needed to feel consistent between the two cabin models.

This is where a local change becomes a set-wide task. Once a landscape decision is agreed, every view that shows the affected surroundings needs another look. Reviewing the images together makes it easier to notice differences that are less obvious in an individual render.

For future projects, we would carry forward four checks:

• Reference: What information does each supplied image or drawing establish?
• Decision: Which visible part of the scene should change in response to the feedback?
• Approval: Are we asking the client to review the camera, the materials or the finished image?
• Consistency: Which other views are affected by the same decision?

Hulvika's final images grew through that exchange between project knowledge and visual judgement. A comment about grass, a window frame or a camera direction became useful when we could connect it to a specific change and review the result together.

Project credits

Project: Hulvika, Son, Norway. Client: Tinde Hytter. Architectural visualisation and article: Sigssoft 3D https://www.sigssoft3d.io/3d-visualisering/.

The full Hulvika case study https://www.sigssoft3d.io/portfolio/tinde-hytter-hulvika-son/ presents the finished image set and the separate aerial overview.

About the author

Sigurd Kvernmoen

Founder and managing director of Sigssoft 3D