arch. visualization as a profitable business

[Guest xl1max82]

I work for an architect and we are considering building a department around this type of work in

which we would take on subcontract work from other architects with a need for previsualization services. I'm sure this is not a new concept and I was wondering if anyone in the cgarchitect community could offer some tips and advice on how to make this venture profitable. For example, how much are clients really willing to pay for visualization work and what kind of turnaround time is expected. Any advice on making this idea successful would be really appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Chris

[nisus]

Hi,

 

The answers to your questions are quite simple:

how much are clients really willing to pay for visualization work?

As less as possible (They'd rather like it for free actually)

 

what kind of turnaround time is expected?

As soon as possible, because they needed it yesterday already.

 

These were the simple questions. The base to make a profitable business out of CGA depends on managing skills, preferences, location etc. It's hard to drawn a line.

I'd suggest you read the interviews on this site. Jeff asks some very interesting questions from whoms answers you'll get a good point of view on the firm involved.

 

Another tip - advice on how to make this venture profitable:

Make sure your client got an idea of the work you're doing, i.e. make sure he understands what has to be done, because lot's of clients think you just drag and drop within a second.

rgds

 

nisus

[Bradley Stone]

I have to agree.. this is a shitty business. The only reason you should do it is if you think it is fun cause the money isn't great. So far it is costing me more to do it than i make. I dont think that the lack of money is due to shitty marketing or anything like that either due to the fact that i have marketed for some very sucessfull companies. One problem is that architects are cheap and very competitive. Architects aren't willing to pay another architect or even visualization guy because they see you as a threat. The software and hardware are a resonably large investment and it is a technically dificult skill that will soon be outdated. With programs like revit and archicad soon architects will only design in 3d and during this trasition 3d developers will be making the software even easier to use, modelers will have virtually designed everything and doing photorealistic previz will be a piece of cake for even entry level CAD people. So keep your day job. ;P

[Wolf]

I must admit, i dont agree

 

i dont work for architects, who i have found to be unappreciative and low payers of cg vizualisations.

 

All of my customers now are property developers,

who have a lot more money to burn, and give me on average 4 weeks to complete a project.

and absolutely love what i do, because im helping them sell their projects off the plans.

 

The averagre project costs is around 10-15k

which gives me lots of funds to buy new plugins, and try new techniques

 

My suggestion to everyone who feels like they are working for peanuts, is to not charge peanuts.

 

its really that simple

 

no point accepting an architectural visualisation job, if u feel that you are doing it for nothing.

 

and if they go somewhere else that is cheaper....

then it isnt you that is stressing about it, cause the client wont pay what you deserve.

 

Charge more

Allow more time

Do a better job

and the clients you get will be fewer,

but they will soon see the difference they get for the extra money.

[squid]

like any other profession, much depends on the people that are your clients. generally, architects will pay top $$ if you ask for it and have the artistic rendering skills to back it up. one thing to keep in mind is that architects often need approvals from their client and bill renderings out as an reimbursable expense to be paid by the clients.

[nisus]

Hi Wolf,

 

Nice to hear that you changed from architects to developers too.

 

nisus

[matt_vinoir]

Blimey sumo911, slightly pessimistic don;t you think!!

 

The reality is that software companies don't want to go below a level of simplicity to use. If they did, like you said far more people would do it.

I just graduated a year ago, and then the cad drawings were begining to be used almost 90% at the end of the last year but the images weren't fantastic because we didn't have the time to learn let alone spend on modelling. This gets worse when you go into practice. There is no time to model let a lone render well. Archicad's idea of the complete "virtual" building is bullS**t. it doesn't work like that and very few firms will work like that. Revit has been bought up never to see the light of day again although it was a great product.

 

The nature of an architect is that we don't want to do anything twice, we virtually start from scratch on each project and detail even though it could be the same as an old job and with bugdet reviews etc. Even with a drainage detail. We'll say to a collegue how do you draw a soakaway detail and we'll research it again, stupid really but its the way it works! The drawings get changed so much that it's impossible to change everything on all drawings even if that is the idea with chagning a bit on one model.

 

The problem you face as a vizualiser is that architects want images to put in journal to impress their peers, developers want to impress the general public " the great unwashed" as we call them. They want a different type of image but will pay much more. Architects expect to pay about £1000 for a few images and a fly though regardless of size of project where as developers aer a bit more willing to pay.

 

Watercolours, photo real images and conceptual comp images are great together not just one or the other. If its a good image it is wanted. Anyone disagree?

[Guest adrian_dav]

i agree with the point you were making about arcitects being "cheap". architects need 3d renderings to illustrate entries for competitions and to get work in general. ergo the architect has to pay out of his own pocket before the project even paid a dime. i wouldn't call it cheap but reasonable though.

 

you don't have to focus on architects if you want to do 3d renderings and are not into animating monsters and space ships.

 

some of my favorite clients(easiest to work with) are in the retail design field. they buy your service, mark up the price and forward the bill to their respective clients.

this kind of work requires the same skills as general architectural renderings (plus some discipline to model all the products).

 

another financially rewarding field is the creation of presentation materials for the courtroom. it is artistically(i hate that word) not as challenging since clarity and facts are more important than a sleek design. it is fairly easy to negotiate pricing with lawyers. someone who charges $300 per hour for his/her own time is much more willing to get you your $50 per hour.

here a link to a recent article in wired magazine talking about the topic(hyper-talk warning)

 

design companies have a need for 3d too to show their work in context. check out tradeshow and museum designers as well.

 

architects(developers mostly) were the bulk of my clients. after 4 years i have only 2 architects left and all other clients are from other fields as described above. working with clients became much easier and the tiresome negotiating over a few pennies (i was used to while working with architects) had an end as well.

 

best,

 

adrian

http://www.adriandavidson.com

[HeDaCoM]

Architects are becoming more familiar with computer graphics and now they do the graphics themselves. Now they don't need CG artists. And architects hate thouse graphics created for developers... I agree with them. maybe because I'm going to be one of them shortly. heh... but hey... there is room for everyone here in the world of CG.

[Wojciech Klepacki]

Hi Hector

I am an architect and I do all of my stuff by myself from the very beginnig phase as conceputual sketches to the final rendering. In Poland there are a few companies doing exclusively vizualizations, but in most cases architects complete the project unaided. The reason is simple - the money they can burn. Developers in most cases walk this same path. But as I can see the situation depends on the place u are working, one thing is common - u have to finish your work till yesterday, and u have to do it free of charge.

[Guest adrian_dav]

Originally posted by Hector:

Architects are becoming more familiar with computer graphics and now they do the graphics themselves. Now they don't need CG artists. And architects hate thouse graphics created for developers... I agree with them. maybe because I'm going to be one of them shortly. heh... but hey... there is room for everyone here in the world of CG.

i and many of my fellow renderers thought exactly as you do a few years back. we too thought architectural offices would do their own renderings in the near future. it never happened. even large companies with hundreds of architects and in-house renderers are sub-contracting their work. there are actually more and more people out there who make a living by doing 3d in this field.

 

the reasons for the current situation in my opinion:

small companies do not have the means to keep a full-time renderer on staff. large companies with in-house renderers still hire us because they need to get the job done on time. i talked to an in-house renderer and he said that his company hires outside people because he would never get the job done in time. he is to low in the foodchain to tell other people what can go into the rendering and what doesn't. plus he is to close to the team working on it, so he has to implement far to many changes to ever get done. hiring a freelancer has the advantage of putting the architect in charge, avoiding input from other employees looking over the renderer's shoulder and the ability to keep a deadline.

 

the only exceptions may be very small partnerships founded by people who just came out of schools which nowadays make 3d a bigger part of their curriculum. many of these partnerships are shortlived. the ones who make it will grow rapidly and usually switch to hiring freelancers along the way as well because the principals have to delegate "mechanical" tasks and focus on the tasks at hand that only they can do.

 

"architects hate renderings done for developers.". i 100% agree with you in this point. the reason for this is a poltical one and has less to do with 3d itself. the developer needs the renderings to market the future property as soon as possible to avoid any losses from weeks without usage. the architect is supposed to provide all building specs to the renderer to get started, which is difficult at this early stage of the project and finally you'll find the relentless battles between the developer and the architect about what should be shown to make it visually as enticing as possible and what is practically possible from the architects perspective. the renderer could be a bit between the frontlines and should just try to stick to the party who hired him.

 

after all: the architectural offices who do the bulk of their 3d in-house are the startups which wouldn't be interesting as client anyway.

many companies are just doing the first steps toward 3d, away from marker sketches and watercolors. i personally expect the market to grow over the next few years.

 

best,

 

adrian

http://www.adriandavidson.com

[Guest adrian_dav]

Originally posted by squid:

like any other profession, much depends on the people that are your clients. generally, architects will pay top $$ if you ask for it and have the artistic rendering skills to back it up. one thing to keep in mind is that architects often need approvals from their client and bill renderings out as an reimbursable expense to be paid by the clients.

the problem here is that architects need renderings to get the job and are at this point in time not yet able to forward the cost.

 

adrian

http://www.adriandavidson.com

[Wolf]

Architects have never been able to get renderings to the photoreal stage that us visualisers can.

thats due to the fact that we do this as a full time job, and we have spent countless of hours refining our technique.

since architects just dont have that time to spend learning 3d visualisation techniques, their renderings will always fall short.

 

Of course they will be using simple mass models for previsualisations during the design stage, but as far as marketing material thats needed for presenting a project to sell from the plans, they just dont have the time, skill or resources.

 

A typical project that i get, i will deliver 6 framed stills at A0 size, 2-3 minutes of walkthrough video, panoramas, photocomposites, sometimes even brochures and realtime walkthroughs.

 

What architect do you know, that can deliver all of the above, at a presentable level while still having to design the development at the same time.

yes they can do a few 3d views, but not to a level needed for marketing.

 

if anything, its our job that has changed, as nowdays we cant get away with a few 3d snapshots, and charge thousands of dollars.

we have to evolve with the level needed to make a full marketing presentation, and deliver an outstanding product that will help the developer sell from the plans.

 

If you guys feel that you are doing worthless jobs, and are being screwed with not enough money for projects, then you may have to reanalyze what service you provide, and what quality you can attain.

I mean lets face it, if you cant deliver more than what an architect can come up with in his spare time, then of course you are going to get the crappiest cheapest jobs, and feel like your working for nothing.

 

Raise your level of quality

Give the developers more marketing material

Charge more

[kid]

"Architects have never been able to get renderings to the photoreal stage that us visualisers can.

thats due to the fact that we do this as a full time job, and we have spent countless of hours refining our technique.

since architects just dont have that time to spend learning 3d visualisation techniques, their renderings will always fall short.

 

Of course they will be using simple mass models for previsualisations during the design stage, but as far as marketing material thats needed for presenting a project to sell from the plans, they just dont have the time, skill or resources."

 

You'd be surprised by the 3d skills held by most architecture students today. But yes, as mentioned earlier we are using 3d tech to express different qualities to what developers do.

When I do renders for my boss he doesn't care if all the materials look flat and like cheap plastic, as long as there's a lot of rpc people stuck everywhere, he's happy.

[HeDaCoM]

yeah. there are many architecture students that enter in an office and the first job they do is making models or 3D renderings... this is more cheaper for an architect than buyinf a perfect, refinated technique image from you the visualisers. heh... and architecture students are happy with this job to begin working. having the CG artist in the same office as the architect has many advantages.. of critiques, revisions, and developing... very useful for the design phase when the quality of the images are not very important.

[Guest adrian_dav]

Originally posted by Hector:

yeah. there are many architecture students that enter in an office and the first job they do is making models or 3D renderings... this is more cheaper for an architect than buyinf a perfect, refinated technique image from you the visualisers. heh... and architecture students are happy with this job to begin working. having the CG artist in the same office as the architect has many advantages.. of critiques, revisions, and developing... very useful for the design phase when the quality of the images are not very important.

you had me going here for a while .

 

you were not talking about the "perfect, refinated technique image", but about "3d-sketches" early in the design process.

 

most people here thought you were talking about a finished rendering you would typically buy from a professional renderer. sorry, for the confusion.

 

the kind of 3d sketch you talk about becomes more and more important in the design process. it would be impossible for an outside contractor to do the daily/hourly revisions and it makes sense to keep it in-house.

the same holds true for physical models. it's usually done by a young employee being locked up in the basement with cardboard and nailclipper.

 

i'm a big fan and have great appreciation for physical model builders. this guys are far out there. no architect would have the tools, like dentist dremels, or the tiny flourescent lamps to build models like the ones i saw from professional model makers. i don't even get started on the tiny custom furniture and the minature printing.

 

let me put it this way: if my shoes are out of shape, i will go to a repair shop and pay my $10 to have them fixed. it would be impractical to buy the tools and learn the shoemaker trade to avois the bi-annual fee i pay to the shoe repair guy.

 

best,

 

adrian

http://www.adriandavidson.com

[Guest Freshmeat]

let me put it this way: if my shoes are out of shape, i will go to a repair shop and pay my $10 to have them fixed. it would be impractical to buy the tools and learn the shoemaker trade to avois the bi-annual fee i pay to the shoe repair guy.

But if there is a magical automated shoe repairing machine that does better job at repairing the shoe? heh, I think the tools for rendering nowaday are getting incredibly easy to use and there is no waning in making it even easier (to the point of idiot-proof) 10 years ago, it was Povray (was it even out by then?) now, it's almost push button radiosity-cum-raytracing rendering. As I see it, architectural renderer are in the way of architect's vision, 1st, the architect have to wait for the rendering to come back, 2nd, Architects are arrogant control freaks by nature, so if they could, they would want to do it all by themself. Yes, I know your arguement of not having time to learn, or do all those quality rendering, but the tools nowaday are incredibly easy to learn and setup for incredible realistic rendering. Modeling? buy a few model library off the net (or even download for free) and it's drag and drop simple. I mean, how difficult is it to model a house/apartment/library/ compare to modeling anything else? it's almost elementary. (and buildings dont' have intricate curves, nooks and crannies like the human body form, Box modelinig will do most of the time.)

 

I agree with previous post that architecture students that are coming out nowadays are all equiped with the skills of atleast 2 3D package.

Most school nowadays taught MAX and few other major packages as composary courses and students prefers to do rendering on computer than by hand.

This brings to the point that most students would spent a lot of their time fine tuning their rendering skills in their spare time as well.

 

So, I think now and the next few years will be a big transitional time for the AEC industry, particularly for the architect. As lots of architecture students freshly graduated with little job prospect of joining an established firm, I think most will just starting up their own practice as one man team and do everything from start to finish. (The cost of owning the software have dramatically decrease too, as many softwares are slashing prices in this econmoic climate and not to mention the companies that use WAREZ (the 4 letter dirty word) that's common in this industry and the CG industry)

[Guest Freshmeat]

I forgot another point..

Just who repairs the shoe nowaday anyway? Shoes are pretty cheap and made in factories by cheap child labours from Asia (haha, which brings to another point I won't get into)

[Spongebob]

Revit has been bought up never to see the light of day again although it was a great product.

Matt,

 

FYI - I assumed the same as you about Revit until recently. Autodesk has changed focus and is now killing Architectural Desktop in lieu of Revit. Revit will soon be their only architectural CAD package. Arch desktop will still be supported but will not advance past version 4.0. Autodesk has recently been quoted "The future is Revit".

 

So don't give up hope just yet...

 

Spongebob,

Detroit, MI