Work with an architect or 3D studio?

[howelaw1]

I know this question might have been asked before, but I would like some fresh opinions from people who have worked as both in-house artists with architects, and in a 3D rendering company?

 

Basically I have the choice to choose one over the other, what are some of the pros and cons of working for both types of companies?

 

Thanks

[stuartkemp]

I've only ever worked at architecture studios so can't really comment to much on what it's like at a 3D studio.

 

I've found it quite frustrating at times with architects doing their best parrot impressions, sat on your shoulder constantly making comments and changes, sometimes even talking to themselves. That said, if you are not actually an architect this kind thing gives you much more insight into the design process, which for me personally has taught me a lot.

 

Deadlines are very tight in an architecture firm. The architects eat into your agreed time and as they're paying you and you're generally sat 2 metres away it's seems to be an acceptable practice. I wouldn't imagine that would happen at a 3D firm to such an extent as you would have a contract with timelines set out. That said, this will help you speed up your work flow so you may very well come out the better for it. At the end of the day you're probably going to end up working stupid hours anyways though so it's a bit of a moot point.

 

We generally have lulls in workload so you tend to get a bit of a breather between these manic deadlines. Personally I find it a bit boring at times but each to their own.

If you're going to an architecture firm I would check their work and make sure it's of a high quality, as having someone more talented than yourself will help you improve your own work in the long run. I'd imagine most 3D studios would have a plethora of talent, so it wouldn't be so much of an issue.

 

I'm sure I've forgot plenty but I'll wait for others to reply. I think it'll ultimately boil down to where you want to take your career, and your own personal preference.

 

Sent from my C5503 using Tapatalk

[notamondayfan]

I have worked in both an architecture firm, and 3D studio, as well as freelancing.

 

The main difference between the two is that with an architect you will be involved in visualising projects from the start which includes massing studies, feasibility images, etc, so the time involved in creating sexy images will probably be quite small.

In a 3D studio, you wouldn't work on the development side of things, instead your more likely to produce the polished images used for marketing.

 

There are pro's and cons to each, but from my experience working in a 3D studio would be where I'd go, as you learn the skills to create sexy images, and you avoid all those horrible design changes and development work. Perhaps if you can land a job in a large architecture firm, they might have their own 3D department, where produce their own marketing images in-house.

 

But also look and ask questions about the work-load, the company, the perks of each job. It might be the case that the architecture firm will give you more creative freedom, and you might find that in a 3D studio they have a very tight work-flow and you become a cog in a machine.

 

Dean

[Scott Schroeder]

I've worked for both, and freelanced just like Dean. His pros and cons are pretty spot on, so I'll just add to them.

 

In-House Architect

Pro:

Possibly a little more stability in your job, lulls are not times to panic

Possibly higher pay

You are directly involved in the design process so some of your ideas might actually exist in space one day

If you need a plug-in or asset, you generally get it. At least where I work.

Unless you are the associate architect on the job, you are the tip top of the money chain.

 

Con:

Lack of time and schedule management

Too many "we need these renders yesterday" situations

Lack of a defined modeling and production pipeline

Lack of support to get co-workers logging on to network render at night

Sometimes a lack of creativity in setting up the render. The "whole picture" view reigns supreme.

Possibly lack of computer hardware updates, you might work on the same ole dumpy rig for a while because, hey, it can run AutoCAD.

Wild overtime requirements at times

Top-down management style

Bid/SD/DD phases

 

Visualization Studio

Pro:

More creativity

Actual production schedule and modeling pipeline

Stronger network rendering support as you all are aware of the implications of the need for it

Better balanced overtime

Varied project types you can work on

More organized

 

Cons:

The budget reigns supreme and it might not have been established by someone who knows rendering

Possibly less job stability, lulls are time to panic

Many rendering projects at once, so it can get really stressful when jobs are in the queue.

Dealing with outsourcing

Dealing with incoming client information

Top-down management

[Nils Norgren]

I would like to add to to the "Pro" category for visualization studios.

 

peer support, being surrounded by experts

diversity of projects (films, stills, interactive, etc)

diversity of equipment (cameras, audio, editing equipment, lights, green screen)

buffer between the artist and client

managers understands how things are done, what the ramifications are for changes

ability to say "NO" when the situation requires it

career path

 

my 2¢

 

-Nils

[heni30]

I would like to add to to the "Pro" category for visualization studios.

-Nils

 

I know this might be tricky in your position, but can you think of any other cons of working in a 3D studio?

 

For instance, do people tend to get stuck in what they are good at - at all?

Edited February 26, 2014 by heni30

[harryhirsch]

Agree wit hScott n Nils but:

""diversity of equipment (cameras, audio, editing equipment, lights, green screen)""

do all visualization studios have that equipment?

"buffer between the artist and client"..uhhh no ones likes to be the buffer

"ability to say "NO" when the situation requires it"...well the Boss can do that but the junior?

To the ""In-House Architect Pro"" we would have to add:

-working close to construction experts that tell you when there is something wrong (with the dimensions or materials)

at least thats what we do...we never use our Arch Viz peopel to do mass studies or feasibility images..every graduate arch can do that...

you have to ask yourself..do you want to learn about your business and you need support of 3D Pros...then it is the 3D Studio...or do you want to what you can with and learn how architects and their clients tick?

[Justin Hunt]

Pro for In-house - you work on the whole Pipeline

Con for In-House - you work on the whole Pipeline

 

In-house, if you only want to do the high-end stuff, it can be quite frustrating as this isn't the core focus if the company. You dont get to do much of it, and when you do you may not get all the resources needed. Often your marketing work will turn into design development and your time and budget gets eaten you very quickly.

 

If you enjoy the design process it can be very rewarding as you will be involved right from the start right through to completion. You can have a lot of input into the design process.

 

I agree that Peer support should not be underestimated, and that goes for both studio and in-house. Will you be working by yourself or are there others in the department?

 

Each studio or firm will offer something different for good or bad.

It largely depends on what you want out of your career.

 

jhv

[notamondayfan]

I know this might be tricky in your position, but can you think of any other cons of working in a 3D studio?

 

For instance, do people tend to get stuck in what they are good at - at all?

 

It really depends on studio to studio as to whether you are assigned a task, or a project. Smaller studio will tend to have staff who are capable in all areas, and perhaps specialise in one area, where as larger studios might have people assigned to one part of the project, say modelling. You kind of need to ask these questions in an interview to know if the studio is right for you.

 

As for cons for 3D studio....

 

 

Crunch times / long hours.

Repetitive tasks.

Rigid work-flow.

 

 

For me, I'm happiest freelancing, but if I wasn't freelancing I'd probably favour a 3D studio over an architect firm, but it would really depend on the studio / architect.

[Stephen Thomas]

I would agree with a lot of what has been said already. It really depends on what stage of your career you are at, are you confident working alone or do you need the support of a good team to bounce ideas off and learn from? One thing I would say that applies to both architecture and visualisation studios is find a good one where you can work alongside people who inspire you and you can work on interesting projects. Choosing a bad one will undoubtedly become a soul-destroying chore.

 

I started off at a large architecture firm as part of a vis team. We had quite a good degree of autonomy, which worked well, and the projects were varied and interesting. I then recently spent a year working for quite a sizeable vis studio, but have now returned to working in-house for a multi-disciplinary design studio with a focus on interiors. I missed that feeling of being an integral part of the design process and in my case I felt that one of my strengths, having an architectural background, was in communicating with designers and knowing how to help express their ideas. I always felt detached from this in the viz studio, where the focus was all on our process. Which was fine, just not for me I guess.

 

Career progression is another consideration. There is always the chance to have a small team within an architecture studio, but perhaps more opportunities in an independent visualisation firm. That being said, regardless of where you are it is up to you to demonstrate your worth and make sure you are seen as much more than just 'the render guy'.

[neil poppleton]

Who is paying the most, both have pros and cons.

[Nils Norgren]

I know this might be tricky in your position, but can you think of any other cons of working in a 3D studio?

 

For instance, do people tend to get stuck in what they are good at - at all?

 

In my experience people gravitate to what they are good at / like to do, but there is plenty of opportunity for learning outside of one's comfort zone and volunteering for work they would like to do, or show talent in.

 

That being said, there are the occasions, (hasn't happened in many years) where someone complained because they weren't being given certain tasks they wanted to do, but in that case they were un-proven, and there were others who could do the work correctly and quickly. In that case I told the person, if you want this type of task, learn the tools, make some cool examples and prove that you have the skill and aptitude.

 

I will say that one con that comes to mind is that the larger the group, the more rigid some things can be. We for instance lock down the admin rights on the computers, artists cannot install anything. This often causes offense from artists who expect things to be more open. I could cite many horror stories about what experiences we have had but I won't bore everyone.

 

There is a recent post about working at a studio that refused to adopt linear workflow, this illustrates perfectly that frustration. http://forums.cgarchitect.com/75422-working-office-where-linear-workflow-has-been-dismissed-unnecessary.html

 

Agree wit hScott n Nils but:

""diversity of equipment (cameras, audio, editing equipment, lights, green screen)""

do all visualization studios have that equipment?

"buffer between the artist and client"..uhhh no ones likes to be the buffer

"ability to say "NO" when the situation requires it"...well the Boss can do that but the junior?

 

Of course each studio is unique, I speak from my point of view. We have this equipment and facilities, and many of the much smaller studios have similar.

 

As for the buffer between the artist and client, we employ a system where a project coordinator is assigned to each project. These "PCs" are invited to all meetings, the production team will meet with the client and discuss the project, but the project coordinator is always involved so that in the case where something is out of scope they can be the alarm bell, and free others from being the bearer of bad news.

 

In the case of saying "NO" this never happens in a vacuum. Whoever is involved the circumstances help shape the response. It is important that individuals not be taken advantage of by someone requesting changes. Scope creep is a real phenomena, although it is important to provide good customer service, contracts exist for a reason. Clients can often manipulate the pride and ego of artists into making "improvements" to an image, the main difference between the in-house and studio environment is that the project scope and deadline are maintained as best as they can. This also extends to source materials, if a client promises information that doesn't appear, there are implications that are taken seriously.

 

my additional 2¢

 

-Nils

[Tommy L]

I think the answers made here are all good, but it depends a great deal on the actual offices in mind. Nils runs a tight ship, but there are sloppy studios where you are put in difficult circumstances, same applies for architecture practices, you need to understand their company ethic before making the decision.

In general, my experience has been better in 3d studios, but mainly due to creative satisfaction over work environment. Best of all is self-employed, but that requires a certain kind of masochism that is rare.

[Jon Berntsen]

I think an interesting angle to this would be: What business do you want to work in? Being an in-house visualizer, you will be in the construction business, and a BIG pro is that you actually get to know the products you are going to interpret and visualize. If you go for the 3d studio, you would be more lightweighted when it comes to your expertise in getting the illustration correct according to that specific project.

 

If you are thinking about getting old in this architecture illustration thing, I would say you need go for the construction business. If you think you will be fine with being a "3d generalist" open for other types of projects than arch, then 3d studios would be good.

Edited February 28, 2014 by chroma

[howelaw1]

Thanks everyone for the replies. It was very informative reading and I'm grateful to all the contributions. However I think what neil said has the most resonance with me; each has their pros and cons, I'll follow the money and see what happens

[Nic H]

in house 3d people in australia tend to get paid a bit better in australia.

 

but

 

you will improve very little after a while, it will break your soul and trap you into a lifetime of design updates on slow machines with no one to learn from using a very slim range of software and techniques that will end up making you basically unemployable outside of an architecture office.

 

it depends what you want to do though! thats my view.