Professional SU-ers, what do you charge?
-
@unknownuser said:
bmike, how do clients usually respond when you inform them that things are going over budget?
-Brodie
Sometimes they look like this:
But I usually give them fair warning, and a list of reasons why.
I only do this if things the client has done has altered my work load.
I try to spell out as clearly as I can what I'm delivering...The last group that I had to do this with took it in stride. They new they blew my time budget chasing all sorts of options and extra work, so they paid graciously.
Its tough, though.
Sometimes reading a client and deciding what they may mean for future work will inform the decision of how much extra to bill. -
@bmike said:
@unknownuser said:
bmike, how do clients usually respond when you inform them that things are going over budget?
-Brodie
Sometimes they look like this:
hahaha, touche
-Brodie
-
Hmm, I agree with the idea of giving revision inclusive of initial price.
Been in contact with another architecture firm today, they're interested but yet to discuss prices. Let's see how this turns out!
-
@unknownuser said:
I think the modeling world is still suffering from 3dMax-ification where everything is overpriced cause the workflow is difficult and the tools are pricey. The surveys I have read are all 3dmax influenced. Modeling and rendering is much cheaper now. I don't need a render farm to produce a 10 minute movie and I can put together a resonable model in minutes not hours.
1500$ a shot....
I don't know... its not that unreasonable. Maybe $1500 for a series (3-4) of shots based on the same point of view, set of materials, etc... (again, I don't do much rendering...) But it would have to be relative to how difficult the materials, lighting, etc. etc. is. I also think that usage plays a role. Are you doing a large format, high res print quality image to sell high end townhouses on the waterfront? Or a few images for a PDF or web presentation to a residential client?
I've paid photographers $1200 for 1 shot, that I have limited rights to use.
Usually done in a day at the most. Sometimes 3-4 hours.
And most of the physical work (the building part) is done (custom timber work / interiors). They need to light, select lenses, views, bracket the shots, maybe arrange a few props... maybe some post pro depending on the scene.One of my old profs used to chide us about practice - 'Ask your plumber what he charges for labor the next time he comes over. Then the next time you bid some work - be sure you can pay your plumber...'
-
@unknownuser said:
I see that the word "revision" is being used here but not the way it works in my world. If it was as simple as getting one drawing and producing an image. I find that architects that use a modeler make many revisions usually because they involve the customer in the process from day one. I put out easily 3-4 revisions for every job because customers change their mind when they see the pre-visuals. I can't see how it is possible to satisfy a client with one version or one iteration of a design. I know that those designers who don't use 3d often over-design. In almost every case the finals require less design elements and less features. I also see pricing based on a single image which also makes me wonder. It takes hours to model and set-up a studio and minutes to produce shots so why one shot? My customers pay for the model and the set-up. I usually give them 6 to 10 good shots for that price. If the model is interesting I may even let an animation cook overnight and give it away.
I think the modeling world is still suffering from 3dMax-ification where everything is overpriced cause the workflow is difficult and the tools are pricey. The surveys I have read are all 3dmax influenced. Modeling and rendering is much cheaper now. I don't need a render farm to produce a 10 minute movie and I can put together a resonable model in minutes not hours.
1500$ a shot....
Well, I think there's 'development' and there's 'revision.' It's the same in an architecture firm. As you design a building you go through some design development process with the client as part of the budgeted plan. However, there reaches a point at which stage any further owner input is considered an 'owner revision' and comes directly out of their pocket.
If you're sending stuff to a $60/rendering firm in China, you won't be expecting any development process but any professional firm will certainly incorporate it. However, there should come a point for us, like architects, where we start charging a revision fee of some sort. For example, one workflow where you're asked to do an animation and renderings might be to send in some initial draft renderings for review of architectural correctness. A back and forth would ensue until a final design and decision is developed and that stage is approved. Then you might do the same for furniture selection/placement or landscaping - more design development and approval. Then perhaps a draft animation for approval of camera paths, speed, etc. Then a final animation and finally the renderings.
But if the client comes back after approving the architecture, furniture, and landscaping and you've sent them a draft animation and then decides they'd like to make some substantial adjustments to the architecture (which will require a significant amount of work at this point) then a revision fee is warranted. Otherwise you're doing this work for free essentially which opens you up to all sorts of problems. Not least of which will be that your client may very well take advantage of you and continue making changes without any repercussions or 'skin in the game' on their part. Likewise your client will expect the same when they deal with others in the industry which would cause us endless frustration.
Why charge per shot? I think you have a point that the majority of the work is in the modeling and texturing but each shot does (or should) require a fair amount of extra work. Parts of the building and site (or interior space) will be visible in each shot that aren't visible in others which require you to model/texture those areas which you could have otherwise left blank (eg. the backside of the building). It may also require lighting changes. And most important, each image will need it's individual time done in Photoshop which may be hours depending on the scene, your workflow, and the quality you're achieving.
If you're just doing a fairly straightforward SU model and snapping off 15minute podium renders and sending them directly to the client then, it's not that big of a deal to send them 3 or 4 compared to 1. But if that's the case you also shouldn't be charging $1,500 for that sort of job. If however, you're modeling a highly detailed model of a large building or complex of buildings, taking great care with your textures, adding high poly cars, trees, bushes, and flowers in a well thought out landscaping plan or high poly furniture for an interior plan, tweaking lighting with a high quality HDRI in the mix, producing a high quality, photorealistic rendering which may bake for, say, 8 hours and then spending 4 hours in photoshop to add some style, people, color tweaks, etc. then you might be justified in charging $1500 per shot if that's the market in your area.
And although that may still sound outrageous or silly to you, looking at it from the client side, that may be highly reasonable. What's $1500 for a rendering if you're a hospital looking for donors to donate millions of dollars to build your hospital and require a high quality rendering in a reasonable amount of time?
-Brodie
-
So if someone asks you for a single front side rendering, you'd model the back side of the building?
We all cut out the modeling somewhere, I think the WHERE depends on a number of factors. Personally, I do typically model the rear elevation even though I know it won't show up in the rendering. However, I'm an in-house guy so I have 2 clients. The ultimate client will never see that rear elevation on the rendering. However my more immediate client is my boss who, at some point, will be looking over my shoulder making design decisions which will include that rear elevation so it's required.
But I think that's the key to determining what you should model - model only what's "required." Otherwise, you're wasting time if you're modeling a side of the building which won't show up in the rendering and you're reasonably sure that the client won't either want to use the full model or ask for an image of that side.
If you find yourself modeling a lot of stuff that ends up as a waste later on, I'd recommend getting more proficient at choosing your shots at an earlier stage.
-Brodie
-
Regardless of what your price is it will always be undercut if the client is shopping you in China.
Switch the news on and all you hear is Jobs, jobs, jobs yet businesses still outsource to cheaper suppliers overseas, so I guess it's a catch 22 as they need to stay competitive and give their clients competitive prices, outsourcing is cheaper but the downside is more lost jobs at home.My advice is NOT to try compete on price, you literally will starve, you do not have their extremely low cost of living, Compete on quality and service.
Make the experience a good comfortable one, make the client your friend, understand what they want to achieve, use your experience to suggest creative options, be available for questions, changes and general discussions, be flexible and accommodating. Present your best work and set a high standard, once your client exhibits your quality works it will be difficult for them to ever exhibit anything less in future, a good visual is like crack Cocaine, give them a good product/experience and they will return.
Archviz is more than just a pretty picture, we are a service, well sell dreams. -
Solo has it nailed. Service, service, service, and quality.
And a real person doing the work. -
@solo said:
Regardless of what your price is it will always be undercut if the client is shopping you in China.
Switch the news on and all you hear is Jobs, jobs, jobs yet businesses still outsource to cheaper suppliers overseas, so I guess it's a catch 22 as they need to stay competitive and give their clients competitive prices, outsourcing is cheaper but the downside is more lost jobs at home.My advice is NOT to try compete on price, you literally will starve, you do not have their extremely low cost of living, Compete on quality and service.
Make the experience a good comfortable one, make the client your friend, understand what they want to achieve, use your experience to suggest creative options, be available for questions, changes and general discussions, be flexible and accommodating. Present your best work and set a high standard, once your client exhibits your quality works it will be difficult for them to ever exhibit anything less in future, a good visual is like crack Cocaine, give them a good product/experience and they will return.
Archviz is more than just a pretty picture, we are a service, well sell dreams.Frame the above and hang it in your office.
Paul
-
@solo said:
My advice is NOT to try compete on price, you literally will starve, you do not have their extremely low cost of living, Compete on quality and service.
Make the experience a good comfortable one, make the client your friend, understand what they want to achieve, use your experience to suggest creative options, be available for questions, changes and general discussions, be flexible and accommodating. Present your best work and set a high standard, once your client exhibits your quality works it will be difficult for them to ever exhibit anything less in future, a good visual is like crack Cocaine, give them a good product/experience and they will return.
Archviz is more than just a pretty picture, we are a service, well sell dreams.+1 * 100000000!
-
I think I'm gonna try to stick by that advice
Now learning Indigo render, and may purchase the 3D PDF exporter, and offer those as part of my service -
I was browsing around turbosquid and found this page - it shows ballpark prices for 3D-related services.
Advertisement