I’m 90% retired out of 3D, yet I still do get inquiries and this one came in last week so I quoted on it (I haven’t done any 3D work for over a year, but I still have all the software and hardware and websites, so I was up for it, it looked easy enough).
Full Disclosuer: I didn’t get the job - the prospect told me I was way more expensive than anybody else (he wouldn’t tell me by how much but he certainly gave me the impression that I was way, way off).
So… coupled with the fact that I haven’t been doing them for some time, maybe it’s true and I’m just simply out of touch on pricing.
So, could you guys say what you reckon you’d price this at?
(I’ll tell you the price I gave at the end of this survey :))
Many thanks.
Requirement was ONE CGI from above showing the entire development plot of new houses from above - so everything in that site plan and whatever you think would work outside of that perimeter.
PS - There are some things that are not on those drawings that for sure they’d need (like paths to the front door, patios etc) so those sorts of things would need to be factored in (I guess).
I don’t do too many of these either these days, though also had one come in from a client I hadn’t heard from for almost 6 years.
I think they don’t like my prices either lol…many cheapskates around recently. Good luck to them but I refuse to work for monkey snacks
Anyway…hmmm…3 simple house types basically, some landscaping. Depending on how high the angle is you could get away with quite simple detail.
I’d say the simplest/cheapest would be around 800 quid.
I do these all day long. Tiny houses like those would cost $600 per house, and you have three of them. He’ll get a view of each, and I would probably charge him a little more for the birds-eye.
I follow a guy on IG who always posts these poorly done renderings with the Fiverr watermark on them (I guess he does pay for the work he hires for). He reached out to me and asked me to quote a house, which I did, and he said I was ridiculous. I mentioned that he hires people from Fiverr, and I can’t compete with them on price, but I will produce something far better for him.
Thanks Fixeighted. Are you saying £800 is the price you’d do that one overhead CGI at, or what you’d imagine was the price he got it for? (sorry, nit picking I know, it’s just that I was so blown away by this dude’s reaction I thought I need to investigate )
I would quote $600 per house, and that would get them a view of each house, and I would charge extra for the birds-eye (30%). If they just wanted the birds-eye, then $600 per house and they would get the one view.
I considered it to be doable for 800 GBP purely as it’s an aerial view, so possible to greatly simplify the geo of the already very simple
houses. I base everything on my day rate, so that sounds about right.
I’d make sure they know what they’re getting and that they can’t suddenly ask for split, more traditional angles after the fact
When I was freelancing, I’d say about 3 day. The houses look very simple, as does the landscape. Plus you’re not going to see any detail on the models.
Maybe 3 days is max actually, but you’ve gotta price the client. The drawings have zero creativity, are literally boxes with roofs, so you’re not dealing with a high-end client.
In all honesty, I could probably knock something out that’s respectable in a day, then add a 1/2 day for wiggle room, management, invoicing.
Yeah that’s fine for that I reckon, as it’s lacking in a lot of what is normally a hassle here - i.e. brickwork.
Did they notice the dodgy tiles on the foreground house?
Well yes eactly; that is how I price everything. I assess how long I think it’ll take and apply my daily rate to that. In all these years I have rarely been
very far from that which I quoted.
The problem these days is that it absolutely takes less time to go from brief to finished output, simply due to tech advances and the vast range of ready-made assets available.
It may be tough to swallow but it means that output is both better and quicker to produce, irritatingly meaning lowered income.
Or you have gotten better. The daily per diem isn’t always the best way; we add more value the more experience we have. If you are twice as fast as five years ago, you rob yourself and need to raise your per diem. My per diem is my absoute minimum. I was a little slow the first of the year, so I took my minimum; it was a per-day project, so it worked. But now I am busy, and the guy wants an earlier rate.
Hmmm, well it’s not that I have improved, though that’s undeniable; moreso, tech has sped up my workflow and become far more capable iteratively, so it’s now within the reach of literally anyone who can afford a sub to Vray and some cash for assets.
The barrier to entry has been lowered, and I realise that and personally am happy with that progress/availability.
I wish I’d been born later, of course
There is however the subject of what experience brings to the discussion. I have tons, in many many areas, that the above doesn’t factor in, so purely for that reason it’s annoying (in the current situation).
Bottom line for me is; I have my day rate and that isn’t changing for the foreseeable future, as it’s based on partially what you described and the fact that I see myself as worth that.
I’m incredibly lucky to still have projects coming in…seemingly from nowhere, as I do not advertise. Luckily it’s not pure archvis for me, for the most part, as that has essentially dried up due to all of the above.
For lone archvis freelancers the future seems bleak/er - that is, apart from you it seems
About 15 years ago, I learned about V-Ray and saw what people were producing. Already in the biz for a decade, I knew I had to up my game to compete. The software came out, so what I was doing was being done cheaply on the computer; I had to be better. It’s the same thing today. Software and hardware are cheaper, and we have AI, but people are still producing low-quality work, and that kind of work can be done in-house, so if they want more, they have to look and find us. Most of my work comes from people who have already gone for the cheap and low-quality, and can’t use what the architect produces. If you are good, you’ll be valuable. Web design, which I also used to do. I bailed when things like Squarespace and WIX came out, but I know people who make a great living still creating web pages. Why? They are better than the cheap solutions.
AI raises poor quality and lowers good quality. I am an avid amateur photographer (thanks to this forum), and AI was running my photos; it ruined everything. Why? Because I was exposing and focusing on the camera, which was already good. AI might be good if I had out-of-focus and under/over-exposed photos, like someone not good with their camera. I am finding the same thing with my renderings.
Once these AI investors want a return, the cost of AI will become expensive. I have already canceled my AI subscriptions. Writing is my weak skill, so AI works excellently. However, it destroys the copy of a professional writer.
3k? That sounds unreasonable if you don’t mind me saying so. It’s one image, probably for crappy marketing…local (online) news and the like, so I would base pricing on that and their perceived budget.
Of course maybe there are parameters of their request that we’re unaware of.
Out of interest how do you break that down?
Other than that, it turns out to be a most interesting post that has sparked good discussion. I am curious as to the amount @JezUK quoted that they found so unreasonable.
)
