Im just starting out in the field and i have about a year experience in architecture doing drafting and CD's. I think I have some pretty good capabilitys in rendering-photoshop-illustrator-etc. but i havent gotten to utilize these skills. Knowing that good renders go for about $500-1500 if I changed my job and became a renderer what could i expect to make? ..or would freelance be the way to go?
i made $1100 in a week but killed myself doing it because I didn't have a good workflow since it was my first gig. If I had analyzed my process and standardized/streamilined my workflow, I would have easily been twice as productive...
it basically comes down to how you work, how good you are, and if you have your own machines to render on or if you have pay to "farm" the renderings out.
Freelance viz has the same complications any freelance gig does, finding clients, keeping clients, getting clients to pay up, paying quarterly taxes and your own health care, etc.
But there are some wonderful rewards as well, working from home/ coffeeshop and a higher rate of pay.
I think the best course of action for you would be to first get some experience under your belt either at the office you work for now or finding another office that does more viz work to gain some experience. Good rendering skills are just another tool in your belt, like being able to pull together a good set of CD's, but you need a portfolio to get paying freelance work.
$500-1500 is very, very inexpensive for quality work.
No firm would make any money if they were charging that, and even freelancing that's very low. There are obviously many contributing factors. All comes down to how good you are, how much experience you have, etc.
No one can do everything well, so pick areas that interest you and learn learn learn.
yeh its a tough call im really good at cad but im really good at learning comp programs and figuring things out .. i was going to try and work on renderngs over the weekends and try getting some freelance gigs maybe if i try a little of both i can really figure out what my options are ..
What's the usual time frame someone allows to produce a rendering? Or is it usually the client that states when they need it?
I know there was an old thread a while back that had some renderings displayed and people listed how much they charged and how long it took them to finish...
the guy at school that teaches 3d has his own rendering company (just himself) and he drives a new mercedes, has a nice house, pool, etc...all on renderings...
I know of a two-person NY rendering firm that billed out $1,000,000 in work three years ago.
That's one million. I heard it from one of them directly. He could have been fudging numbers, but my firm alone was doing about $200,000 in business with them over two months, so the million makes sense.
30000 a minute? I whish I could get clients like that. There probably no architecture firm that can sustain such a price here, so they must be investors or developers right?
cost is relative. how much does the (insert name of luxury highrise tower here) drop on advertising in say the sunday new york times or a full color glossy of chicago magazine. tens of thousands thats how much. but, the question is about a renderer's salary. i work on multimillion dollar houses. but i dont live in one.
thats why im asking about man hours? if they each did forty hour weeks then they had some pretty high billings. if they each worked a hundred hour weeks then they were over worked and not billing nearly the same. there are also other considerations such as health insurance, rent, overhead etc. that factor into all of this...
Also what do you guys think about the market for rendering ...do you think in 5-10 years with all the new technology (ie Revit.. and etc) do you think the price for rendering will go down? It also seems to me the time it takes to do the renders will probably decrease also
degs2516
market is getting bigger and bigger, rendering times haven't decreased for the past ten years because the evolution of software and hardware are parrallel, and the clients are more and more aware of what's possible so they ask for more quality.
vado you've asked a good question, why go to architecture school to just do renderings?
Well there's plenty of people doing renderings that are not licensed architect, or are not architect at all. Most clients don't really care, but some consider that the renderings can also help the conception of the project; sometimes they like it better if it's an architect helping them with that because they ask for architectural developpement decided by the rendering team and then impacted on the project. It depends. And doing renderings can also be a first step towards architecture for someone more confortable with 3dsmax than with autocad... At least that's the way I did it (and trace too I think)
My feeling is that the traditional way of practicing architecture is disappearing fast. I think architects will be forced to diversify their skill sets, and be versatile in lots of new software. This will be hardest for older architects -- who may feel very soon like their market value has decreased because they can't use the technology.
That said, as rendering engines get better in standard programs, I think it will be possible for many firms to do amazing renderings in-house, and easily.
Still, when you're face to face with a client, you'd better know something else than rendering programs to talk about the project. Renderings are only the tip of the iceberg, the stuff published in magazine is far from telling the whole truth about the real deal. It's good to be able to market, but it's better to be able to meet a budget, figure out a program for the client, help him with the legislation stuff, seduce him with a marketable discourse, to know how the stuff you're showing him is built, how much it costs...
If you plan on doing architecture, don't spend too much years doing renderings. Take it as an advice for an old geezer of the redering market that's trying to become an architect...
I am very good with computer programs and have learned alot of max-photoshop-illustrator-indesign-rhino- ect. and I am noticably well in AutoCad at the office I work in. But thats all I do. I like knowing that I can one day build a building that will actually stand because of the knowledge I learned drawing plans and sections but I also dont want to lose any of the other versatille skills I have in any of the other programs...
maybe this question is for another thread but what programs does anyone elses office use most other than autocad??
Also Is there alot of offices out there that let there employees use other programs to design If so than what? Im just a cad jockey right now but i would like to design
oo and one more thing what do you guys think about revit ..I hear it will outlaw autocad in the near future
video games - you need a billion more dollars to get something done. The game engines will cost you hundreds of thousands and you'll need dedicated programmers to keep things working.
film - can be more interesting, but a billion times more stress and competition. Plus, you could be stuck painting eye balls for dragons for a year, or something similar.
The are completely different beasts - film, games, arch viz. Each requires specific skills and knowledge.
Film and video games can make tons of money. But overall, I'd question whether it's more profittable (on an average).
degs, your other questions have been hashed over in multiple threads, several times. to design, i mostly use my brain, but I communicate it thru autocad, sketch-up, pencil, etc. Oh, and even if you are a CAD jockey, you are still designing, aren't you?
In a lot of offices with older principals, there's a real lack of understanding about how 3D (and BIM especially) works. It's changing, but I remember having arguments and endlessly trying to explain how the software worked to older partners. (One thought we used 3DS to "paint" renderings.)
Luckily, this will change as more people who have used 3D and BIM move into senior positions. BIM will absolutely take over, and it will change the role of "draftsperson" from passive drafter to active designer. The old idea of printing out sets for an older partner to redline will go away -- everyone will have to interact with live models.
I also think "renderer" as a title will just be blended into the general role of "modeler/designer."
Luckily, this will change as more people who have used 3D and BIM move into senior positions. BIM will absolutely take over, and it will change the role of "draftsperson" from passive drafter to active designer. The old idea of printing out sets for an older partner to redline will go away -- everyone will have to interact with live models.
I also think "renderer" as a title will just be blended into the general role of "modeler/designer."
Been in this role for 4 years now - all with Revit
Those people in China are also working 16 hour days, 7 days a week. I had one of them call me with a question about five hours ago. It was 3AM his time.
Sep 26, 12 8:03 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Render's Salary??
Im just starting out in the field and i have about a year experience in architecture doing drafting and CD's. I think I have some pretty good capabilitys in rendering-photoshop-illustrator-etc. but i havent gotten to utilize these skills. Knowing that good renders go for about $500-1500 if I changed my job and became a renderer what could i expect to make? ..or would freelance be the way to go?
also any info and thoughts on this field would def help
i made $1100 in a week but killed myself doing it because I didn't have a good workflow since it was my first gig. If I had analyzed my process and standardized/streamilined my workflow, I would have easily been twice as productive...
it basically comes down to how you work, how good you are, and if you have your own machines to render on or if you have pay to "farm" the renderings out.
I think CGarchitect did a pretty comprehensive salary poll last year. Their website is a better place to ask industry specific questions.
http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/16006-2006-salary-survey.html
Freelance viz has the same complications any freelance gig does, finding clients, keeping clients, getting clients to pay up, paying quarterly taxes and your own health care, etc.
But there are some wonderful rewards as well, working from home/ coffeeshop and a higher rate of pay.
I think the best course of action for you would be to first get some experience under your belt either at the office you work for now or finding another office that does more viz work to gain some experience. Good rendering skills are just another tool in your belt, like being able to pull together a good set of CD's, but you need a portfolio to get paying freelance work.
$500-1500 is very, very inexpensive for quality work.
No firm would make any money if they were charging that, and even freelancing that's very low. There are obviously many contributing factors. All comes down to how good you are, how much experience you have, etc.
No one can do everything well, so pick areas that interest you and learn learn learn.
wow ..very helpful ..thanks guys
yeh its a tough call im really good at cad but im really good at learning comp programs and figuring things out .. i was going to try and work on renderngs over the weekends and try getting some freelance gigs maybe if i try a little of both i can really figure out what my options are ..
What's the usual time frame someone allows to produce a rendering? Or is it usually the client that states when they need it?
I know there was an old thread a while back that had some renderings displayed and people listed how much they charged and how long it took them to finish...
the guy at school that teaches 3d has his own rendering company (just himself) and he drives a new mercedes, has a nice house, pool, etc...all on renderings...
I know of a two-person NY rendering firm that billed out $1,000,000 in work three years ago.
That's one million. I heard it from one of them directly. He could have been fudging numbers, but my firm alone was doing about $200,000 in business with them over two months, so the million makes sense.
i got a thing in the mail a few weeks back...I believe that they were quoting aroung $500 a second for a flythrough...that is $30,000 for one min.
That's pricey. The usual price For a minute is more between 12000/16000 euros ....
for 12/16000 € I'm just only rendering with AutoCAD.. not even launching the 3ds Max .exe!
a million divided by how many man hours?
I know of firms that charge much more than $30k, some way more. They are having no problem keeping extremely busy.
When you get up there in price, the client's care about service and quality, not cost.
30000 a minute? I whish I could get clients like that. There probably no architecture firm that can sustain such a price here, so they must be investors or developers right?
cost is relative. how much does the (insert name of luxury highrise tower here) drop on advertising in say the sunday new york times or a full color glossy of chicago magazine. tens of thousands thats how much. but, the question is about a renderer's salary. i work on multimillion dollar houses. but i dont live in one.
The key is that the guys who made $1000000 in a year were working directly for the clients, not for architecture firms.
A museum is willing and able to pay $120,000 for a four minute animation, because it might raise them ten times that from donors who are wowed.
The key is to market through architecture firms, but to be paid directly by wealthy clients.
Also, clients will pay $100,000 for an animation because it is "visible value."
But they'll bitch and moan about paying that same amount for "drafting" because it's something they don't necessarily see, or understand.
I think that's why architects are often underpaid and undervalued: what we do isn't always immediately tangible. There are so many risks.
I guess you have to own or be partner of the firm to earn that kind of money but i guess thats like anything..
thats why im asking about man hours? if they each did forty hour weeks then they had some pretty high billings. if they each worked a hundred hour weeks then they were over worked and not billing nearly the same. there are also other considerations such as health insurance, rent, overhead etc. that factor into all of this...
and also if you just want to do renderings why bother going to architecture school.
I know their overhead wasn't huge. They had invested in a render-farm....maybe ten machines....and rent. Beyond that, it was income, divided by two.
Yeah, they worked hard, but I've had jobs where I've worked hard and made only $40,000 in a year.
Also what do you guys think about the market for rendering ...do you think in 5-10 years with all the new technology (ie Revit.. and etc) do you think the price for rendering will go down? It also seems to me the time it takes to do the renders will probably decrease also
degs2516
market is getting bigger and bigger, rendering times haven't decreased for the past ten years because the evolution of software and hardware are parrallel, and the clients are more and more aware of what's possible so they ask for more quality.
vado you've asked a good question, why go to architecture school to just do renderings?
Well there's plenty of people doing renderings that are not licensed architect, or are not architect at all. Most clients don't really care, but some consider that the renderings can also help the conception of the project; sometimes they like it better if it's an architect helping them with that because they ask for architectural developpement decided by the rendering team and then impacted on the project. It depends. And doing renderings can also be a first step towards architecture for someone more confortable with 3dsmax than with autocad... At least that's the way I did it (and trace too I think)
My feeling is that the traditional way of practicing architecture is disappearing fast. I think architects will be forced to diversify their skill sets, and be versatile in lots of new software. This will be hardest for older architects -- who may feel very soon like their market value has decreased because they can't use the technology.
That said, as rendering engines get better in standard programs, I think it will be possible for many firms to do amazing renderings in-house, and easily.
Still, when you're face to face with a client, you'd better know something else than rendering programs to talk about the project. Renderings are only the tip of the iceberg, the stuff published in magazine is far from telling the whole truth about the real deal. It's good to be able to market, but it's better to be able to meet a budget, figure out a program for the client, help him with the legislation stuff, seduce him with a marketable discourse, to know how the stuff you're showing him is built, how much it costs...
If you plan on doing architecture, don't spend too much years doing renderings. Take it as an advice for an old geezer of the redering market that's trying to become an architect...
french, can you explain why you advise not to do rendering for too many years?
makesamnsure - because you'll be highly skilled in an area that is only worth so much to an architecture firm (unless you want to only do rendering).
Advertising and marketing translates into sales, quick approval and more investment money. This is all highly valuable to any client.
Keep in mind that a single, small ad in a Sunday newspaper will cost thousands. That's just one day.
makesamnsure - because you'll be highly skilled in an area that is only worth so much to an architecture firm (unless you want to only do rendering).
Advertising and marketing translates into sales, quick approval and more investment money. This is all highly valuable to any client.
Keep in mind that a single, small ad in a Sunday newspaper will cost thousands. That's just one day.
farwest- thats exactly what im afraid of.
I am very good with computer programs and have learned alot of max-photoshop-illustrator-indesign-rhino- ect. and I am noticably well in AutoCad at the office I work in. But thats all I do. I like knowing that I can one day build a building that will actually stand because of the knowledge I learned drawing plans and sections but I also dont want to lose any of the other versatille skills I have in any of the other programs...
maybe this question is for another thread but what programs does anyone elses office use most other than autocad??
Also Is there alot of offices out there that let there employees use other programs to design If so than what? Im just a cad jockey right now but i would like to design
oo and one more thing what do you guys think about revit ..I hear it will outlaw autocad in the near future
if you are going to be a renderer, you may as well get into film or video games, where the real money is...
video games - you need a billion more dollars to get something done. The game engines will cost you hundreds of thousands and you'll need dedicated programmers to keep things working.
film - can be more interesting, but a billion times more stress and competition. Plus, you could be stuck painting eye balls for dragons for a year, or something similar.
The are completely different beasts - film, games, arch viz. Each requires specific skills and knowledge.
Film and video games can make tons of money. But overall, I'd question whether it's more profittable (on an average).
degs, your other questions have been hashed over in multiple threads, several times. to design, i mostly use my brain, but I communicate it thru autocad, sketch-up, pencil, etc. Oh, and even if you are a CAD jockey, you are still designing, aren't you?
yes but very little
In a lot of offices with older principals, there's a real lack of understanding about how 3D (and BIM especially) works. It's changing, but I remember having arguments and endlessly trying to explain how the software worked to older partners. (One thought we used 3DS to "paint" renderings.)
Luckily, this will change as more people who have used 3D and BIM move into senior positions. BIM will absolutely take over, and it will change the role of "draftsperson" from passive drafter to active designer. The old idea of printing out sets for an older partner to redline will go away -- everyone will have to interact with live models.
I also think "renderer" as a title will just be blended into the general role of "modeler/designer."
what is the current most used rendering software? and are these salary figures still relevant ?
Luckily, this will change as more people who have used 3D and BIM move into senior positions. BIM will absolutely take over, and it will change the role of "draftsperson" from passive drafter to active designer. The old idea of printing out sets for an older partner to redline will go away -- everyone will have to interact with live models.
I also think "renderer" as a title will just be blended into the general role of "modeler/designer."
Been in this role for 4 years now - all with Revit
I just paid about $500 each for seven renderings from an outfit in Shanghai. They turned them around fast, too.
Well I did 6 Revit renderings for my office for a total of $200.00 or $20/hr for 10 hours work
is it very tough for someone straight out of college with a good portfolio to get a freelancing rendering job?
Man these people in China are making some money!
Those people in China are also working 16 hour days, 7 days a week. I had one of them call me with a question about five hours ago. It was 3AM his time.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.