GraphCorp,
I don’t know how relevant my input will be, because I’ve been out of the architectural visualization business for almost ten years. But, here goes.
After working in architecture for almost twenty years, I started my own business doing 3-D computer modeling, rendering, and animation. My clients were mostly design professionals and some feature film production companies. This was back when the new PPC’s first came out. My workflow included ArchiCad, StrataStudio, Artlantis, Photoshop, and FreeHand.
Notwithstanding some of the drawbacks posted by Dwight, I think if you have the right “stuff” and develop the right skillset and range of services, you still might be able to earn a decent living.
My guess is that architectural offices using AutoCad still rely on outside artists to produce renderings, so this is one of the markets you would be competing in. Unfortunately, back then in most cases it was far easier and quicker to produce lively, sumptuous renderings the old-fashioned way. Nowadays, with a well developed work flow, libraries of props (people, trees, vehicles), and textures, along with the added horsepower of today’s computers, you can compete for the higher profile projects, especially when multiple images are required. It may take 40 hours to produce one rendering, but only a few more hours to produce another five.
With architects fees being so tight, they are not going to be providing the lions share of your revenue from their pockets. You can however, make a good portion of your living from them if you can provide skills and services that mesh seamlessly into their workflow. That was my advantage. I often worked on projects from beginning to end by providing 3-D imaging services during the design development and approval stages. My knowledge of building methodologies, codes and the like made it tantamount to having another technologist on the job.
With one of my Architectural clients we created a workflow for producing a number of very appealing “renderings” in a few days. I would build an accurate but simplified model of the project and create simple 3-D line drawings from different locations throughout the model. We would give those line drawings to an artist who would then use them as templates to produce a number of prismacolour renderings. This reduced the time required (to zero) for the artist to plot the perspective for the architects approval prior to rendering.
The real money resides with the developers through their sizable marketing and promotional budgets. Your graphic arts background will serve you well here as you may provide them with architectural imaging as well as a plethora of other promotional material, whether it be brochures and other traditional media, or multimedia and web-based presentations.
Tips And Warnings
• At least to begin with, Dwight is correct. For every 10 billable hours, you will spend twice that amount of time experimenting, fiddling, and otherwise constantly thinking of ways to get the best results for the least amount of work.
• You must love learning new things. In this field, “new” is an every day occurrence.
• ArchiCad is a wonderfully simple yet powerful modeling program, and you’ll probably only be using a tiny subset of its features. It’s also not very good at doing free form modeling, but for buildings, it’s a dream. Even still, to get to the real power of the program you’ll need some serious “geek” skills. GDL (ArchiCad’s object description language) is not for the faint of heart, but if you’re good in math and geometry (and logic) you should be able to handle it.
• You sound like you have somewhat of a tactical mind, which will serve you well. I’d also suggest taking some building technology courses at your local technical college.
• Many deadlines would be on a Monday, and the architect would be tweaking his design in the final days, so say goodbye to your weekends. Also, long weekends were a pain. One less day for your client to be available to answer questions.
• With architectural renderings it’s not good enough for the scale and look of your textures to be close. They have to be right on. It requires a whole different level of discipline and technical know how to accomplish this.
In closing, my years doing this kind of work were my most enjoyable of all my years in the workforce. I worked far more hours than I billed, but I billed at $60/hour. So I made a good living and my clients got their money’s worth. I had to stop working for health reasons, but I wish I was still doing it, especially considering the availability of cheap processing power with the modern machines.
I’ve only scratched the surface here, but if you like, feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.
Ron
604 681-5559
