AuthorTopic: Pixel art portraits for $1.00 !!!  (Read 4467 times)

Offline 32

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 533
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • @AngusDoolan
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/19827.htm
    • angusdoolanart
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel art portraits for $1.00 !!!

Reply #10 on: September 10, 2015, 03:56:40 am
I probably wouldn't expect anyone looking for portraits like these to be hiring a highly skilled artist. I doubt Gil would be bothered to open his art program for $1 so I would think a $30 is more like a barrier for entry than this being a job he would realistically be offered or take.

In my experience you're much more likely to be working on large sets of work than chipping away one piece at a time. $50 is NOT a lot for a single sprite and anyone who's thinking of working professionally should be charging for what their time is worth. Not some theoretical notion of how much a small drawing should cost.

That said I think eightbitdog's goal here is volume so if they're very quick $1 per portrait probably isn't totally unreasonable.

Offline Gil

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1543
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Too square to be hip
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/475.htm
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio

Re: Pixel art portraits for $1.00 !!!

Reply #11 on: September 10, 2015, 03:20:59 pm
My point is that I'm not sure what this thread is about. The app being $1, I get. Doing custom portraits in return for buying the game, I slightly get. He's at a point where a few purchases matter, so he's paying for marketing basically. He IS charging a competitive rate for his work, it's just that we pay in advertising we're doing for him by buying the app. But when people flat-out start discussing that doing portraits for $1 is okay, that's just wrong. A custom 16x16 portrait as a one-off should be priced at at least an hour's work, AKA $20 or $30 minimum. Otherwise you're not only doing yourself a disfavor, you're also lowering the price for the rest of us.

The size can also be irrelevant, because I notice that I charge more for 16x16 stuff than for 32x32 stuff, as the 16x16 stuff tends to be clients that want me to squeeze an icon or similar into 16x16 space, while still being recognizable, which is an artform I overcharge for, as it's a specialization that only few people can do.

Here's an example of someone that wanted their logo done in 16x16 for some reason. Photoshop will fail to reduce this completely and even hand-cleaning did nothing to make the logo recognizable. I was approached by the client to tackle this problem and it turned out that changing even a few pixels around would drastically alter the branding.
->

While I can instantly recognize the people in the original post for example, Joe's edit, while way more visually pleasing, is not instantly recognizable.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2015, 03:23:01 pm by Gil »

Offline RedSuinit

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel art portraits for $1.00 !!!

Reply #12 on: September 10, 2015, 06:24:23 pm
My point is that I'm not sure what this thread is about. The app being $1, I get. Doing custom portraits in return for buying the game, I slightly get. He's at a point where a few purchases matter, so he's paying for marketing basically. He IS charging a competitive rate for his work, it's just that we pay in advertising we're doing for him by buying the app. But when people flat-out start discussing that doing portraits for $1 is okay, that's just wrong. A custom 16x16 portrait as a one-off should be priced at at least an hour's work, AKA $20 or $30 minimum. Otherwise you're not only doing yourself a disfavor, you're also lowering the price for the rest of us.

The size can also be irrelevant, because I notice that I charge more for 16x16 stuff than for 32x32 stuff, as the 16x16 stuff tends to be clients that want me to squeeze an icon or similar into 16x16 space, while still being recognizable, which is an artform I overcharge for, as it's a specialization that only few people can do.

Here's an example of someone that wanted their logo done in 16x16 for some reason. Photoshop will fail to reduce this completely and even hand-cleaning did nothing to make the logo recognizable. I was approached by the client to tackle this problem and it turned out that changing even a few pixels around would drastically alter the branding.
->

While I can instantly recognize the people in the original post for example, Joe's edit, while way more visually pleasing, is not instantly recognizable.

I see what you're saying, but there is a difference between a novice and an experienced artist. I may be able to get the same results with enough time, but there's not a chance in hell I would be able to charge $30 and hour for my work, because it would take me 5-6 times as long than someone with experience. That's why there are paygrades in any industry. When you look at what you get paid vs content released, the value actually decreases per piece, but the hourly rate goes up due to experience and efficiency. I'm a mechanical engineer and it's the same in my profession. The amount I get paid per drawing is less than when I was inexperienced, but my hourly rate is through the roof. That's why I said you must be an experienced artist in the industry, because of your hourly rate. He's not doing you a disservice, and he isn't devaluing your work. It's simply a matter of economics vs experience. You have to start somewhere. I mean when I was an intern I didn't get paid at all, but that will never have any bearing on what experienced engineers make. Maybe I'm creating a bridge that doesn't hold up, but in my mind I don't see the difference. Perhaps I am wrong?