Portfolio Dev Discussion: Quality vs. Quantity

ScottHoneycutt

It's been said to me and others on Polycount that 2-3 good pieces are better in the portfolio than 10 moderately decent pieces. I believe that. Now another issue I've faced recently is simply the quantity of work WITHIN your pieces. Would you agree that an "excellent" handgun, Pokeball and Unicycle are superior to a portfolio of 5-10 works with hundreds upon hundreds more hours put in simply for the amount of "stuff" placed in? Let's say, for example, that somebody's (not mentioning names :poly124:) material definition is his biggest critique. Then let's say that same someone spends the next month modeling, UVing and baking a large environment of work and then thinks, "Am I wasting my time?" Meanwhile he sees character artists at similar levels getting entire pieces done inside a month's time on a regular basis. What are they REALLY looking for in a gallery? Just how much quantity does an environment need to be considered "a full environment" (I know that's vague).

Note that I had my gallery critiqued in February, made a whole new one, had it critiqued late July, and now I'm remaking several of those pieces, while creating my current environment. In my last gallery, everything looked like the same "mediocre" level of quality. I ask this now because I'm exhausting myself making a while nother folio and I'm expecting the same result as last time. I'm so exhausted. :poly114:

TLDR: What do you recommend as a real minimum of work for an environment artist's portfolio? I intend to aim for that, then remake the same pieces by improving on their weaknesses to maximize efficient use of time and energy.

Autocon

Quality over Quantity ever time no matter what. Your only as strong as your weakest piece and if you have 3 pieces and your weakest piece is fucking amazing your way better off.

Here is what you need for a great environment artist portfolio.

1 Super polished environment. Good composition, story telling in the environment, material definition and lighting. Showcasing the use of tiling textures and modular assets is a HUGE plus.
2 Extra 3d assets that differ from the style of your environment and can show some great material definition/texturing/high poly work.

Have that and finding a job shouldn't be too difficult.

ScottHoneycutt

Thanks so much for the input Autocon :thumbup:

ScottHoneycutt

I'd like to ask another question: How far back do you go with your folio pieces and to what extent can you show your development overtime? If your last environment is behind the quality of your current environment, do you leave it to show how you've grown, or take it out because it's lesser work? I believe quality is better than quantity, but there are people who will insist that they want to see BOTH. Thoughts? Also is it a bad idea to remake old pieces or should I move on to new ones?

LRoy

If you're applying for a position, they won't so much care about your improvement over time as much as what you can do now.

I wouldn't remake old paces. You're better off taking what you learned from them and using it on something new, if anything just to keep yourself from being bored.

Justin Meisse

It depends on what kind of studio you're applying at. I stick to stylized low poly stuff so I still include some 5 year old assets in my portfolio; if you're applying to snazzy AAA next gen studios you should probably get rid of everything that isn't PBR.

slosh

Stylized artwork stands the test of time...one of the reasons its so great is handpainted stuff just doesn't get outdated. For realistic stuff, you pretty much have to constantly update your work to the latest and greatest. Don't put old pieces in ur folio that are clearly lesser than your more recent work. If you want to rework old assets and bring them up to current standards, that's fine...just make sure it's just as good. Usually, older stuff just isn't made to the standards you have now and it's almost faster to just redo it from scratch...in which case you might as well do something brand new that is more interesting to you.

ScottHoneycutt

Thanks. I think the confusion for me is that advice often contradicts itself so you take it all in and make the best decision you can. What has been said here however seems to be the majority opinion and it makes a lot of sense.

My main idea about remaking pieces was to take pre-PBR works and remake the materials in PBR. I've already done this on two pieces and have two other pieces I'm thinking about. The main concern is really just fatigue and how to pace myself, not get discouraged, stay current and be proud of my work. I will definitely take this advice to heart so thanks again.

Kwramm

ScottMichaelH wrote: »

I'd like to ask another question: How far back do you go with your folio pieces and to what extent can you show your development overtime? If your last environment is behind the quality of your current environment, do you leave it to show how you've grown, or take it out because it's lesser work? I believe quality is better than quantity, but there are people who will insist that they want to see BOTH. Thoughts? Also is it a bad idea to remake old pieces or should I move on to new ones?

Development over time just works against you:
1) the past is past. We care what you can do NOW
2) we expect you to be flexible and pick up new stuff quickly. All that a "development over time section shows" is that you may be too slow (you have no idea about some of the crazy real world requirements - not saying they're always realistic, but producers and ADs can always dream ). i.e. such a section in your folio will likely get you more negative than positive points
3) you're adding a piece to your folio that's weaker than your current work - even if it's just for comparison - it's already been said, don't do that.

About quantity: yes, we want to see quantity that shows us you're not a 1 trick pony. This means instead of 1 fuxking awesome piece, we'd like to see two or even three. But any more are really only useful in certain special cases. If you REALLY want to show versatility, e.g. in style, just make 3 different fuxking awesome pieces, but that'll be a real challenge!

Remaking old pieces: should be okay. Just don't show the old piece - which probably sucks compared to the new one. Again, we judge what you can do right now!

ScottHoneycutt

Thanks! Great help.

sprunghunt

I've had what seems like a pretty even split between the two philosophies. Sometimes it's "why can't we see more of your work" and sometimes it's "why is this old work in here?"

So quantity isn't always good but it seems very dependent on who you're trying to appeal to. I definitely agree that you always need quality.

Snefer

I dont agree with Kwramm at all, I think development over time is great to show. It shows that you are actively growing as an artist, and at what pace. Much better to hire someone who actually push themselves to be a better artist than someone who is pretty ok but thats it, they are complacent.

Then again, if your portfolio is big and solid enough without the old stuff, then its of course better. But for someone who is still learning fast, someone pretty junior, I dont see the problem with showing that you are improving : )

I would rather see a folio with 10 pieces, with a nice curve of improvment, than 3 ok pieces. Because the three pieces just tells me that right now you are kinda ok, but is that your level for the last two years, or are you still improving rapidly? No way to tell.

Kwramm

Snefer wrote: »

I dont agree with Kwramm at all, I think development over time is great to show. It shows that you are actively growing as an artist, and at what pace. Much better to hire someone who actually push themselves to be a better artist than someone who is pretty ok but thats it, they are complacent.

past growth isn't necessarily an indicator for future growth. Artistic growth is not linear. For all you know, the pieces you see in a folio could represent the peak of a candidate's ability.

Pushing yourself artistically, and showing interest in new tools is expected. If you don't do this, you'll be out of a job sooner or later. I don't think there's a need to prove that you want to stay employed Same thing as putting "team player" in your resume. Everyone is a team player anyway, and it's expected too. So don't waste space.

Ex-Ray

To cover all bases Scott, for the interview process just have a few of your old work in a separate folder should you need it. Therefore you have the option to show it or not.

If you do show it, it can spark off more conversations. Don't dwell on the lesser quality of the work but talk about the improvements you've made since then. You could have the before and after remakes that you are doing now, talk specifics about PBR, better lighting, better presentation etc. Then carry the momentum of this conversation to the present you, your current skill set.

But as others have said if your online portfolio is strong enough then these extra stuff becomes less of a necessity.

ScottHoneycutt

@Snefer: Very glad you commented, thanks.

@Ex-Ray: Thanks, and yeah the goal of course is to just be as great as possible, then its not an issue LOL.

RexM

I think when thinking about the amount of assets in your scene, ask yourself if your scene has enough variety. An empty scene doesn't need more 'stuff,' it needs a sort of variety that shows you know about game art budgets in terms of managing resources. From tiling texture usage/creation to unique props.