There’s a lot of advice that a portfolio should only showcase your very best work. But what happens if your best work isn’t directly relevant to the role you’re aiming for?
For example, let’s say you’re applying for a position in 3D architectural visualization. Your strongest 3D model is actually a highly detailed car, while your architectural renders are less impressive in comparison.
In this situation, would it be better to:
Only show the car model
Only show the architectural work,
Show both
Ultimately, is there still hope for the applicant in this situation, or is the job market simply too competitive for a portfolio that isn’t perfectly aligned?
Replies
If you can’t show examples of the kind of work an employer is looking for, then it’s really unlikely they will hire you. Simple as that.
Why not make an architectural render or two?
I guess what I’m really wondering is, how common is it to be competing against applicants who are not only specialized in a certain niche, but also have really polished examples tailored exactly to it?
Lots of layoffs are causing this phenomenon these days, it's been going on steadily for the last few years in my experience. The overall macro-economic situation post-Covid has been ravaging the market.
Plus there's the huge mess of the AI bubble and AI-over-hyping which leads employers to think they can replace costly humans with automated systems.
It's just a fucking mess, especially for all those trying to get into the 3d job market. Not just games, but all across the board... e-commerce, defense, education, you name it.
The best way to tackle this, in my experience, is to improve the quality level of your portfolio, and also to attend events in person to "press the flesh" and make personal connections with people.
I'm seeing lots of horror stories of artists sending out a gazillion resumes and job applications, never to see meaningful responses. A mini-rant about this that I posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ericchadwick_i-have-never-gotten-a-job-by-applying-thru-activity-7363336424672092161-AgF5
Both - provided the examples are not shit.
When I hire I want to know that you can do the work I need you to do.
If I'm hiring for the long term a more versatile candidate makes more sense, if I'm hiring because I need something doing on a specific contract I'm going to pick the one with the most evidence that they can do exactly what I need.
That said - you have no idea what the other applicants are like and until you talk to the people you have no idea what they're hiring for.
With that in mind.. If you're going for an archviz job, hide the furry-porn, keep the car and put the archviz work front and centre
For example a character artist position at Electronic arts can involve every possible responsibility, or be more specific in its requirements (Character Artist EA create vs Character Artist FC Hair Team)
Not saying that your portfolio needs to have everything, but in general as a character artist a clothed character with hair and accessories is sufficient.
What follows is an art test to narrow down specifics, atleast that's the professional way to go about it for new applicants.
As a repeat applicant for fixed term contract, the recruiter approaches with a straight offer since they have had experience working with you.
Any relevance to qaulity in this case is your previous contract performance.
I was in a similar situation when I started out. I just wanted work, but I had no idea how the hiring works. So I couldn't figure out what exactly is the right thing to do.
Fortunately now you have places like Polycount, where the hiring people are willing and eager to help you understand it. We want you to avoid all the unpleasantness we had to go through, if that's at all possible.
So... we've tried to compile some resources for you. Since these questions come up a lot, they really do, and we really have answered them many many times. See the links in the Sticky post at the top of this section "Career and Education".
i like that