Most people who need product renders start by looking for an agency. Often that is right, but not always. This page goes through what each route delivers, where the cost comes from, and how to tell which one suits your project.
An agency does not primarily sell you renders, it sells you organisation. It handles consulting, concept, project management, quality control and the coordination of several disciplines. If your launch needs copy, media planning, photography and retail material alongside CGI, that is exactly the value you are paying for.
It also gives you capacity and cover. If someone drops out, someone else takes over. For a range of sixty articles with a fixed retail date, that is not a side benefit, it is the actual reason to hire one.
The price for that is structure: a proposal phase, briefing meetings, feedback routed through project management, and a margin that carries the organisation.
With a freelancer you talk to the person who also renders. There is no layer in between translating your feedback, and no handover to someone you never meet. Questions about material, light or camera work are answered directly, usually the same day.
That is faster and usually cheaper, because the organisational margin falls away. It also has clear limits: one person has one capacity and can fall ill. For sixty articles in four weeks it is the wrong route.
| 3D agency | Specialised freelancer | |
|---|---|---|
| Who you talk to | Project management, passing it on internally | The person who produces |
| Response time on questions | via project management, usually days | direct, usually hours |
| Cost structure | production plus organisational margin | production |
| Capacity for large ranges | high, several people in parallel | limited |
| Cover if someone drops out | available | none, that is the risk |
| Strategy, copy, media | from one source | not included |
| Consistency across many articles | secured by process | secured by one pair of hands |
| Suitability for later updates | a new project | often possible at short notice |
A substantial share of CGI production inside agencies is not done internally at all, it is commissioned from specialised freelancers. That is entirely normal and not a flaw: agencies rarely keep permanent CGI capacity, because the workload fluctuates.
Two things follow from that. If you already have an agency, the question is not agency or freelancer, it is whether the agency buys in the right production capacity. And if you commission directly, you are working with the same kind of person, just without the margin in between.
I work in both directions: directly for brands, and as external CGI capacity for brand, packaging and creative agencies.
For the same scope an agency is usually higher, because project management, quality control and cover are priced in. Whether that margin is worth it depends on how much coordination your project genuinely needs.
Up to a certain size yes, beyond that capacity becomes the bottleneck. As a rule of thumb: single products, product families and campaigns work well, while ranges of many dozens of articles under time pressure belong in a structure with several people.
Often yes, as additional production capacity. Many agencies buy CGI in externally anyway. Going direct saves a layer and makes particular sense when the agency handles concept and media and only the image production is missing.
That is settled contractually in both cases. What matters is that scope, duration and territory of use are agreed before production starts, regardless of whether an agency or an individual produces.
Describe the product, the scope and the deadline. If an agency is the better route, I will say so. For CGI production itself, I am the shorter one.
Start a project ↗