I don't like leaving negative reviews, but in this case, I find it necessary.
The problem isn't even that the result turned out poorly. In any project, there are mistakes, different visions, or complex tasks. The issue is how the performer behaves when it becomes clear that the result significantly differs from the assigned task.
The initial specifications provided references and clearly stated that the models needed to be as close to them as possible. Yes, the references were created using AI. But this was explicitly mentioned before the work began. The performer saw these materials, agreed to carry out the project, stated their price, and did not ask any clarifying questions regarding the specifications, the complexity of the work, or the impossibility of achieving the desired result.
Moreover, understanding the complexity of the task, I suggested increasing the budget almost threefold from the performer's initial rate. So when it came to increasing payment, there were no comments regarding the specifications, the complexity of the work, or the impracticality of reviewing the cost.
After receiving the first results, it became clear that the problem was not in individual details or minor flaws. The problem was in the very approach to performing the work.
For clarity, I am adding:
* the initial specifications;
* the result obtained from this performer;
* the result from another performer who is currently working on the same project.
Anyone can independently assess how well the obtained models meet the requirement of "as close to the specifications as possible."
I want to specifically draw attention to the quality of the first result.
Initially, I received not five different models of bison, but actually one basic model that was used multiple times with minimal changes. The bodies, poses, proportions, and overall geometry were practically identical. Visually, it looked like the same bison, just scaled to different sizes with slight changes in individual details.
It was after this that I had serious doubts about the further results of the project. Because when the task is to create several different sculptures, and you end up with one model that has essentially been used five times, questions arise quite naturally.
It is especially strange to read statements about unclear specifications after this. If the performer truly did not understand the assigned task, it would have been logical to ask clarifying questions before starting the work. Instead, there were no questions at all. Issues with the specifications only became known after the result raised justified comments.
It is even more strange to read claims about unclear technical specifications after another performer, working on the same task with the same source materials and after clarifying a few technical points, produced a result that practically immediately met expectations and did not require significant corrections.
It turns out that the problem was not in the specifications after all.
I was also genuinely surprised by the performer's stance on the cost of the work.
At the beginning of the project, the performer themselves proposed a rate of about 1000 UAH per model. Understanding the complexity of the task and wanting to achieve a quality result, I suggested increasing the payment to 3000 UAH per model in case of quality execution of the work. The performer agreed to this proposal without any objections.
Therefore, after this, it is quite strange to read comments about "we are not on OLX" and that it is inappropriate to discuss the cost of the work here.
When the client voluntarily increases the budget almost threefold — this turns out to be absolutely normal. But when, after receiving a result that significantly differs from the assigned task, the client offers one of the compromise options for resolving the situation by adjusting the cost of the work, it suddenly starts to be called bargaining and mentioning OLX.
In my opinion, such a stance seems at least inconsistent.
I also want to highlight the style of communication of the performer.
Instead of constructive discussion, I received explanations that I do not understand the process of 3D modeling, as well as advice to "start with a sheet of paper and a pencil with an eraser."
In my opinion, a professional differs from an amateur in that they can argue their position without resorting to personal attacks and without trying to explain any unsuccessful result by the incompetence of the client.
The most surprising thing in this situation is not even the result of the work itself. The most surprising thing is that after receiving a result that obviously significantly differs from the assigned task, the performer did not acknowledge any of their mistakes. On the contrary — all responsibility was shifted onto the client, onto the AI references, onto the specifications, and onto anyone else but the performer themselves.
I proposed several compromise options for resolving the situation, including even full payment for the work. Therefore, the issue was never about money. The issue was about an adequate attitude towards one's own work and respect for the client.
I do not recommend collaborating. Not because the performer made a mistake or did not cope with the task. Such things can happen to anyone.
I do not recommend due to the unwillingness to acknowledge obvious flaws in the result, shifting responsibility onto the client, double standards when discussing the cost of the work, and unprofessional communication during the dispute resolution.
If anyone doubts the objectivity of this review — it is enough to compare the specifications, the result of this performer, and the result of another performer, which are attached below. These images will say much more than any comments from me or them.
The problem isn't even that the result turned out poorly. In any project, there are mistakes, different visions, or complex tasks. The issue is how the performer behaves when it becomes clear that the result significantly differs from the assigned task.
The initial specifications provided references and clearly stated that the models needed to be as close to them as possible. Yes, the references were created using AI. But this was explicitly mentioned before the work began. The performer saw these materials, agreed to carry out the project, stated their price, and did not ask any clarifying questions regarding the specifications, the complexity of the work, or the impossibility of achieving the desired result.
Moreover, understanding the complexity of the task, I suggested increasing the budget almost threefold from the performer's initial rate. So when it came to increasing payment, there were no comments regarding the specifications, the complexity of the work, or the impracticality of reviewing the cost.
After receiving the first results, it became clear that the problem was not in individual details or minor flaws. The problem was in the very approach to performing the work.
For clarity, I am adding:
* the initial specifications;
* the result obtained from this performer;
* the result from another performer who is currently working on the same project.
Anyone can independently assess how well the obtained models meet the requirement of "as close to the specifications as possible."
I want to specifically draw attention to the quality of the first result.
Initially, I received not five different models of bison, but actually one basic model that was used multiple times with minimal changes. The bodies, poses, proportions, and overall geometry were practically identical. Visually, it looked like the same bison, just scaled to different sizes with slight changes in individual details.
It was after this that I had serious doubts about the further results of the project. Because when the task is to create several different sculptures, and you end up with one model that has essentially been used five times, questions arise quite naturally.
It is especially strange to read statements about unclear specifications after this. If the performer truly did not understand the assigned task, it would have been logical to ask clarifying questions before starting the work. Instead, there were no questions at all. Issues with the specifications only became known after the result raised justified comments.
It is even more strange to read claims about unclear technical specifications after another performer, working on the same task with the same source materials and after clarifying a few technical points, produced a result that practically immediately met expectations and did not require significant corrections.
It turns out that the problem was not in the specifications after all.
I was also genuinely surprised by the performer's stance on the cost of the work.
At the beginning of the project, the performer themselves proposed a rate of about 1000 UAH per model. Understanding the complexity of the task and wanting to achieve a quality result, I suggested increasing the payment to 3000 UAH per model in case of quality execution of the work. The performer agreed to this proposal without any objections.
Therefore, after this, it is quite strange to read comments about "we are not on OLX" and that it is inappropriate to discuss the cost of the work here.
When the client voluntarily increases the budget almost threefold — this turns out to be absolutely normal. But when, after receiving a result that significantly differs from the assigned task, the client offers one of the compromise options for resolving the situation by adjusting the cost of the work, it suddenly starts to be called bargaining and mentioning OLX.
In my opinion, such a stance seems at least inconsistent.
I also want to highlight the style of communication of the performer.
Instead of constructive discussion, I received explanations that I do not understand the process of 3D modeling, as well as advice to "start with a sheet of paper and a pencil with an eraser."
In my opinion, a professional differs from an amateur in that they can argue their position without resorting to personal attacks and without trying to explain any unsuccessful result by the incompetence of the client.
The most surprising thing in this situation is not even the result of the work itself. The most surprising thing is that after receiving a result that obviously significantly differs from the assigned task, the performer did not acknowledge any of their mistakes. On the contrary — all responsibility was shifted onto the client, onto the AI references, onto the specifications, and onto anyone else but the performer themselves.
I proposed several compromise options for resolving the situation, including even full payment for the work. Therefore, the issue was never about money. The issue was about an adequate attitude towards one's own work and respect for the client.
I do not recommend collaborating. Not because the performer made a mistake or did not cope with the task. Such things can happen to anyone.
I do not recommend due to the unwillingness to acknowledge obvious flaws in the result, shifting responsibility onto the client, double standards when discussing the cost of the work, and unprofessional communication during the dispute resolution.
If anyone doubts the objectivity of this review — it is enough to compare the specifications, the result of this performer, and the result of another performer, which are attached below. These images will say much more than any comments from me or them.
