Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Lust4Life on October 14, 2009, 07:48:44 am
-
I have a long history of shooting landscapes and really enjoy it (http://www.shadowsdancing.com), however I do not find it a profitable venture.
I’ve become quite interested in Architectural Photography for two reasons:
Beauty of the structure/s
Capacity to generate revenue in a hopefully more predictable manner than Landscape Photography
Given –
I’m 63 and retired software developer on SGI platform. I have a long history in digital image capture going back to the days of the Eikonics arrays.
I currently own:
Hasselblad H3D11-39MP
28mm, 80mm, 150mm
RRS Ultimate Omni-Pivot Package on Gitzo Carbon Tripod
I’m seeking suggestions/direction about:
Equipment required to do the best of work
Successful methods of marketing my services - seek architects, developers, high end realtors??????
Other ideas I’m not aware of to ask yet
I feel I have enough energy to start a new career and I want it to be a profitable one - thus Architectural Photography seems a natural transition to me.
I have been experimenting with local structures, some of the condos on the beach here in Naples, FL are beautiful, and find it fascinating but different than Landscpaes.
Hoping my knowledge of HDR might allow me to focus solely on Natural Light rather than getting into a menagerie of lighting setups.
I want to do this solo, not with an assistant.
Observations from folks actually earning a living from Architectural work and shooting digitally would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jack
-
.......
Observations from folks actually earning a living from Architectural work and shooting digitally would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jack
Just a quick observation, in your website > subsection heading for "Architecture" is spelled wrong! You might want to look into HTS 1.5 to complete your Hasselblad system. Architectural magazines is one sure way to expand your knowledge & techniques. Developers & Architects always want another way to flatter & complement their vision.
If you were to expand into Interior shots, you might need to supplement the interior lights, as Hasselblad limits the exposure time, compared to Phase One's long exposure duration. Personally I would also have Nikon D3X as a suplementary camera.
Good Luck
-
you should rather rephrase it: becoming a successfull Architectural Photographer.
it is much easier to become successful than to become great.
and regarding your site: what means archetecture?
-
and regarding your site: what means archetecture?
sean beat me on that one...
-
John,
Thank you for your very thoughtful response to my questions.
Makes great sense and I'll be re-reading your comments many times in the coming months!
To SeanBK and geesbert:
As to the corrections on my web site spelling, corrections made.
Thanks for pointing it out - just added the tab late last night.
That's why this posting isn't titled: How to become a Great English Teacher!
And no to the Great deletion - Great is the destination I want to target.
I have the rest of my life to accomplish it!
Jack
-
Jack
I wish you luck with your new venture. I redirected my shooting to Architecture 5 years ago and I'm still doing pretty good. At least I'm still paying my bills, mortgage and sending my kids to college. I agree with John-S, study your market. Take some time to visit architects and builders.
As far as gear goes, I use C-stands, Combo Stands, High Boys, Low Boys, and tons of other gear and lighting. This stuff is heavy and we move it around. At the end of the day I'm hurting, yeah even with assistant(s). I used this stuff even when I started but I was 20 years younger. I often wonder after a shoot if I can still do this when I'm ..."63". The one piece of gear I recommend is a bottle of ibuprofen.
Oh yeah, I'm 45.
- Rudy
-
Hi Rudy,
for architectural work you must first learn more about architecture. I tried to explain this in my photographic guide:"architectural photography" :
http://www.amazon.com/Basics-Architectural...5446&sr=8-5 (http://www.amazon.com/Basics-Architectural-Photography-Michael-Heinrich/dp/3764386665/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255535446&sr=8-5)
Michael
-
Michael,
Haven't read that one. I'll have to pick up a copy.
- Rudy
-
Oh and Jack,
Think Big. Don't think real estate shooter. Production Value goes a long way.
My 2 cents. Ummm, on second thought, my one cent.
- Rudy
-
Rudy,
Your comments about the extensive gear is a bit concerning. I'm hoping to build the business on very little "general hardware" .... more natural light and a ladder on limited occasions. From your comments, sounds like I need a moving van full of gear.
Am I being naive?
Possible on the extent that natural light will do the job for me - Hassie will now take a 1 minute exposure with latest firmware. And I prefer to work alone - days of numerous folks working with me being fun has long since passed. Managing 6 programmers from MIT/Georgia Tech tends to do that to a chap.
Due to undiagnosed issue with muscle tremors, repeated heavy lifting is out of the question. General health is excellent - I walk/jog 4 miles every day and have no issues with weight control - 6'4" and 203#.
Was hoping that adding just a TechPan camera body and a few lenses, or the HTS, would provide the foundation for most jobs.
This thread is valuable for me as I've never worked with or know well an Architectual photographer - just going on what I envision the task to be. Interfacing with the client and build the business does not intimidate me. I've done it before in my software development work.
I'm fortunate in that I have no debts to force me into compromising situations. Just want to extend my photography passion into an area that would provide an additional revenue stream. Would be nice, compared to Fine Art Landscape Photography.
A buddy of mine has been able to pull off making a handsome living from Landscape work - Clyde Butcher. But he has worked very hard and spent his life building a niche market. I know it can be done, but I'd like to go in a new direction that would make use of my current knowledge base. Thus pondering the move in the direction of architecture.
Jack
Jack
-
I'm not an architectural photographer. After food, it's my least favorite specialty. However, I've got almost 20 years experience as a commercial photographer and there's common trends that affect us all. Nowadays, almost anyone can produce professional results with a camera and photoshop. My clients shoot with the same camera that I use.
What I bring to the table is not only my creative vision, but my technical skills. There's a lot to be said for the ability to use lighting to produce results that the client can't do on their own. If you can take a drab structure and make it look amazing through your creative vision, lighting and post-production skills, you'll have no shortage of clients.
I think one of the keys to success nowadays is being able to bring in production value that the client can't duplicate on their own. So, before you dismiss the possibility of using external lighting, I'd learn how to use it and see if you can't incorporate it in your work. In the end, you either stand out or you don't. Thinking that you can be successful as a professional photographer without lighting experience is kind of like playing football without a passing game. Might have worked back in the days of Jim Thorpe, but not anymore.
John
-
A huge topic-way too much to discuss here. This is not a great economy to start, but hey there is always room for someone good. Visit my blog on architectural photography listed below. I am a bit behind updating it as I have been to busy with work, but give it a try. As per lighting, there is sometimes that you just have to supplement-a topic I've been meaning to discuss on the blog-maybe in a couple of weeks. And I would not work without at least one assistant. I would not get much done without an assistant to straighten things up, move furniture, run to the truck to get something etc. Usually thee client is there too helping to rearrange furniture etc.
-
Hassie will now take a 1 minute exposure with latest firmware. And I prefer to work alone -
Jack
Jack,
John has made many good points. As the co-chair to the architectural specialty group of ASMP, I invite you to join so you can benefit from the knowledge of the membership which is shared openly on the list serve. I would second those who have commented that HDR is not really a great solution at this point. I find that there is much time spent in PS on every image to bring it to its fullest potential, but this still involves hand-work, cutting paths, using adjustment layers. HDR is not a magic bullet.
In regard to working alone, shooting arch is not a solo event. There is often a client on the shoot and I encourage you to make sure there is one there. Everyone is always happier when they can see the challenges you faced on the shoot rather than having to make excuses later. Also I consider the whole process a collaboration between photographer, architect, and yes even assistant. Working with an assistant will make your images better, no doubt. When you are rushing to get a shot, there's nothing better than having someone there to help make things happen. Having the freedom to walk away from the camera set-up while working on a busy city street to go look for the next shot is invaluable. Clients will pay for assistants as part of the shoot cost, so don't consider it something that you have to pay out of pocket for. You will appear, and you will be, more professional when working with an assistant. It raises the level of the entire process. And your equipment will thank you as well. The gear tends to get more thrown around when you work alone since you are more hurried. I had a mentor who would not rent out his gear to me unless I was working with an assistant for just that reason.
All of this is meant to give you a better idea of what to expect, not to discourage so please keep that in mind.
-
I've also just started in the business of architectural photography as well. So far, I've found the lighting to be much more significant than the camera gear. If you look at images from Architectural Digest, and compare them to the local Real Estate brochures, it seems to be the quality of light that separates them the most (well.. the property photographed also has something to do with it as well ). Each shot has been a production event... the setting up of the camera has been the first, and easiest task. The rest of the time has been spent balancing lighting. I have a few monolights, but have ended up also renting additional lights. I've found that a days work will produce 15-20 quality, finished images at the most.. and that's what I quote clients.
So far, I'm loving it! (and still a *long* way to go before being even a 'good' architectural photographer)
Jim
http://www.collumphotography.com (http://www.collumphotography.com)
-
Rudy,
Your comments about the extensive gear is a bit concerning. I'm hoping to build the business on very little "general hardware" .... more natural light and a ladder on limited occasions. From your comments, sounds like I need a moving van full of gear.
Am I being naive?
Possible on the extent that natural light will do the job for me - Hassie will now take a 1 minute exposure with latest firmware. And I prefer to work alone - days of numerous folks working with me being fun has long since passed. Managing 6 programmers from MIT/Georgia Tech tends to do that to a chap.
Due to undiagnosed issue with muscle tremors, repeated heavy lifting is out of the question. General health is excellent - I walk/jog 4 miles every day and have no issues with weight control - 6'4" and 203#.
Was hoping that adding just a TechPan camera body and a few lenses, or the HTS, would provide the foundation for most jobs.
This thread is valuable for me as I've never worked with or know well an Architectual photographer - just going on what I envision the task to be. Interfacing with the client and build the business does not intimidate me. I've done it before in my software development work.
I'm fortunate in that I have no debts to force me into compromising situations. Just want to extend my photography passion into an area that would provide an additional revenue stream. Would be nice, compared to Fine Art Landscape Photography.
A buddy of mine has been able to pull off making a handsome living from Landscape work - Clyde Butcher. But he has worked very hard and spent his life building a niche market. I know it can be done, but I'd like to go in a new direction that would make use of my current knowledge base. Thus pondering the move in the direction of architecture.
Jack
Jack
Jack
I don't use a Large moving van but it is a lot of gear. In my experience it's not practical to think you can shoot a large building (interiors and exteriors) in only the best light. Such projects are unrealistic and would take forever to complete. Clients don't have that kind of time. If your shooting a home, owners of the home don't have that kind of patience. I just finished shooting a 21,000 sq ft home and it took 7 days from sun up to sun down. This project was for the builder and architect. We scheduled the shoot during the time the owners were in California. So I take strobes and tungsten lights to give me the ability to shoot all day long. That's why all the gear.
It's been mentioned before but I will say it as well. I don't think you should shoot alone. For more reasons than just the obvious. Believe me when I say (and has been said), production value goes a long way. Don't just show up with a camera and tripod. You don't need a crew of many, just a few or even just a couple of people to help move stuff around. It helps to have a second pair of eyes. It helps to have a second pair of hands. It helps just to have someone else to talk to because the client will not always be around, especially if the client trusts you'll shoot what they need.
Oh and don't forget that ibuprofen. I'm not kidding.
- Rudy
-
This is a GREAT little thread and I want to say thanks to Jack for starting it and to all who offered such thoughtful and useful advice. As some one who came late to architectural photography I realize how much there is to learn and that nothing compares with talking to someone who has been successful - "great" is over-used these days. Kirk, a special thanks for so selflessly sharing your thoughts and techniques on your blog.
-
the best thing about working with assistants is the moment, when the shooting is finished, you gave everything and are exhausted. then you just sit down with your client for a nice chat, all pressure gone, while your crew packs up everything.
Additionally: once you're up the mentioned ladder you wish for a second pair of hands to grab you that filter, card, battery. and you might appreciate someone looking after your bags while you're up there (quite often you stand on a public street or square while working). you don't really want to ask your client for a helping hand...
-
Ahhh - now if finally understand the concept of an Assistant!
Jack
the best thing about working with assistants is the moment, when the shooting is finished, you gave everything and are exhausted. then you just sit down with your client for a nice chat, all pressure gone, while your crew packs up everything.
-
Visit my blog on architectural photography listed below. I am a bit behind updating it as I have been to busy with work, but give it a try.
Great blog Kirk.
Out of interest in regards to simple 2/3 shot flat stitching...what are your overriding reasons for using stitching over a single wider image.?
less distortion, larger files. etc?
Marc
-
I don't shoot architecture, really, but my father is an architect and an artist who has shot his own stuff for years. He gave me his old Sinar P and RZ. He started shooting his own work because he was disatisfied with most of the shooters he worked with, mainly because they "didn't get it". What they didn't get, the "it", was the import of the structure, th history of how a society organizes space, and consequently what makes the building/plaza different. If you can understand that, understand the building's significance and place in history, and what's new, you can find the essential truth of the building/site, and shoot it.
The problem seems to be that most people don't understand Modernism in a deep way, not just its history, but its impact of society, and thus societal choices in how space is organized, which is obviously architecture. Once you understand this history, Brutalism makes sense. Post Modernism makes sense (as much as it possibly can). Then you can know the essential truth of the site, and shoot accordingly.
I also agree with what everyone else is saying about the business side, and lights. Look into a big silk and a couple of Ari 2k fresnels. You can light the side of a building very nicely with a big silk. Interiors strobes and HMI's.
Good luck. I think most of teh work will be on the business side.
-
Agree with your Father's perspective - just like in landscape photography - one must be able to "feel" the spirit of the scene, then try to capture it where others might feel it.
I was looking at Jeffrey Jacobs site this morning - really like his work - on the News tab, clicked and opened the file - from reading Jeff's comments, and those here on this thread, I'm becoming convinced that lights are just an essential part of the equation of a good architectural shot (OK, alone with an assistant or two).
http://www.jeffreyjacobsphoto.com/news.asp (http://www.jeffreyjacobsphoto.com/news.asp)
Jeff's work is among my favorites.
Hmmmm.
Jack
I don't shoot architecture, really, but my father is an architect and an artist who has shot his own stuff for years. He gave me his old Sinar P and RZ. He started shooting his own work because he was disatisfied with most of the shooters he worked with, mainly because they "didn't get it". What they didn't get, the "it", was the import of the structure, th history of how a society organizes space, and consequently what makes the building/plaza different. If you can understand that, understand the building's significance and place in history, and what's new, you can find the essential truth of the building/site, and shoot it.
The problem seems to be that most people don't understand Modernism in a deep way, not just its history, but its impact of society, and thus societal choices in how space is organized, which is obviously architecture. Once you understand this history, Brutalism makes sense. Post Modernism makes sense (as much as it possibly can). Then you can know the essential truth of the site, and shoot accordingly.
I also agree with what everyone else is saying about the business side, and lights. Look into a big silk and a couple of Ari 2k fresnels. You can light the side of a building very nicely with a big silk. Interiors strobes and HMI's.
Good luck. I think most of teh work will be on the business side.
-
I have a long history of shooting landscapes and really enjoy it (http://www.shadowsdancing.com), however I do not find it a profitable venture.
I’ve become quite interested in Architectural Photography for two reasons:
Beauty of the structure/s
Capacity to generate revenue in a hopefully more predictable manner than Landscape Photography
Given –
I’m 63 and retired software developer on SGI platform. I have a long history in digital image capture going back to the days of the Eikonics arrays.
I currently own:
Hasselblad H3D11-39MP
28mm, 80mm, 150mm
RRS Ultimate Omni-Pivot Package on Gitzo Carbon Tripod
I’m seeking suggestions/direction about:
Equipment required to do the best of work
Successful methods of marketing my services - seek architects, developers, high end realtors??????
Other ideas I’m not aware of to ask yet
I feel I have enough energy to start a new career and I want it to be a profitable one - thus Architectural Photography seems a natural transition to me.
I have been experimenting with local structures, some of the condos on the beach here in Naples, FL are beautiful, and find it fascinating but different than Landscpaes.
Hoping my knowledge of HDR might allow me to focus solely on Natural Light rather than getting into a menagerie of lighting setups.
I want to do this solo, not with an assistant.
Observations from folks actually earning a living from Architectural work and shooting digitally would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jack
Two of the most highly regarded architectural photographers nowadays, mainly because of the magazines and practices they work for:
Hisao Suzuki, the photographer for "El Croquis".
Christian Richters, most prolific architectural photographer of The Netherlands.
For all the rest of your questions, you have been quite answered.
The HDR is usually not the solution for architectural work. It ruins the space, and is something architects are definitely not looking for.
Think as an architect, not as a photographer.
-
duplicate post
-
Great blog Kirk.
Out of interest in regards to simple 2/3 shot flat stitching...what are your overriding reasons for using stitching over a single wider image.?
less distortion, larger files. etc?
Marc
Thanks Mark, yes larger files, less distortion, and also composition and the architects vision. Many spaces and structures are linear (or vertical) in design and feel. Walk into a space with an architect, they focus on details and visually pan the space to see how volumes relate. The long rectangle fits that linear vision. Going really wide with a standard lens and frame you end up with allot more ceiling and floor or sky and street. If you just crop a DSLR super wide shot you end up with a pretty small file. Flat stitching gives you an easy file size solution and elegant alternative format. Flat stitching is super simple, level the camera, lock down exposure and white balance, shift expose, shift expose. CS4 renders flat stitches flawlessly in seconds (if they are shot right). It couldn't be simpler. In that way digital has been very liberating (you could do flat stitching with a view camera and film, I did, but it was a pain) and a regular part of my aesthetic and work flow.
[attachment=17239:KirkG_2.jpg][attachment=17238:KirkG_1.jpg]
-
Christian Richters, most prolific architectural photographer of The Netherlands,is wrong.
He happens to be German,
Cheers,
Willem.
-
I was looking at Jeffrey Jacobs site this morning - really like his work - on the News tab, clicked and opened the file - from reading Jeff's comments, and those here on this thread, I'm becoming convinced that lights are just an essential part of the equation of a good architectural shot (OK, alone with an assistant or two).
http://www.jeffreyjacobsphoto.com/news.asp (http://www.jeffreyjacobsphoto.com/news.asp)
Jeff's work is among my favorites.
Hmmmm.
Jack
I'm a professional architectural photographer from Denmark - I often have this talk with a good colleague and dear friend of mine about the difference in European and American architectural photography on the subject light. As we sees it, the typical European Architectural photographer will not use any lights - we are here talking photography of architecture for the architects - take a look in European magazines, and books and see the difference, a good start will be, as mentioned before, "El Croquis"
Space are created with light and shadow both equally importen - architects, at least here in Scandinavia would dislike to show a space the way it's shown here, it's no longer a space, but a very well lit product like a jewel for a commercial.
I'm educated and have worked as an architect before starting photographing 8 years ago, and you can count on one hand how many times I have set up a lamp in a space.
This is not for starting a war between European and american photographers and between right and wrong :-) we are just some architectural photographers here in Europe that are amazed over the amount of light that are used in classic american architectural photography.
Very best,
Adam
-
I'm a professional architectural photographer from Denmark - I often have this talk with a good colleague and dear friend of mine about the difference in European and American architectural photography on the subject light. As we sees it, the typical European Architectural photographer will not use any lights - we are here talking photography of architecture for the architects - take a look in European magazines, and books and see the difference, a good start will be, as mentioned before, "El Croquis"
Space are created with light and shadow both equally importen - architects, at least here in Scandinavia would dislike to show a space the way it's shown here, it's no longer a space, but a very well lit product like a jewel for a commercial.
I'm educated and have worked as an architect before starting photographing 8 years ago, and you can count on one hand how many times I have set up a lamp in a space.
This is not for starting a war between European and american photographers and between right and wrong :-) we are just some architectural photographers here in Europe that are amazed over the amount of light that are used in classic american architectural photography.
Very best,
Adam
I have been fascinated by that different approach to artificial lighting in Europe since waaay back in my early film days. Interested in the style, I studied some European magazines for insights and even volunteered to assist one who was shooting a home in my town. He used gels but never any lights. After that I tried out some of his techniques with Architecture Magazine (at that time it was the official magazine of the American Institute of Architects and I shot for them nationwide). The feedback I got from the editors was that the scenes looked "under-lit or amateurishly lit". They really wanted the more common American advertising type architectural photography. Now, being far better established in my own style and clients that want that, I largely just interpret thing the way I see them and that seems to be fine with most clients. That means allot less lighting than we used to employ, and generally using them for fill rather than main lights as we used to. I still bring a small truck load of lights (strobe and halogen) on all shoots, but use it allot less. Where we get into trouble is on small jobs that don't allow us to be there long enough to "be there" when the light is perfect and natural for all the views and have to force the light to work for us under time budget constraints. Two years ago this was less of an issue as work was plentiful, but in this economy small jobs are sometimes better than no jobs.
-
I was going to mention what Adam Mork said in the previous post.
There is a difference in style between the US and European(Australian) shooters.
For myself , I do use lights occasionally,but most of the time,I use the available light.
Another point I would like to make that budgets have a lot to do with it as well.
I think there is a place for both styles and if one can master both they are home and hosed.
Best,
Willem.
-
I find it hard to imagine lighting an architectural space.
Just on a level of productivity - it must take so long, cost so much and result in so many less images being delivered to the client. (edit) I guess as Rainer says below the extra time goes in getting the natural light just right. If the natural light is not right I come back...
I was always told that the architect's lighting design was central to the overall design and the last thing that they wanted was a photographer 're-lighting' their work.
Digital has been a liberation in shooting architecure without lights. Particularly in harsh Australian light (probably similar to desert light in the US) where contrast is extreme.
HDR has a good role in this, but usually as a layer thrown in with all the other bracketed exposures of a scene to draw bits from as needed.
Murray
-
Ha! - Willem,
I was waiting for you to speak up - you beat me to it...
Murray
-
i want to underline what adam said. many people here in europe see architecture much more pure and from a mainly perspective
leaded view , with no flowers, toys, carpets, and even moving people in the shots ( although the last looks as a kind of fashion here too ). in america, since schoolman`s days, there is very often involved a very "livestyle" and illustrating vision.
in general i see it very strange too how much lights and stuff is involved in the comments above. i usually go with one assistant ( there were exceptions but thats my usual way ...) , and i would have to count in years since i used last time additional lights. this does not mean that the productions have to go faster, but it means the focus lays on another point. i spend a lot of time for showing buildings in the "right" light, and i insist to get the amount of time from my clients which i think is necessary for that. and i usually dont come out with 20+ shots a day, although i could do some hundreds each day too, but they would look different.
-
Another thing I forgot to mention:
There is also Interior Photography and of course IMO the worst, Real Estate photography.
With Real Estate photography every interior gets butchered with extreme wide angles and that photography has nothing to do with architecture.
Interior photography is a balance of interiors and life style photography.
-
Personally, i prefer the European aesthetic... maybe with some luck we'll catch up in a few year
The first couple of shoots i did (for practice), i did with just ambient light... was told by some local architects when discussing the business with them and showing what i was doing, that i had forgotten to turn on the lights and light the fireplace.
-
Lights on or off, it's a bigger choice than it sounds.
I've been told by architects they like one way, only to be told by their PR dept they insist on the other way. More often than I care to think about.
It's a labyrinth. Find your style and keep going.
-
"Find your style and keep going. "
It took me quite a few years to figure that out.
-
On the topic of architecture magazines (European for that matter, as I'm ignorant of the American side of things):
'El Croquis', as mentioned by Adam, is a fantastic magazine, though I find it relies too much on Hisao Suzuki's photos. I enjoy them, and his work has a distinctive and remarkable color pallet, but it does get a bit tiresome after several issues. There is some work from other photographers within each issue, so not all hope is lost.
Yukio Futagawa's GA magazines – GA Houses, GA Document, et al. – are also great reference. They span several decades, all photographed by Yukio and his son Yoshio. His photographic documentation is very meticulous, and has for many years inspired other photographers. On issues where american architecture is featured, it's interesting to see a foreigner's view.
Personally, I prefer '2G' magazine, as the photographer changes from issue to issue. In some cases they've been commissioned by the architects, on others by the magazine itself. The recent issue on Mies Van der Rohe houses is absolutely beautiful. The photographs from Hans-Christian Schink escape the norm; there are is no magic-hour images or perspective contortionisms, leading to a very respectful view of Mies' work.
Some photographers that I strongly suggest following:
FS+SG (http://www.ultimasreportagens.com) is a duo formed by Portuguese photographers Fernando Guerra and Sergio Guerra. If I'm not mistaken, Fernando's formal education is in architecture, but did a lot of street and travel photography in the early years. As a result, most of his work is with light cameras and if possible, without a tripod. They have been the main photographers of Alvaro Siza's work for some time now.
I discovered Hertha Hurnaus (http://www.hurnaus.com/)' work through 2G, and it's enjoyably exquisite. There's a certain irony and amusement in her work that goes back to commercial and advertising roots.
Hagen Stier (http://hagenstier.polychroma.de/) has a very bold modernist take on architectural photography, often inspired by subjects of similar nature. His images are brutal, clean and direct to the point.
Other photographers are strongly linked to their country's architectural output, such as Cristobal Palma (http://www.cristobalpalma.com/index.php?pag=37) (Chile), Duccio Malagamba (http://www.ducciomalagamba.com/) (Spain), Nelson Kon (http://www.nelsonkon.com.br) (Brazil) and Paul Ott (http://www.paul-ott.at/) (Austria). The list goes on, but this might get you started.
As for myself, I still have a long journey ahead as a photographer. I find that this constant research keeps the mind open to new and different things, and helps me experiment on different photographic languages. If I find something that I'm comfortable with, it's time to move on to something different.
Cheers,
Pedro
-
Also with Interiors 'lifestyle' photography as opposed to architecture, for magazines here in the UK (and Europe as far as i can tell) the trend is very much for natural lighting. Of course some artificial lighting is often used to suppliment the ambient but never to the extent that the rooms look lit. You can see the same in many advertising shots over here with the odd company whom still like their rooms/product to look lit really standing out...some think for good others for bad. So its room lights off pretty much everywhere you go, unless either an evening moody shot is required or the lighting has been designed as an intergral part of the space and needs to be shown.
I find it really nice way to work as the 'lighting palette' is therefore already there (time of day, etc dependant) and you can then add a little here and there to complete it.
That said I've recently shot some work in a new shopping centre, tripod only, no extra lighting, during opening hours, and when the lighting in a space has been well designed, and fits perfectly with the 'architecture' it can all really sing.
Marc
-
Christian Richters, most prolific architectural photographer of The Netherlands,is wrong.
He happens to be German,
Cheers,
Willem.
Yep. U bent juist. Maar ik vergat over het. Ik veronderstel hij enkel teveel tijd in Rotterdam, doorbrengt en distinctief als van pataat met pindasaus heeft. Toch?
Groetjes
Iñaki
-
I find it hard to imagine lighting an architectural space.
Just on a level of productivity - it must take so long, cost so much and result in so many less images being delivered to the client. (edit) I guess as Rainer says below the extra time goes in getting the natural light just right. If the natural light is not right I come back...
I was always told that the architect's lighting design was central to the overall design and the last thing that they wanted was a photographer 're-lighting' their work.
Digital has been a liberation in shooting architecure without lights. Particularly in harsh Australian light (probably similar to desert light in the US) where contrast is extreme.
HDR has a good role in this, but usually as a layer thrown in with all the other bracketed exposures of a scene to draw bits from as needed.
Murray
Hye Murray.
Trust me, desert light is not that difficult.
In my [limited] experience, mediterranean light is the worst light ever for architectural work: it just washes out any colour you might ever think of, and takes so much prepping to get the shot right, that it will drive you nuts.
Completely bonkers.
God! I hate that light.
; )
On the contrary, Russia, Denmark or the Netherlands have much better natural light conditions to get spectacular shots.
As seen on magazines.
For instance: Black will most probably photograph as black in Amsterdam or Rotterdam, but will have a distinctive moka hue in Barcelona.
-
Adam,
Would you share with me a few web sites for European photographers, other than what Pedro above suggested, that specifically indicate the "lightless" style you mentioned?
I'm afraid my "purist" approach to Landscape photography has predisposition me to working "naked".
As several have suggested, find my own style, and that may be it - Naked Architectural Photographer - think I'll copyright that.
(That's the image that would be naked, not me.)
Jack
I'm a professional architectural photographer from Denmark - I often have this talk with a good colleague and dear friend of mine about the difference in European and American architectural photography on the subject light. As we sees it, the typical European Architectural photographer will not use any lights - we are here talking photography of architecture for the architects - take a look in European magazines, and books and see the difference, a good start will be, as mentioned before, "El Croquis"
Space are created with light and shadow both equally importen - architects, at least here in Scandinavia would dislike to show a space the way it's shown here, it's no longer a space, but a very well lit product like a jewel for a commercial.
I'm educated and have worked as an architect before starting photographing 8 years ago, and you can count on one hand how many times I have set up a lamp in a space.
This is not for starting a war between European and american photographers and between right and wrong :-) we are just some architectural photographers here in Europe that are amazed over the amount of light that are used in classic american architectural photography.
Very best,
Adam
-
Jack,
I guess Adam's site would be one place to go, but I don't have the link to his site.
Also, have a look at Rainer Viertlböck's work, here:
www.tangential.de
or the work from Torben Eskerod
http://www.phaseone.com/upload/casestudy_t...eskerod_001.pdf (http://www.phaseone.com/upload/casestudy_torben_eskerod_001.pdf)
I think they are all good examples of European architecture photography.
I hope this helps.
Best regards,
Thierry
Adam,
Would you share with me a few web sites for European photographers that indicate the "lightless" style you mentioned.
-
Adam,
Would you share with me a few web sites for European photographers, other than what Pedro above suggested, that specifically indicate the "lightless" style you mentioned?
I'm afraid my "purist" approach to Landscape photography has predisposition me to working "naked".
As several have suggested, find my own style, and that may be it - Naked Architectural Photographer - think I'll copyright that.
(That's the image that would be naked, not me.)
Jack
Jack,
A member of this forum is working on my site at the moment
Take a look at Thiery's suggestions or take a look here at some of my work, all this is assignments, mainly for the architects behind the projects, not a single light used: http://www.adammork.dk/works1 (http://www.adammork.dk/works1)
In general I think, that it's importen as an architectural photographer to develop a strong sense and understanding for the space's you are trying to capture with our 2-dimensional media. the space are, simplified said created with light and shadow through structure - it's the architects mission and art to create and define that space - not the photographer through 100's of lamps..... this is just my opinion as an architect and photographer.
What the photographer should add, like Rainer said, is careful timing of the day for the best light possible - a strong view and composition and choose what too see, and at least as importen, what not to see.
/adam
-
Jack,
or take a look here at some of my work, all this is assignments, mainly for the architects behind the projects, not a single light used: http://www.adammork.dk/works1 (http://www.adammork.dk/works1)
/adam
Very attractive work, Adam, and I think what comes to mind, via its manifestation within another medium, is the difference between what used to be catalogue fashion photography and editorial fashion photography.
Within the catalogue category, the brief was to 'show every stitch' and I guess that that's what many architectural shooters also feel obliged to do. I would put your work into the editorial category and what that means to me is this: you feel freedom to capture the atmosphere of a location as distinct from its component materials at all costs!
In my time, I found that though my 'book', a collection of mainly my own freestyle work got me business, I was not encouraged to shoot in the same way by many clients who generally wanted product to reign supreme. Difficult, that, and it's a matter of damn good fortune when you find a client willing to take you on trust.
Rob C
-
Have to echo comments and say that this is a fantastic thread with so many great links posted. To add to the bunch...
http://www.viewpictures.co.uk/ (http://www.viewpictures.co.uk/)
(we're always looking over the water to see how it's done there )
Ros
PS in relation to light ... I always have a 1500W monoblock handy to bounce off a ceiling for some fill if needed... really helps but it's best when you don't notice that it has been used... you just see some detail on the inside of window frames and the like.
R
-
removed
-
Great stuff Adam and Rainer!
-
First, what a great resource this thread has become for me in my quest to define my next direction.
I'm sure it will also serve others well in the future that find themselves pondering their direction in photography.
As one can imagine, this weekend will be spent checking out all the excellent sites/photographers listed in this thread.
I must admit, sites I've looked at so far that are using basically natural light are more to my minds eye examples of what I'm interested in.
Granted, this may not be the dominant style here in the States, but as Kirk suggest, "Find your style and keep going" blends well with my mindset.
On an earlier comment, the ability to translate a 3D world into a 2D media is one that I have spent many year on. I worked in the world of developing 3D software for the motion picture industy, SIM, VR and AR worlds. Thus, I hope that "visualization" mindset will serve me well in this endeavor.
Rainer - was encouraging to see that you're a naturalist - I'd admired your images that I've seen posted here and else where over the years, and must admit to being excited to learn that you have done the majority of your work with Natural Light!
Kirk - you're another who's work I've admired - now to see if I can rival your talents and do it in my own way. You've crossed the Landscape talents so well with the Arch. work.
As to my initial comments about HDR, I see it as a tool to increase the "visualization" in my work. Key is to keep it under control to just compliment the subject, rather than supplant it. Additionally, stitching, as Kirk suggested, has proven very positive for me in the past with landscape scenes-particularly multi-row.
In short, thanks to ALL who have contributed so far.
Will be interesting to see what additional posts are added over the weekend.
Jack
-
Think about photography (in this case architectural photography) in the same light you would think about being great at anything. Lots of time and lots of hard work. I don't care whether it is a camera, tuba, scalpel, paint brush, legal brief, tennis or golf. It takes time and hard work. The rest - doesn't matter without that.
-
While we are on the topic of great/distinctive personal styles in architectural photography...check out Tim Griffith's work
http://www.timgriffith.com/ (http://www.timgriffith.com/)
Could not agree more with the previous post that 'work' is the essential element in all of this!
Murray
-
Agree - that's a given - when I had my software company my average work week over 11 years was 83 hours. Took one vacation of 4 days in the 11 years. But that was a period in my life where I had the most intellectual fun I've ever experienced.
Thus, hard work is better described as:
One must be Possessed to run with the Best.
(or so my Wife told me.)
Think about photography (in this case architectural photography) in the same light you would think about being great at anything. Lots of time and lots of hard work. I don't care whether it is a camera, tuba, scalpel, paint brush, legal brief, tennis or golf. It takes time and hard work. The rest - doesn't matter without that.
-
Lust4Life. Thanks for the kind words. Allot of good work on your site. Best of luck. Keep us informed.
-
Brigida González (http://www.brigidagonzalez.de/) - stylized, clean, and crispy photography. She has her own distinctive style. My personal alltime favourite!
Pedro Pegenaute (http://www.pedropegenaute.es/) - simple, direct and honestly made photography! The way he involves humans in his work is marvelous.
Cheers!
Michael
-
deleted
-
Ashley,
You state:
(The 'before' shots where captured at 800 iso, using a touch of fill-in flash)
What about the "after" shots - would you explain what "treatment" was done on set verse in Photoshop?
Camera/Lens?
Thanks,
Jack
-
Jack
WOW This thread has gotten really deep.
Lot's of good examples and good advice.
I guess my definition of Architectural Photography is a bit different compared to some of the entries made on this thread. Architectural Photography for me is both outside and inside. I've never worked with an Architect or Builder that only requests the exterior of his/her building to be photographed. Never. They do design the interior as well.
If I may be so brave and I do apologize if I am overstepping my bounds, but it sounds like you're trying to fit your definition of Architectural Photography into a mold of convenience. My point is, I don't think all of your clients will agree with your mold.
Ashley has shown you some fantastic examples of a typical Architectural shoot. Architecture is more than just the basic lines of the structure.
It's the textures, colors, and shapes that make the building feel the way it does. But as Ashley has shown you, those elements, on occasion, will need some help. You need to be ready for that.
- Rudy
-
I agree Rudy. My career shooting structures has been incredibly diverse from cutting edge contemporary architecture by leading architects and interior designers (otherwise known as interior architectects) to the historic architecture of 18th century Spanish mission churches designed by missionary priests and the vernacular architecture of 60's hippie communes and the ruins of 11th century Indian pueblos. These projects have been for everything from international magazines and books to local builders portfolios, HABS/HAER reports and NEA grants. Some have been documentary and some advertising. Some have been in color and some in b&w. I have considered it all architectural photography. IMO there is no architecture with a capital A. It is all relevant.
-
Rudy and Kirk,
Not sure where you got that idea.
I AGREE with your statements, and frankly THAT is part of the appeal of AP (Architectural Photography) to me - diversity!
I'm wired in such a way that boredom sets in very quickly.
A chap that is a Lawyer who I used to jog with for many years when I lived in Houston once commented - "Brady, your problem is that your vision can drill a hole to the center of the Universe, but the issue is that it's only an inch wide." My response was "Yeah, but you missed the fact that I'm drilling twelve of them at the same time and you're only seeing one of them!"
For instance, when I'm fortunate to get a paying AP job, what's to say that at the end of the job I don't take off with my gear to shoot a landscape in the region? Focus and mastering an art form is fun, but one must also add the element of multifaceted adventures.
And while I'm traversing a site with the architect, be it interior or exterior, am I not both analyzing the structure and it's interplay with light while I'm analyzing the psychological profile of the architect (both from learning how to satisfy his vision and add to my knowledge of how the Human Beast is wired)?
I think a common element in the mindset of any decent Landscape or Arch. photographer is an extension of Torben's stated in the Phase One article "A Case Study on Torben Eskerod":
“The focal point of my photography is fascination and sensitivity to the influence light has in the architectonic space. That being said I am just as interested in the darkness in the architectonic space as I am in the light.”
My obsession is how light concludes it's travel through space to expend it's energy (as reflected light or heat) when it strikes an object, whether it be a tree, the side of a persons face, is dappled through the leaves over a stream, filters through the cavities of a structure, or reflects off the exterior of Man's creation.
I want it all to be something I can "play with" and artistically capture as my minds eye feels it.
Thus, the name of my web site is no accident - Shadows Dancing.
Who's says hard work, sweat, tears can not lead to dances of joy?
Need I say more?
Jack
PS: And my hope is to do it all with the least amount of technology that the task will allow. Not to say I won't use the best, just no more than is necessary to master the mission.
Jack
If I may be so brave and I do apologize if I am overstepping my bounds, but it sounds like you're trying to fit your definition of Architectural Photography into a mold of convenience. My point is, I don't think all of your clients will agree with your mold.
Ashley has shown you some fantastic examples of a typical Architectural shoot. Architecture is more than just the basic lines of the structure.
It's the textures, colors, and shapes that make the building feel the way it does. But as Ashley has shown you, those elements, on occasion, will need some help. You need to be ready for that.
- Rudy
-
I'm a professional architectural photographer from Denmark - I often have this talk with a good colleague and dear friend of mine about the difference in European and American architectural photography on the subject light. As we sees it, the typical European Architectural photographer will not use any lights - we are here talking photography of architecture for the architects - take a look in European magazines, and books and see the difference, a good start will be, as mentioned before, "El Croquis"
Space are created with light and shadow both equally importen - architects, at least here in Scandinavia would dislike to show a space the way it's shown here, it's no longer a space, but a very well lit product like a jewel for a commercial.
I'm educated and have worked as an architect before starting photographing 8 years ago, and you can count on one hand how many times I have set up a lamp in a space.
This is not for starting a war between European and american photographers and between right and wrong :-) we are just some architectural photographers here in Europe that are amazed over the amount of light that are used in classic american architectural photography.
Very best,
Adam
I think many architectural photographers, (I did it exclusively for over ten years), have gotten some of their best shots, and love to shoot without lights. But we are not all so lucky to only have such spaces to shoot. Much of what we all shoot requires lighting. The best shooters light so as not to advertise their work but to enhance the drama the architect intended.
About a third of my work is now architectural and I can't emphasize enough how important qualified assistants are on your shoots. As I get older and wiser, I always use a minimum of two and usually three assistants, in addition to a prop/stylist. The clients love the royal treatment and my work is easier and better.
Best of luck.
Steve
-
I can't emphasize enough how important qualified assistants are on your shoots. As I get older and wiser, I always use a minimum of two and usually three assistants, in addition to a prop/stylist. The clients love the royal treatment and my work is easier and better.
It would be great to have that kind of budget from architects...
-
a quick google came up with http://www.resortimages.com/ (http://www.resortimages.com/) . Steve, I'm assuming this is your site.
jim
What sort of stuff do you shoot Steve, that requires 'a minimum of two and usually three assistants, in addition to a prop/stylist'.
With a team like that, you sure must be working on some very big budget jobs.
Add the client and his team to that, plus the owners and whoever else may be around - and it would need to be a big space too... as that's quite a crowd.
For me, a good stylist is a 'must have' - especially as we focus more on the interior side of things - but I would only hire an assistant these days IF the budget was in place and / or I believed multiple sales were in order.
Assistants are great if you really need to get more done in a day; however, they are by no means a need item.
A 4 or 5 day shoot - where the client require 20+ images, for Multi-Media use, for at least 3 years - is the only time I'd work with a team as big as you are suggesting.
As for the 'royal treatment' - I would have to say, most clients I have work for, don't give a monkey's about that.
All they are interested in, is the results i.e. images which they can use to meet their needs.
So I'm curious... what sort of stuff do you shoot Steve, that regularly requires a team like this - but doesn't require MF back quality ?
Cheers,
Ashley
http://www.ampimage.com (http://www.ampimage.com)
http://www.ashleymorrison.com (http://www.ashleymorrison.com)
-
I've enjoyed this thread very much! Some great advice and links to great work. Having been involved with architectural photography now for about five years I find it to be an interesting alternative to my automotive advertising work. There're many of the same thought processes, as well as, technical abilities that are consistant in both disciplines. In the end, the result needs to define the subject exquisitely! The automotive work still pays all my big bills but my architecture business is steadily increasing. My advice is to be patient, it's going to take quite a few years to develop your client's (that spend a fair amount of money) trust. Keep in mind that my take on this is tempered by my market, which is ground zero for the current economic crisis (Detroit). But even with the problems in this market I've found working with architects and interior designers to be extremely rewarding because they really rely on my input creatively. There are no agencies, art directors, creative directors, brand managers, account people, just the architect or designer (sometimes their in-house marketing person) and myself. I find architects to be very similiar (at least those I'm working with) to photographers, each has a distinctive view that they communicate through their work. Business-wise, the two disciplines are similiar too, I always felt that I'm as good as my last shot and want everyone to see that. Architects (at least the smaller residential designers) put everything they have into their projects and then want to get the word out. On the subject of lighting, I always carry a wide variety of lights, sometimes I don't use them but when you need to light something there's no alternative but to light it. The trick is to suppliment the existing light and use your lights to enhance the subject in a way that doesn't seem too obvious. On the projects I've shot architecturally, the majority of the time I work with one assistant, only occasionally will I have two. In car work I always work with two, if not three or four assistants. Find someone who is digitally inclined so that when there's any downtime they can help with processing the files and making contact sheets. It's much better than staying up until 11 or 12 organizing files after a long day of shooting. I'd also like to add that a good stylist makes a huge difference on any interior shoot, some of my clients balk at the idea of spending the money but it's well worth it. I usually get down to Naples for a week or so in the winter, I'll contact you to see how it's going, good luck! Jim
Here's a few recent shots:
[attachment=17293:st_detai...025_test.jpg][attachment=17295:Detail_1_016_dc2b.jp
g][attachment=17294:ext_pm1_059_dc3.jpg][attachment=17296:front_do..._036_dc3.jp
g
][attachment=17297:kitchen_..._cr1_dc6.jpg][attachment=17298:ext_1_01...lattened
.
jpg]
-
Thanks Jim.
Lots people & lifestyle shots - so I can see the need for a large team there - especially if the models are charging top dollar. One would naturally need to move fast and pack as much in as one can in the day, because their clock is ticking.
The interiors work is very... well I would called it AD looking (American Disney / Architectural Digest) - which others have talked about. So yes, I can see now why Steve needs such a large team to achieve this look.
As others have said, clients over here prefer a more natural, daylight look and often insist that all room lights be turn off ("lightless" looking) - but then our style, architecture, decor and tastes are very different too.
No rights or wrongs... just the way it is, in different parts of the world.
Anyway, thanks for the link Jim - love to see the work of others... and it also helps complete the picture, so we know what style, type of work, standard of work and level, one is referring to.
Cheers,
Ashley
http://www.ampimage.com (http://www.ampimage.com)
http://www.ashleymorrison.com (http://www.ashleymorrison.com)
Thanks Jim for the help with the link to my site.
From the mid eighties to the mid nineties, I exclusively did architectural photography for interior designers, architects, builders, and their associated magazines. Most of that work is of course not on my site as it's just too out dated. The major thrust of my work these days is lifestyle mixed with architectural work for hotels and resorts.
I do however still shoot for some home builders and I bring my two assistants plus stylist on those jobs. Basically the extra crew allows me to cover more shots per day, so in the end a four day shoot becomes a three day shoot, so the client saves money and I save my body from abuse :-)
I also think digital requires more time after a shot is finished to show the client exactly what we captured while my crew moves on to the next shot.
If I were only working with available light, (I wish), then I think one assistant would be fine.
As far a MF camera is concerned, I have been watching for some time and trying to decide just the direction to go. In the mean time Canon is up to 22MP and their new 17 and 24 shift lenses are excellent performers, so I just don't know. I actually need MF more for landscape shots than for anything else right so I'm waiting to see how the S2 performs in that regard.
-
.......
As others have said, clients over here prefer a more natural, daylight look and often insist that all room lights be turn off ("lightless" looking) - but then our style, architecture, decor and tastes are very different too.
No rights or wrongs... just the way it is, in different parts of the world.
Cheers,
Ashley
http://www.ampimage.com (http://www.ampimage.com)
http://www.ashleymorrison.com (http://www.ashleymorrison.com)
I think most architectural photographers would love to have clients that liked available-light shots over 'over-lit' shots. I can't tell you all the times I am happy with a shot and my clients, (mostly art directors these days), want me to add more lights to fill in shadows or add spot lights to other areas..... Sometimes I get lucky and find a wonderful available light interior shot and we are both satisfied. I have to say that digital has really opened the options up in the shadows compared with the film days.
All the best.
-
I think most architectural photographers would love to have clients that liked available-light shots over 'over-lit' shots. I can't tell you all the times I am happy with a shot and my clients, (mostly art directors these days), want me to add more lights to fill in shadows or add spot lights to other areas..... Sometimes I get lucky and find a wonderful available light interior shot and we are both satisfied. I have to say that digital has really opened the options up in the shadows compared with the film days.
All the best.
In these situation, are the art directors typically on site with you? or does it require reshooting another day on your part? (sorry if the questions are novice.. i'm well acquainted with the photography aspect of the business.. but very green with the business... and trying to pick up as much as possible)
jim
-
Jim,
I insist that they be onsite and usually they think so too. If not, all bets are off in terms of the estimate. Most of the ones I work with these days are magazine art directors. I once was art directed over the web on a advertising shoot for a big hotel chain. That is we did a test shot and emailed it to the client in San Francisco and he would email or call us back with comments. That was slow and would have worked probably but the "art director" was actually a micro managing CEO, who would get to us when he was not in a meeting or in a conference call. It was a nightmare.
-
Jim,
I insist that they be onsite and usually they think so too. If not, all bets are off in terms of the estimate. Most of the ones I work with these days are magazine art directors. I once was art directed over the web on a advertising shoot for a big hotel chain. That is we did a test shot and emailed it to the client in San Francisco and he would email or call us back with comments. That was slow and would have worked probably but the "art director" was actually a micro managing CEO, who would get to us when he was not in a meeting or in a conference call. It was a nightmare.
I had to do this once with a client's client, who couldn't come to the shoot at a hotel. The art directors who were with me thought it was a crazy waste of time, and I agreed. It not only slows down the production but stifles creativity too.
-
Interesting !!
It's like you are you saying: you pay assistants money, to help you do more work, so you a can earn less.
Not sure I like the sound of that... but I bet your clients do.
We produce & provide images for clients to use.
So we charge a per image fee, for the use of the images that we provide.
If we quote X for 20 images, then it's X for 20 images.
Whether it takes 2, 3 or 4 days to produce those 20 images, makes no difference to them.
Once the budget is set and the deal is agreed, then I decide what all we will bring to the table, etc.
Therefore, I would only hire assistants, if I felt it was going help me make more money or help me to be more productive with my time.
Sending money on something to help me make less money, seems crazy.
Cheers,
Ashley
Well I think in the extreme it's seems crazy, but in reality there has to be a balance to how much work you get done in a given day. I like to work fast and my clients like that about my work. The biggest complaint I usually hear about photographers from art directors is how slow they are. I just like moving fast and my crew allows me to do that. This doesn't mean I don't take my time to make a shot perfect - I do, but I do it faster. Everyone has to find a balance between productivity and clients needs. Back in the eighties I used to price my work on a per shot basis with interior designers, but now with the advertising agencies I have as clients, they only understand day rates. As commercial photographers we are salesman and have to price a job in a way that the client and you feel comfortable with.
http://www.ampimage.com (http://www.ampimage.com)
http://www.ashleymorrison.com (http://www.ashleymorrison.com)
-
In these situation, are the art directors typically on site with you? or does it require reshooting another day on your part? (sorry if the questions are novice.. i'm well acquainted with the photography aspect of the business.. but very green with the business... and trying to pick up as much as possible)
jim
I always want the art directors with me while shooting. Reshooting is not an option. I think in the last 20+ years I did one re-shoot of one shot of a home because the the client wasn't happy with what her art director decided on as a key shot. Because of my long term relationship with them, I re-did one shot for a minimal price.
-
May be of interest Jack
http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/10/...hy-free-lecture (http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/10/15/architectural-photography-free-lecture)
Cheers,
Ashley
http://www.ampimage.com (http://www.ampimage.com)
http://www.ashleymorrison.com (http://www.ashleymorrison.com)
If you're in the Northern California area, then on Nov 10,
The Business of Architectural Photography - Northern California ASMP (http://www.asmpnorcal.org/drupal/?q=node/822)
-
So let me see if I have got this right.
To keep it simple, example based on:
Photography time = 1000 per day.
Assistant = 100 per day.
So your estimate for a 4 day job = 4x1000 = 4000.
You decide to hire 3 assistants, to speed things up .. so you can get it done in 3 days, instead of 4 days.
3 days = 3x1000 = 3000.
3 assistants for 3 days = 3 x 3 x 100 = 900.
3000-900 = 2100.
So instead of making 4000, you make 2100.
Are you serious !!
Little wonder the advertising agencies, which you work for, only understand day rates.
Next you will be telling us you throw in the copyright too
Cheers,
Ashley
http://www.ampimage.com (http://www.ampimage.com)
http://www.ashleymorrison.com (http://www.ashleymorrison.com)
Not sure I understand your math. I don't pay any expenses, including my crew from my rates or usage fees. I'm also not sure you can draw any comparisons without knowing the details of what i charge and how many shots I do and of what kind before critiquing my way of doing business. This particular example is also very relevant to a small local market that I work in.
In my travels I hear stories about rates that make me cringe, but it is all relative.
-
Steve,
It always makes me cringe when a good photographer continues down the road of day rates. ASMP, APA and others have been working to get photographers to understand that tiered licensing is just about the only way to make it all work on the commercial side. I also think a percentage of media buys is another good approach but hard to nail down and not getting traction much yet.
I don't know what agencies you work with who only understand day rates. All agencies know about licensing. It's not a new concept and has been around since "back in the eighties."
People, this is to everyone, professional photography is fucked if there isn't consistency in how we all work. If you work faster and maintain the same high level of quality, then you should get paid more. If your work adds to the branding of a company, you should get paid more than just generic work. We're not Amazon.com, we're not Walmart, we're not Target or Best Buy or any other commodity selling business who is just competing on price alone. If photographers are afraid of losing work due solely to price, then there is no hope.
The one thing I HATE about some fellow photographers in general is this constant lone ranger attitude.
Everyday, I think about doing something else, and let everyone else go down with the sinking ship.
I was an ASMP member for many years and then joined APA about ten years ago, so I am more than aware of how we are all trying to change the way we do business. I am also not sure this is the proper forum to be discussing these matters without eroding the confidence of others fighting to change the day-rate model, but I can assure you I am not a Lone Ranger. I have many close friends that are quite successful in our field with whom we discuss these issues often. This also very relevant to whatever market we work in both at the local and national level.
-
So glad this thread turned about page 3 to a question of differing trans-Atlantic aesthetics.
I was fuming over some of the pictures referenced here . . . personally, I favour 'lit' exteriors but the examples shown, using 92 lights, had me choking in my cornflakes! Yes, you could get that shot with six assistants, 92 lights and a dozen multi-kilowatt generators: or you could turn up alone, with no lights, wait patiently for 20 minutes, capture 3 exposures and sensitively blend them manually in PP to achieve PRECISELY the same effect.
Similarly, invading a home or public space with a cavalcade of expensive lighting, and assistants to operate them - TRYING to achieve that nasty, over-lit 'actually, this is just a studio set' look could be considered insane.
There are specific instances when a room needs help, and sensitive use of artificial lighting can be almost as good as the real thing . . . but there's no substitute for patience, natural light and lots of post-production (in my view). It's also much less intrusive and time-consuming on location. And cheaper.
Being British, I'm surprised we haven't spoken a lot more about the weather. Outside of New Mexico, the best architectural photographers are also part-time meteorologists!
How all this is charged is also an interesting and rarely discussed question: the day rate mentality is hard to change, but with more and more being done in post, and with unpredictable time spent on site, many clients would still like to see change from the quote if shots are bagged quicker than expected . . . whereas we might feel that it demonstrates our skill and proficiency which should be priced commensurately. We're focused on the value of the image, they may be more interested in the budget allocated to the whole project, of which our photographs are just a component.
-
or you could turn up alone, with no lights, wait patiently for 20 minutes, capture 3 exposures and sensitively blend them manually in PP to achieve PRECISELY the same effect.
I am looking at these pp methods of working...do you find merging with hdr is the best option, or simply layering the 3 or 4 different exposures and then selectively masking the images creates a more natural look?
Marc
-
I am looking at these pp methods of working...do you find merging with hdr is the best option, or simply layering the 3 or 4 different exposures and then selectively masking the images creates a more natural look?
Marc
Off-the-peg HDR is useless, unless you're aiming for that specific look. Unfortunately I've not found an alternative to layering and selectively masking exposures in PS. With a little practice, though, it's not rocket science to recreate a very natural effect that mimics a camera with 16 stops of DR. Or the eye.
-
sometimes i use hdr-fusion to get some light into (to? sorry for my english) the dark site of a building, like in this case [attachment=17403:goldamme...a_b_c_1_.jpg]
but very soft. i like if it looks natural. recently an architect said to me: "i like the way you see things."
regards from cologne, germany
bernhard
www.bernhard-marks.de
-
I've found that Photomatix's exposure blending mode works very well to create a believable and natural looking base file. Jim
-
I am looking at these pp methods of working...do you find merging with hdr is the best option, or simply layering the 3 or 4 different exposures and then selectively masking the images creates a more natural look?
Marc
I think we all have had the same experience with HDRs. They a good start but most of the time you will need the different exposures layered one at a time in Photoshop to achieve the perfect natural look. Often I will use both Photomatix and then Photoshop.
All in all I probably use artificial light on less than half the shots that we used to back in the days of shooting film.
-
Jim,
I've been experimenting with Photomatrix for some time now.
The effects can be fascinating and quite creative when further played with in CS4.
I like the capacity to produce an image that reflects what my mind felt at the time, yet for Arch. work, getting a "natural" look is essential.
Would you be willing to share the Photomatrix settings that have worked best for you to produce a truely "natural" visual?
In the spirit of sharing, I'm finding PTGui's latest release to give me substantially better pano photomerges than CS4 is building.
I'm frequently shooting double row panos with the RRS device.
Jack
I've found that Photomatix's exposure blending mode works very well to create a believable and natural looking base file. Jim
-
The photomatrix looks interesting.
I assume its the exposure fusion element that creates the more natural starting point?
I'll download the trial and give it a go.
Marc
-
Jim,
I've been experimenting with Photomatrix for some time now.
The effects can be fascinating and quite creative when further played with in CS4.
I like the capacity to produce an image that reflects what my mind felt at the time, yet for Arch. work, getting a "natural" look is essential.
Would you be willing to share the Photomatrix settings that have worked best for you to produce a truely "natural" visual?
In the spirit of sharing, I'm finding PTGui's latest release to give me substantially better pano photomerges than CS4 is building.
I'm frequently shooting double row panos with the RRS device.
Jack
Jack, The settings vary with the image. I typically bracket in full stops and will choose 2 exposures 2-3 stops apart, if the result doesn't meet my expectations I'll use 3 exposures, usually -2, 0, +2 and blend them. The sliders have functionality descriptions if you place your cursor over them, generally the image opened in Photoshop is a little flatter than the Photomatix window. I then open the blended file in Photoshop and begin my imaging. I still will use lights but usually just to highlight something or open up extremely dark areas. I can shoot approximately 10-14 images a day (sometimes even more if I'm not too burned out) with this workflow. Speaking of workflow, the imaging time is at least the same as the time spent shooting the picture and easily can be more. My clients appreciate the effort and results tremendously. Attached is a recent shot and the 2 images which were blended that is fairly typical of my workflow. Jim
[attachment=17416:Media_Room_1_012.jpg]
[attachment=17417:Media_Room_1_016.jpg]
[attachment=17418:Media_Ro...just_dc3.jpg]
-
HDR has become a real problem solver for me, in particular when artificial lighting will create unwanted reflections (ie there is no place to hide the light sources as they reflect in a glass wall). In the old days this would mean perhaps compromising the ideal camera position to get rid of the reflections. Now we have this great alternative tool. For those of you first trying HDR, don't expect to get everything just right in Photomatix. It won't be perfect at that stage. Some curve adjustments etc. will always IME be necessary to complete the exposure blend.
-
I just stumbled upon this thread and read it from top to bottom. Lots of interesting takes on the business! Having been in the field since the day I signed on assisting at Hedrich Blessing 18 years ago, I, of course, have my own take...
Natural light is one of the more significant aspects of LEED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design) based design and has become so important in Interior Architecture that my lighting esthetic has evolved to support that feeling... much more open, airy but still very directional and with a certain mood to it. Last year I picked up a couple 12 x 12 silks and I friggin love those things! Now that I have twice the tonal range I used to have with EPN, life is much.... much better. That said, I still carry 5 monoblocks, 9 inkies, 8 Lowel Omnis and 4 basic 600 watt halogen floods. I use it all less frequently, but I use some of it on every shot. Retouching and HDR can render adequate tonalities but they cannot define texture, reflectivity and spatial relationships within the architecture. I believe, or HB taught me to believe that outstanding images require work... and you know what? I really enjoy that work! And I'm sorry, but great lighting is just not designed into most spaces, in fact architects and lighting designers have to install lighting that is pleasing from every conceivable angle which puts them at an extreme disadvantage. I only have to light for camera, and now I have greater flexibility with post production. Kirk, when the perfect angle for my lights happens to leave them reflecting all too obviously in an opposing glass wall, I simply do another exposure with those lights turned off and "paint them out" later.
Secondly, Architecture and Design have become much more focused on the human element, insuring that spaces and buildings promote collaboration and enhance movement and circulation. This is all way more conceptual than knowing what time of day makes the building pretty, but is just as relevant nowadays and so working with people in the shots has become instrumental to my current mode of work. Funny because I think a lot of photographers go into architecture because they're not so good with people. Interacting with your clients and their clients is huge... so much of this is about interpersonal relations.
As for dayrates? Are you guys saying that the desire is to move towards shot based fees? I don't know a shooter in Chicago that doesn't have a dayrate. My clients know that while I can easily get a dozen exteriors in a day, they shouldn't expect more than 5 interiors... should I charge them the same rate for shots that take twice the work to achieve? Incidentally, I have a per shot charge as well, that covers capture, color mgmt, retouching and deliverables. What a funny business we're in... I don't know how you can nail down standards of practice when shooters and their clients vary so dramatically.
BTW.... one assistant for every shoot.
-CB
-
I just stumbled upon this thread and read it from top to bottom. Lots of interesting takes on the business! Having been in the field since the day I signed on assisting at Hedrich Blessing 18 years ago, I, of course, have my own take...
Natural light is one of the more significant aspects of LEED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design) based design and has become so important in Interior Architecture that my lighting esthetic has evolved to support that feeling... much more open, airy but still very directional and with a certain mood to it. Last year I picked up a couple 12 x 12 silks and I friggin love those things! Now that I have twice the tonal range I used to have with EPN, life is much.... much better. That said, I still carry 5 monoblocks, 9 inkies, 8 Lowel Omnis and 4 basic 600 watt halogen floods. I use it all less frequently, but I use some of it on every shot. Retouching and HDR can render adequate tonalities but they cannot define texture, reflectivity and spatial relationships within the architecture. I believe, or HB taught me to believe that outstanding images require work... and you know what? I really enjoy that work! And I'm sorry, but great lighting is just not designed into most spaces, in fact architects and lighting designers have to install lighting that is pleasing from every conceivable angle which puts them at an extreme disadvantage. I only have to light for camera, and now I have greater flexibility with post production. Kirk, when the perfect angle for my lights happens to leave them reflecting all too obviously in an opposing glass wall, I simply do another exposure with those lights turned off and "paint them out" later.
Secondly, Architecture and Design have become much more focused on the human element, insuring that spaces and buildings promote collaboration and enhance movement and circulation. This is all way more conceptual than knowing what time of day makes the building pretty, but is just as relevant nowadays and so working with people in the shots has become instrumental to my current mode of work. Funny because I think a lot of photographers go into architecture because they're not so good with people. Interacting with your clients and their clients is huge... so much of this is about interpersonal relations.
As for dayrates? Are you guys saying that the desire is to move towards shot based fees? I don't know a shooter in Chicago that doesn't have a dayrate. My clients know that while I can easily get a dozen exteriors in a day, they shouldn't expect more than 5 interiors... should I charge them the same rate for shots that take twice the work to achieve? Incidentally, I have a per shot charge as well, that covers capture, color mgmt, retouching and deliverables. What a funny business we're in... I don't know how you can nail down standards of practice when shooters and their clients vary so dramatically.
BTW.... one assistant for every shoot.
-CB
Well said. Great advice for any architectural photographer.
-
As for dayrates? Are you guys saying that the desire is to move towards shot based fees? I don't know a shooter in Chicago that doesn't have a dayrate. My clients know that while I can easily get a dozen exteriors in a day, they shouldn't expect more than 5 interiors... should I charge them the same rate for shots that take twice the work to achieve? Incidentally, I have a per shot charge as well, that covers capture, color mgmt, retouching and deliverables. What a funny business we're in... I don't know how you can nail down standards of practice when shooters and their clients vary so dramatically.
-CB
Pretty much the same here. Ultimately it doesn't matter though how you charge but what what you actually make and the bottom line to the client. Also I don't like to be locked into specific shots-sure there are the obvious ones that the client and I agree on, but I want the the freedom in the budget to explore some with the camera. Some of my best work comes from the interaction of light and space at some time during the day that I did not predict by doing a walk through with the client prior to giving them a rough estimate.
-
As for dayrates? Are you guys saying that the desire is to move towards shot based fees? I don't know a shooter in Chicago that doesn't have a dayrate. My clients know that while I can easily get a dozen exteriors in a day, they shouldn't expect more than 5 interiors... should I charge them the same rate for shots that take twice the work to achieve? Incidentally, I have a per shot charge as well, that covers capture, color mgmt, retouching and deliverables. What a funny business we're in... I don't know how you can nail down standards of practice when shooters and their clients vary so dramatically.
-CB
Hi Chris, these are questions that float around in my head...
Do the exteriors have half the commercial value to the client that the interiors have? Months after the shoot when the contractor calls and asks to license pictures, the rate to license the shot would be the same regardless of how long it took to shoot. It's based on their use. It's a funny thing with day rates though that the client pays a lot less per shot as the shots per day goes up.
There are certainly upsides and downsides to day rates and per shot rates. I have been experimenting with both methods. With the per shot rate I find the client/s might better understand that they are licensing images for use rather than paying for my time. For an interiors shoot there might be a higher per shot rate because the production of the job will have similar costs and time involvement despite producing fewer images compared to just shooting exteriors. In either case it's still necessary to estimate each job individually.
Anyway, always trying to refine the goal and the method of getting there. Ashley's practice of per shot licensing offers not only a new way to estimate and invoice, but also a new way to communicate with a client about the value of the images.
-
Hi Chris, these are questions that float around in my head...
Do the exteriors have half the commercial value to the client that the interiors have? Months after the shoot when the contractor calls and asks to license pictures, the rate to license the shot would be the same regardless of how long it took to shoot. It's based on their use. It's a funny thing with day rates though that the client pays a lot less per shot as the shots per day goes up.
There are certainly upsides and downsides to day rates and per shot rates. I have been experimenting with both methods. With the per shot rate I find the client/s might better understand that they are licensing images for use rather than paying for my time. For an interiors shoot there might be a higher per shot rate because the production of the job will have similar costs and time involvement despite producing fewer images compared to just shooting exteriors. In either case it's still necessary to estimate each job individually.
Anyway, always trying to refine the goal and the method of getting there. Ashley's practice of per shot licensing offers not only a new way to estimate and invoice, but also a new way to communicate with a client about the value of the images.
Yeah, pretty tricky territory. To take the example to an extreme... I have always shot a fair amount of furniture. Now... I have done 5 week long shoots with big sets where we did 1 shot a day and I have shot chairs where I'd put it out on a sweep, shoot it in 5 rotations in an hour. My time IS money, and it would be ridiculous to charge the client the same for 5 pictures that took me 5 weeks as 5 pictures that took an hour. Fortunately my clients are bright enough to get the value of my time AND the images. I'll say it again... weird business we're in.
-
I always charge per fully retouched image, unless I shoot food or anything people related.
the client loves it as they know exactly what they pay for
that's why i shoot a lot in one day
at least 200 set ups for interiors (mind you all interiors are set up before I shoot)
at least 100 set ups for architecture (never quite understand why some people can
only do 15 set ups for architecture a day, you set up the camera you frame, you shoot and you move on
to the next location and do the same, of course not just nilly willy at random but with a particular
time of day and location in mind)
some clients are very vain and order up big time, I normally have a deal for a minimum
per particular job.
there are hardly any clients who i charge the same rate, each new client I engage will get a particular rate
older client who continuously keep supporting me, get better rates.
everyone always gets some discount, they all loooove discount
I tell the client before hand that money comes second, so no deposit required
money really comes at the end of a succesfull project and I tell them that if they do not like what i do they just do not have to pay
so far no one went for that option, i make sure they will be happy!
But in the mean time you prove to the client where your priority lays
I hardly ever work with assistants on the job, they just cost money for standing around doing nothing
I have three assistants in the office though, to do retouching, scheduling, file management, taking care of stock and accounts.
for simple interiors i blend differently exposed photos (no extra light), for more upmarket interiors
i might use one flash light (soft box or grid depending) which i might put in six or so different loacations, take an exposure
for each location and then blend those exposures, a lot more storage is needed but I save on weight to carry to the job.
storage is cheap my back not.
for exteriors I hardly ever use extra lighting, I mean how do you light up a 20 story building with some studio strobes!?
better to wait for the magic moment early in the morning or later in the day.
if i can credit my small successes in my photography to one thing only, I would have to say that
my previous profession as interior, architectural and product designer help me the most.
I have had so many purely design conversation regarding projects with my clients
that they get a sense that i understand their work and can that I can tell their story through the lens.
Catching up on new building techniques or new materials is essential.
I use digital medium format (which one is really not important) I could have achieved many of those small successes with a simple slr
and actually did in the beginning, of course I see a big difference in both systems, it is often that the client doesn't.
they usually focus on the angle, the crop, color and lighting
anyway my 2 cents
-
at least 100 set ups for architecture (never quite understand why some people can
only do 15 set ups for architecture a day, you set up the camera you frame, you shoot and you move on
to the next location and do the same, of course not just nilly willy at random but with a particular
time of day and location in mind)
i rarely shoot more than 15 images a day, and i am not sad if i make one or two if these are great shots.
average motif/day rate might be between 4 and 8,- in this timing is editing included !
there is no rule how much motifs i take on site, depends too much what i do.
details can grow fast, although i take a lot of time for electing which details , which angle, which motif and crop.
exterior needs the right weather.
interior the right moment ( people or no people,- i prefer mostly without, at least i dont put them in ) and often some "cleaning up", kicking out furniture, flowers and other stuff which hinders to show the space in a clear vision. might sound funny for americans, but thats what i do, even in US ( where i worked a lot the last 2 years ).
yes i can shoot 200 shots too a day ( at least with the canon ) but 5 become better and more concentrated, and so it should be cause expectation are high ( from client and from myself ) if motif numbers are lo. in general one good shot is way more worth than 30 average ones. i use 85% of my taken shots , which means too that i dont take a shot from 5 slightly different angles and choose later which i take, i think about this before setting up the camera.
i ask always 30% in advantage, with very big assignments 25%.
i hate the idea to make a expensive production and not to get paid for whatever reason ( didnt happane till now but i dont like to meet the first time ). some of my productions are really huge and could cause real problems if i wouldnt get paid for my expenses. so this 30% cover some costs and i am quiet.
money is important, but i am not a cent counter nor a pixel peeper.
so i give usually a bit more than expected or contracted without charging this extra.
-
i rarely shoot more than 15 images a day, and i am not sad if i make one or two if these are great shots.
average motif/day rate might be between 4 and 8,- in this timing is editing included !
there is no rule how much motifs i take on site, depends too much what i do.
details can grow fast, although i take a lot of time for electing which details , which angle, which motif and crop.
exterior needs the right weather.
interior the right moment ( people or no people,- i prefer mostly without at least i dont put them in ) and often some "cleaning up", kicking out furniture, flowers, and other stuff which hinder to show the space in a clear vision. might sound funny for americans, but thats what i do, even in US ( where i worked a lot the last 2 years ).
yes i can shoot 200 shots too a day ( at leas with the canon ) but i do 5 better and more concentrated and so they should be cause expectation are high ( from client and from myself ) if motif numbers are lo. in general 1 really good shot is way more worth than 30 average ones. i use 85% of my shots , means i dont take a shot from 5 slightly different angles and choose later which i take, i think about this before photographing.
i ask always 30% in advantage, with very big assignments 25%.
i hate the idea to make a expensive production and not to get paid for whatever reason ( didnt happane till now but i dont like to meet the first time ). some of my productions are really huge and could cause real problems if i wouldnt get paid for my expenses. so this 30% cover some costs and i am quiet.
money is important, but i am not a cent counter nor a pixel peeper.
so i give usually a bit more than expected or contracted without charging this extra.
I'm just about identical in method and philosophy, but I require 50% deposit.
Richard
-
so i give usually a bit more than expected or contracted without charging this extra.
There's your Money Shot, right there. Follow that advice, and you'll have a long and successful career.
-
i have a few reasons for shooting a lot in one day
- i would get bored standing too long on one spot as I want to explore the building or interior
from every possible angle and can see so many possible great shots
- if i shoot towards the twilight, virtually every 5 minutes is a different lighting set up, which i want to catch from different angles
- i can sell particular angles to other clients such as the manufacturers of the different building materials or components
and can also sell all the different angles through my stock libraries, sometimes all this can add up quite a bit for one project
- the client loves being empowered by having plenty to choose from and i don't want to dictate the client into a few ways
how the building has to be seen.
I guess coming to photography from a design background as opposed to having studied photography, I keep my the basic design credo
close to heart, which is "design is problem solving" so I go to every shoot with that in mind. not only from the point of view of the project
to be photographed but also the way i set out to shoot it.
-
Marc,
Again, I find the non-USA style more in line to my eye and shooting style, but Yelhsa/Ashley has a good point in his scene.
Marc, I looked at your web site, enjoyed your work and came away with two questions:
You state you're shooting with MFDB - in your work the freedom from parallax and good DOF struck me - without tilt and shift in MFDB, other than Hassies HTS.
How was this accomplished so successfully? I'm assuming a lot of post work.......?
Thanks,
Jack
PS: I particularly enjoyed #6 in Personal Encounters - torching the Jaguar - used to have XKE V-12 and it brought back intense memories!
I hardly ever work with assistants on the job, they just cost money for standing around doing nothing
I have three assistants in the office though, to do retouching, scheduling, file management, taking care of stock and accounts.
for simple interiors i blend differently exposed photos (no extra light), for more upmarket interiors
i might use one flash light (soft box or grid depending) which i might put in six or so different loacations, take an exposure
for each location and then blend those exposures, a lot more storage is needed but I save on weight to carry to the job.
storage is cheap my back not.
for exteriors I hardly ever use extra lighting, I mean how do you light up a 20 story building with some studio strobes!?
better to wait for the magic moment early in the morning or later in the day.
if i can credit my small successes in my photography to one thing only, I would have to say that
my previous profession as interior, architectural and product designer help me the most.
I have had so many purely design conversation regarding projects with my clients
that they get a sense that i understand their work and can that I can tell their story through the lens.
Catching up on new building techniques or new materials is essential.
I use digital medium format (which one is really not important) I could have achieved many of those small successes with a simple slr
and actually did in the beginning, of course I see a big difference in both systems, it is often that the client doesn't.
they usually focus on the angle, the crop, color and lighting
anyway my 2 cents
-
of course if i wanted that effect i would need strobes or continous lights
hardly ever been confronted with that situation,
only once did a client want to light up a facade of about 23 mt long
i still brought only one light and just walked around and threw light over particular areas on different exposures that i blended later,
especially taking myself and the light source out of the frame.
if the client is standing next to you and wants to see a preview it becomes more difficult.
to get rid of parallax in ps is a 30 second job, blending exposures, cleaning dust, color balance etc takes a lot of work
way back i asked around, even on this forum, if anybody could show me the exact difference
between tilt and/or shift and doing it in ps, i did not get a conclusive response at the time
i wanted to know if should go the route of tilt and shift.
now i think that only if you print your photo really big will you see seriously stretched photos disintegtrate.
if you use 39 mil pixels you can spare a few
i tried the HTS, it is very cumbersome and my 35mm lens suddenly becomes a 45-50 mm
probably for the true tilt/shift afficionado it would be too mickey mouse!
i use f-stop 13 99% of the time and focus on 2/3 of the distance from camera to the furthest point for interiors
unless the fore ground is really important.
did this shot for a client of mine in london,
they wanted to have a top to bottom view just after sunset
Marc,
Again, I find the non-USA style more in line to my eye and shooting style, but Yelhsa/Ashley has a good point in his scene.
Marc, I looked at your web site, enjoyed your work and came away with two questions:
You state you're shooting with MFDB - in your work the freedom from parallax and good DOF struck me - without tilt and shift in MFDB, other than Hassies HTS.
How was this accomplished so successfully? I'm assuming a lot of post work.......?
Thanks,
Jack
PS: I particularly enjoyed #6 in Personal Encounters - torching the Jaguar - used to have XKE V-12 and it brought back intense memories!
-
o yeah
thanks for your kind comments Jack!!
Marc,
Again, I find the non-USA style more in line to my eye and shooting style, but Yelhsa/Ashley has a good point in his scene.
Marc, I looked at your web site, enjoyed your work and came away with two questions:
You state you're shooting with MFDB - in your work the freedom from parallax and good DOF struck me - without tilt and shift in MFDB, other than Hassies HTS.
How was this accomplished so successfully? I'm assuming a lot of post work.......?
Thanks,
Jack
PS: I particularly enjoyed #6 in Personal Encounters - torching the Jaguar - used to have XKE V-12 and it brought back intense memories!
-
that's why i shoot a lot in one day
at least 200 set ups for interiors (mind you all interiors are set up before I shoot)
at least 100 set ups for architecture (never quite understand why some people can
only do 15 set ups for architecture a day, you set up the camera you frame, you shoot and you move on
to the next location and do the same, of course not just nilly willy at random but with a particular
time of day and location in mind)
Marc, you do beautiful work. I love some of the images on your web site but I have to call BS on 300 architecture shots in a day. First, even at 5 min per shot the math doesn't work. Second, there is no way every interior shot can be 'pre-styled' to preset camera angles. The retail clothing store on your web site can not shot in five minutes per shot. Asking anybody that has styled clothes.
Take a long hard look at Rainer's work before you diss him for doing 15 shots in a day. His work is the perfect synergy of architecture and photography. Every shot is hand-sculpted to his vision of the architect's work. If I hired him and he said I could only have 1 or 2 beautiful shots a day, I would say great. This is the permanent record of my architecture and I want it to be perfect.
We do not work on an assembly line. Whether it be an American or European photography style we all translate a physical space into a 2d image. We have responsibility to not be disingenuous about this.
-
More fuel for the fire... (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=851)
I shot this project both before and after it was occupied. The images from the first shoot are completely lit and we spent 2-3 hours on each. The shots with people in them were approached for a different effect and use little or no lighting. The compositions are still thought out and I spent at least a half hour on most of them, but they don't generally feel as refined or have the same depth.
I think my work continues to evolve and I learn something new every time I look at my pictures.
-CB
-
I will second the advice of joining ASMP and using the programs, paperwork share and the business benefits of our organization. Jeff Totaro and Chun Lai have done a great job putting together a fantastic program, and the discussion groups are great as well. Learning the business aspects of dealing with architects is as important as the technical side.
This economic climate makes it very difficult to establish a new business, so resources like these are even more critical.
I know there are some great technical workshops - I believe Jeff is teaching, -Kirk too and probably several others here. I teach a summer workshop in NY at ICP.
Best of Luck,
Bruce Katz
ASMP, Board of Directors
-
you probably got me wrong on that one.... 100 architectural shots a day
i am very familiar with rainer's work and certainly do not diss him or anyone else here
just don't understand it and want to have a frank discussion about it
hence all my explanations of how i work
a while back i might have skirted around this issue, but now feel with this thread that i would like to go deeper into it.
when i come to a building that needs to be documented, i explore it by shooting it, so yes i set up every 5 mins or so and take some
exposures, i am not the kind of guy who will walk around the building without a camera to find that one or two perfect angles
and then only concentrates on that, just don't understand how the numbers stack up on that.
my clients look mostly for a full documentation on their project as opposed to the one or two photos they can hang on the wall
they use these photos to get their work out, to convey their message and none of my clients can do it with a few shots.
let alone pay a full day rate for it, even the more succesfull architects who have plenty of budget for it
as for as the shop you mentioned on my website i tell you how i worked on it, a very normal way for me to work
i ask my client to set the store up, they had to remove 70% of clothing and arrange by color and take any clutter away.
i show up at 10 am, rearrange and finalise some things for 15 mins, then take 27 set ups in 40 mins.
come back at night for a couple of shots from the street side, 3 set ups 5 mins (just looked at my metadata to check it)
between coming and going getting my gear out and shooting i must have spend 1.5 hrs
the client choose 17 photos, retouch time 2 hours, so all by all including file management i spent half a day
still by common standards get paid 1.5x day rate plus on-sell the photos through my libraries.
I am not disingenuous about this at all. and will gladly send you my previews so you can check the metadata yourself.
i have come to many places where people make shooting schedules for me especially interiors
and usually allow way too much time for each area. without a doubt they are always amazed at my speed compared to previous
photographers. i don't know why but i always have tried to work fast and efficient and with this particular profession
it is now paying off incredibly well, without straining the quality of the photographic material.
assembly line? well maybe yes, but a very succesfull one, in the last 4 -5 years i have shot over 900 projects
hotels, residences schools offices, you name it.
i might be extreme but also think that some of you are extreme on the opposite side
talking about it frankly will only benefit us all
Marc, you do beautiful work. I love some of the images on your web site but I have to call BS on 300 architecture shots in a day. First, even at 5 min per shot the math doesn't work. Second, there is no way every interior shot can be 'pre-styled' to preset camera angles. The retail clothing store on your web site can not shot in five minutes per shot. Asking anybody that has styled clothes.
Take a long hard look at Rainer's work before you diss him for doing 15 shots in a day. His work is the perfect synergy of architecture and photography. Every shot is hand-sculpted to his vision of the architect's work. If I hired him and he said I could only have 1 or 2 beautiful shots a day, I would say great. This is the permanent record of my architecture and I want it to be perfect.
We do not work on an assembly line. Whether it be an American or European photography style we all translate a physical space into a 2d image. We have responsibility to not be disingenuous about this.
-
Well done Marc!
N.B Nice to have 900 projects to shoot as well.
I think here in Australia there is not that scope of work available and I think you made a good choice of setting up shop in Taiwan.
-
I think it comes down to the argument of making photographs versus taking photographs. Obviously there is more than one way to skin a cat and Marc's approach works well for him. Most of my clients have worked with me for 5 - 10 years and trust in my judgement. I don't need to approach a room from every possible angle because by the time I've set the tripod down I've already made 50 decisions. I ask my clients, "What is the purpose of this room or what do you need to say here?" and they trust me to distill the essence of that design solution into a two dimensional image. I'm hired because the clients trust my vision, appreciate my comprehension of how the architecture works and know that the shoot will always be a collaborative process.
I think it's a little safer to makes dozens of photographs... there will be several acceptable ones. For me, though, those will always be snapshots. I think in the multi-shot process you edit later to try and tell the story. I edit on the scene and then when the client and and I agree upon the composition, I light it to bring out the depth of the space and the richness of the materials.
My problem is my own ego. If I can't resolve my client's needs while staying true to my own personal vision then the work is just not rewarding. I have to craft the photographs. I have to own them. If you're just moving the camera around the room and pressing the button... how can you really own those images?
I feel very fortunate that in a time when photography and the singular image have been dramatically devalued, I can still work in a fashion that lets me take pride in every shoot.
This whole debate can become really personal and in the end it's just about what makes you happy and successful. I wish that to all of you and hope I haven't stepped on too many toes.
-CB
-
Well done Marc!
N.B Nice to have 900 projects to shoot as well.
I think here in Australia there is not that scope of work available and I think you made a good choice of setting up shop in Taiwan.
thanks willem!
indeed the scope of work is amazing here and i feel i have just scratched the surface!!
-
I think it comes down to the argument of making photographs versus taking photographs. Obviously there is more than one way to skin a cat and Marc's approach works well for him. Most of my clients have worked with me for 5 - 10 years and trust in my judgement. I don't need to approach a room from every possible angle because by the time I've set the tripod down I've already made 50 decisions. I ask my clients, "What is the purpose of this room or what do you need to say here?" and they trust me to distill the essence of that design solution into a two dimensional image. I'm hired because the clients trust my vision, appreciate my comprehension of how the architecture works and know that the shoot will always be a collaborative process.
I think it's a little safer to makes dozens of photographs... there will be several acceptable ones. For me, though, those will always be snapshots. I think in the multi-shot process you edit later to try and tell the story. I edit on the scene and then when the client and and I agree upon the composition, I light it to bring out the depth of the space and the richness of the materials.
My problem is my own ego. If I can't resolve my client's needs while staying true to my own personal vision then the work is just not rewarding. I have to craft the photographs. I have to own them. If you're just moving the camera around the room and pressing the button... how can you really own those images?
I feel very fortunate that in a time when photography and the singular image have been dramatically devalued, I can still work in a fashion that lets me take pride in every shoot.
This whole debate can become really personal and in the end it's just about what makes you happy and successful. I wish that to all of you and hope I haven't stepped on too many toes.
-CB
all good and well.........but
i don't like to be perceived though as some guy who just puts down the camera and shoots off a lot of shots nilly willy
and hopes of to get something out of the spray.
each shot i take has a reason and tells a particular story about the location, design, lay out or detail.
each time i put my tripod down I make a clear desicion and adjust height and/or angle to get what i perceive as the essence of the design.
having worked for over 20 years in the design industry doing architectural and interior design i know now
what the designer/architects wants to say and can convey that quickly and efficiently into 2d
-
all good and well.........but
i don't like to be perceived though as some guy who just puts down the camera and shoots off a lot of shots nilly willy
and hopes of to get something out of the spray.
each shot i take has a reason and tells a particular story about the location, design, lay out or detail.
each time i put my tripod down I make a clear desicion and adjust height and/or angle to get what i perceive as the essence of the design.
having worked for over 20 years in the design industry doing architectural and interior design i know now
what the designer/architects wants to say and can convey that quickly and efficiently into 2d
Now we're getting somewhere! And perhaps we do speak some of the same language. Though we may disagree on the time necessary to properly render an interior, I do find your exterior work to be exceptional.
This is what's great about the discourse available here! Rainer's work has challenged me to rethink exterior lighting and your approach has caused me to reinvestigate my own. Very cool.
-C
-
Now we're getting somewhere! And perhaps we do speak some of the same language. Though we may disagree on the time necessary to properly render an interior, I do find your exterior work to be exceptional.
This is what's great about the discourse available here! Rainer's work has challenged me to rethink exterior lighting and your approach has caused me to reinvestigate my own. Very cool.
-C
thanks for the compliments
your work is certainly outstanding as well
and yes i do enjoy this frank discussion tremendously
-
Thanks to all of you. This exchange has been most enlightening.
-
And I'm having a GREAT time "peeking in" on these exchanges - great dialogs with very open exchanges.
Learning a lot - diversity in styles that "work" being one of them.
Jack
thanks for the compliments
your work is certainly outstanding as well
and yes i do enjoy this frank discussion tremendously
-
Kirk, when the perfect angle for my lights happens to leave them reflecting all too obviously in an opposing glass wall, I simply do another exposure with those lights turned off and "paint them out" later.
That is a technique I commonly use too, sometimes in combination with HDR. Oh the the tools we have today!
-
Last week I was in the office of an Austrian Architect which works since the early 60`s. From all his Projects he has professional pictures. When I saw all the pictures I must say: we don`t need all this techniques. I have not seen any HDR Picture which I really prefer to the wonderful b+w prints of the 60s to 70s I saw there.
But in my opinion it is also much easier to take pictures from buildings which are made from phantastic architects than to make publicity shots for current standard projects. In this forum I saw a lot of boring architecture (architecture, not pictures) and the photographer must be very creative to make a good shot.
Michael Heinrich
-
2 weeks to make this shot work - mostly due to the bad run of weather we have been having in Sydney. The building briefed is the white one on the hill. It was not for the architects but for the hotel and the actual building was not going to sell itself...
This morning the light worked just right for a moment as the sun poked in and out of the clouds on the horizon...
Cheers
Murray
-
2 weeks to make this shot work - mostly due to the bad run of weather we have been having in Sydney. The building briefed is the white one on the hill. It was not for the architects but for the hotel and the actual building was not going to sell itself...
This morning the light worked just right for a moment as the sun poked in and out of the clouds on the horizon...
Cheers
Murray
wow.
so great light.
-
Last week I was in the office of an Austrian Architect which works since the early 60`s. From all his Projects he has professional pictures. When I saw all the pictures I must say: we don`t need all this techniques. I have not seen any HDR Picture which I really prefer to the wonderful b+w prints of the 60s to 70s I saw there.
But in my opinion it is also much easier to take pictures from buildings which are made from phantastic architects than to make publicity shots for current standard projects. In this forum I saw a lot of boring architecture (architecture, not pictures) and the photographer must be very creative to make a good shot.
Michael Heinrich
i think its very difficult if not impossible to make good photographs of bad architecture, which exceeds the pure "wow" effect caused by sunset or spectaculous light settings. if i am confrontated with "bad" architecture i find it most difficult to shoot details, often there are NO details which are worth to be captured.
b+w: i still love it and digital gives a very wide range of possibilities here. in most projects i choose several motifs which i convert to b+w , sometimes i get motifs which work only in b+w and i even dont render a color version of. them. most marketing guys of architect firms dont like bw , most architects do.
whats "bad" architecture?
in general i would say this is architecture where the only interest is to create money, where money counts in a way that people prefer to use cheapest material- independent f they have to spend the double amount five years later for mantainment, and of course where architects are working which have no feeling for their job and no intention , means nothing to "say". its as in all works.
i dont like doctors too who wants to make as fast as possible as much money as possible and treat me that way ....
-
i think its very difficult if not impossible to make good photographs of bad architecture, which exceeds the pure "wow" effect caused by sunset or spectaculous light settings. if i am confrontated with "bad" architecture i find it most difficult to shoot details, often there are NO details which are worth to be captured.
Absoltuely Agree,
the hardest thing is to shoot bad or just visually boring architecture - and it get's even worse when the client expects results that look like the best examples in your folio...if you find out before then you can manage expectations but if you find out after...
Murray
-
Absoltuely Agree,
the hardest thing is to shoot bad or just visually boring architecture - and it get's even worse when the client expects results that look like the best examples in your folio...if you find out before then you can manage expectations but if you find out after...
Murray
One of my clients is a manufacturer of building materials, they supply to the entire range of the industry. This includes some wonderful commercial buildings and custom homes, but also some hideous subdivisions which consist entirely of garages with houses tacked on the back. I really don't think you can call this architecture, they are mainly a product of the eyesore school of design. I asked why they even bother to shoot these, but it is politically important since these builders are good customers and feel left out if their projects aren't featured as well.
Some of my more enjoyable projects are industrial interiors, the multi coloured pipes, valves & machines etc. offer lots of potential.
-
2 weeks to make this shot work - mostly due to the bad run of weather we have been having in Sydney. The building briefed is the white one on the hill. It was not for the architects but for the hotel and the actual building was not going to sell itself...
This morning the light worked just right for a moment as the sun poked in and out of the clouds on the horizon...
Cheers
Murray
I like the light, but why the long exposure? Did the client want a 'pacific' ocean? I can understand the DOF issue, but wonder whether just a faster shot, with slightly OOF forground.
I had similar problem in Biarritz, cloudy rainy for a week. Then a little light, but really grey-needed a little PS tone work. but I was satisfied.
Better if I had the 35mm or 45mm and closer, but the DOF at f 11 was fine. (I wanted the wave because of a 'beach rescue" tournament that was scheduled! They chicked out :-))
Victor
-
the hardest thing is to shoot bad or just visually boring architecture
I agree. I have had the opportunity to photograph some of this countries best and probably some its worst architecture. There is Architecture and there is architecture. There are bad designs by great architects and great designs by unknowns. I try not to indulge in judging or critiquing my clients designs before a shoot. Every client deserves my best effort and that is hard to do if I have poisoned my thinking ahead of time. Instead I try to get inside the head of my clients and understand their enthusiasm for the project and illustrate that. As a result, some of my most satisfying work has been great images of mediocre design.
-
I found this article, and the connected related links, interesting, in the context of architectural photography:
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2009/11/review...zeski.html#more (http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2009/11/review_case_study_homes_by_peter_bialobrzeski.html#more)
-
I've enjoyed the discussions regarding architectural photography very much and learned a lot from it and also by checking out your websites (Rainer, Kirk, Christopher etc.). Shooting "bad" architecture I think also has some good sides to it. Currently most of the buildings I get to shoot are not very interesting (http://www.andersportman.com/tool/index.php?page=architecture.html). But being in this business for only 3 years, I see it as a way of entering the business and as an opportunity to learn the basic skills. Also as my clients are 99% of the time in an insane hurry (i.e. consultants selling the buildings), I seldom get the opportunity to wait for a good light which is sad of course. On the other hand a shortage of time has forced me to streamline my shooting technique and work flow which I hope will pay off in the future.
Following the discussion has given me a lot of ideas on how to improve my work and try to move up the architectural photography ladder Thanks for an inspiring discussion and the opportunity to get familiar with some great pieces of work!
//Anders
-
bad architecture vs good architecture?
shot this last month in Oviedo Spain, a typically designed building by the spanish architect Calatrava
from an esthetical point of view you can say wow what great architecture, the building on the top seems to float
it has fantastic lines etc etc
I took this shot from a building across it, somehow worked my way passed security got to the 10th floor and started ringing doorbells
This old lady opened the door and in my basic spanish I explained her that I wanted to take a shot of the building
she let me in, I took some shots and asked her if she liked it.
for at least 10 minutes she chewed my ear of as to how bad this building was from the perspective of someone who lives near it
the building was too close as you can see to other residences, it was totally overbearing for the whole neigborhood
their was a football field previously and somehow i understood that the city goverment needed money
and sold it to a developer who contracted the "starchitect" calatrava
they probably thought if Bilbao can do it so can we!!
I think that many of the most famous designers have ceased to take an interest in the practical effectiveness of
their buildings because they have become obsessed with their status as ‘artists’ or starchitects
What needs to be taking into account is not just the estheatics but structure, psychology, sociology, community planning, and of
course the many aspects of visual design. Apparently many the modern “starchitects have forgotten many of the pieces
that result in a well-rounded building.
an other example; Frank Gehry’s Los Angeles Philharmonic building; This sculptural phenom, clad in polished aluminum,
reflected so much light into nearby apartments (raising the temperature by a reported 15 degrees) that Gehry’s
building had to be covered with an unattractive fabric.
btw photo still needs retouching
-
false alarm thought the photo could not be attached!
but re-edited in previous post anyway
-
By the way, Jack.... to get back to the original question...
I've been doing this 18 years and I consider myself a damn good architectural photographer.... I've still got my sights set on "great"!
Ezra Stoller, Ken and Bill Hedrich, Julius Shulman.... great.
-
Great in my mind is elusive and something to be sought after for all of our lives rather than achieved.
If you think that you have arrived at being "Great", then the journey has ended, and you have failed.
Jack
By the way, Jack.... to get back to the original question...
I've been doing this 18 years and I consider myself a damn good architectural photographer.... I've still got my sights set on "great"!
Ezra Stoller, Ken and Bill Hedrich, Julius Shulman.... great.
-
I find this discussion fascinating, and although I am not looking to break into professional architectural photography, I would still love to increase my knowledge of it, and skills.
I think the primary thing for me is not the gear side, I am pretty confident that I will be able to figure out what gear to get and how to get it to work for me.
The more interesting question IMO is how to "understand" the space, the light, and the shadows, as well as the use and flow of people through it. I don't really know where to start here, except possibly to seek out some basic architectural textbooks. Does anyone have any recommendations in this direction?
-
Here's a good primer:
Ching: Architecture: Form Space and Order (http://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Space-Order-Francis-Ching/dp/0442215347/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1257968793&sr=8-2)
This will pull up a bunch of related selections as well.
On the photography side, there are millions of architectural monographs & journals, some were listed earlier in this thread.
Also have a look at books on perspective drawing (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=perspective+drawing&x=0&y=0).
Note that design for function is not always the same as design for photographs...
I underwent a basic education in engineering before switching to Math/Computer Science, so I think I am okay for perspective drawing. I'll look into the Ching book though, thanks for the tip.
-
If it is of any interest, I heartily recommend Building With Light: An International History of Architectural Photography (http://www.amazon.com/Building-Light-International-Architectural-Photography/dp/1858942152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258230031&sr=8-1). It's one of the few available books on the subject, the others being Architecture Transformed: A History of the Photography of Buildings from 1839 to the Present (http://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Transformed-History-Photography-Buildings/dp/0262181215/ref=pd_sim_b_1) and maybe The Photography of Architecture: Twelve Views (http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Architecture-Twelve-Views/dp/0442013493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258230065&sr=8-1). I've reproduced the first chapter of the latter here (http://www.pedrokok.com.br/blogdotfg/2008/09/22/the-photography-of-architecture-twelve-views/) (shame on me).
Pedro
-
If it is of any interest, I heartily recommend Building With Light: An International History of Architectural Photography (http://www.amazon.com/Building-Light-International-Architectural-Photography/dp/1858942152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258230031&sr=8-1). It's one of the few available books on the subject, the others being Architecture Transformed: A History of the Photography of Buildings from 1839 to the Present (http://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Transformed-History-Photography-Buildings/dp/0262181215/ref=pd_sim_b_1) and maybe The Photography of Architecture: Twelve Views (http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Architecture-Twelve-Views/dp/0442013493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258230065&sr=8-1). I've reproduced the first chapter of the latter here (http://www.pedrokok.com.br/blogdotfg/2008/09/22/the-photography-of-architecture-twelve-views/) (shame on me).
Pedro
I added those to my wishlist, thanks a lot.
-
Are most folks delivering strictly digital files to your clients, or do they demand printed media as well?
Any Canon shooters out there that are moving to the new Nikon D3x?
If so, your reasons?
Jack
-
Are most folks delivering strictly digital files to your clients, or do they demand printed media as well?
Any Canon shooters out there that are moving to the new Nikon D3x?
If so, your reasons?
Jack
I deliver file prints with all my images, sort of a "this is what your monitor is SUPPOSED to look like." No one asks for them and I never get print orders.
On the DSLR front, I'll buy a D4x when they come out, but for now the D3 serves my dslr needs... and I'm assuming a forthcoming 17mm PCe... you hear me Nikkor?!!!!
Maybe I'll ditch my 645 kit and put together a full Nikon kit to carry as backup, like the rest of yous guys.
-
That would be great! A 17 PC-e lens from Nikon.
However,it's something I can't see happening for a while.
The D3x is excellent , no complaints there.
Best,
Willem.
-
That would be great! A 17 PC-e lens from Nikon.
However,it's something I can't see happening for a while.
The D3x is excellent , no complaints there.
Best,
Willem.
I have been told by the local Nikon agent that a 17 pc is not going to happen in the near future, if at all... and yes the D3x is excellent in many ways, but it could be sweet if i was possible to mount the new canon's on it.
/adam
-
I'd rather have another PC-E in the 30-35mm range than a 17mm PC-E, personally.
-
I'm trying the 24PC-e with the TC-14A 1.4x shortly.
Rainer did try the Canon TSE's with a 1.4x converter and it works o.k.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
What I'd like to see, to allow all of us to reach our own conclusion, is a file from a D3x/24PC-E and an image shot with the Canon 1DsMKIII and the 24 TC-E II.
I've always felt Nikon glass was better than Canon, but it's been a couple of years since I've shot either.
An FTP to pull the actual full res TIFF or even RAW digital files off of would be the ideal.
Any ideas?
Jack
-
What I'd like to see, to allow all of us to reach our own conclusion, is a file from a D3x/24PC-E and an image shot with the Canon 1DsMKIII and the 24 TC-E II.
I've always felt Nikon glass was better than Canon, but it's been a couple of years since I've shot either.
An FTP to pull the actual full res TIFF or even RAW digital files off of would be the ideal.
Any ideas?
Jack
Somewhat related: Lloyd Chambers has an excellent write up on pushing the shadows with the D3x vs. the 5DII:
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/PushingT...acks/index.html (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/PushingTheBlacks/index.html)
I hope this thread doesn't turn in to a pixelpeeing/gear chat-fest though. This stuff certainly has little to do with becoming a great architectural photographer.
-
I'm trying the 24PC-e with the TC-14A 1.4x shortly.
Rainer did try the Canon TSE's with a 1.4x converter and it works o.k.
Cheers,
Willem.
i tested my 24TSEmk2 with the old 1.4x teleconverter against the olympus 35mm shift on my canon 5D and the olympus was one class better, especially in the corners and regarding distortion. might have to try the 1.4TCmk2 in the future.
philipp
-
I hope this thread doesn't turn in to a pixelpeeing/gear chat-fest though. This stuff certainly has little to do with becoming a great architectural photographer.
I agree, but I'm now at the point of defining whether to go Nikon/Canon. As we have no rental gear in Naples, that option is out unless I want to drive to Miami, which I'd prefer to skip.
Please note that I'm asking for IMAGES shot with T/S lenses to form my OWN opinion, or links to where this has already been discussed with examples, rather than others personal opinions/bias about gear. In a RAW file is where the decision will be made by ME. (Note: I found the article link you provided to be quite interesting and on target with what I'm seeking - thanks.)
I know that the image I'll get from an SLR will not rival the image from a 39MP MFDB (back when I had hair on my head, many moons ago, I worked with Nikon and Hasselblad in developing/testing their very first digital cameras). But a DSLR is the most cost effective way to pursue the AP market for me in this economy with T/S lenses at a fraction of the cost of a MFDB prime lens.
It's a given that I'll have to re-program my eye and standards - in short, I've got to "fall out of Love" with my Hasselblad!
This is one of the best threads and has gone exactly in the direction I had hoped when I started it. I expect for quite some time folks thinking of going into the AP market will find the data presented in these two threads very valuable, I sure have!
Jack
-
I agree, but I'm now at the point of defining whether to go Nikon/Canon. As we have no rental gear in Naples, that option is out unless I want to drive to Miami, which I'd prefer to skip.
Please note that I'm asking for IMAGES shot with T/S lenses to form my OWN opinion, or links to where this has already been discussed with examples, rather than others personal opinions/bias about gear. In a RAW file is where the decision will be made by ME. (Note: I found the article link you provided to be quite interesting and on target with what I'm seeking - thanks.)
I know that the image I'll get from an SLR will not rival the image from a 39MP MFDB (back when I had hair on my head, many moons ago, I worked with Nikon and Hasselblad in developing/testing their very first digital cameras). But a DSLR is the most cost effective way to pursue the AP market for me in this economy with T/S lenses at a fraction of the cost of a MFDB prime lens.
It's a given that I'll have to re-program my eye and standards - in short, I've got to "fall out of Love" with my Hasselblad!
This is one of the best threads and has gone exactly in the direction I had hoped when I started it. I expect for quite some time folks thinking of going into the AP market will find the data presented in these two threads very valuable, I sure have!
Jack
whats for me always an essential question is the workflow. i leaned myself far out the window to create such workflow in mf and finally it saved me a ton of time, i think i wouldnt have started ( or went on ) in 2005 with sinar, if stefan would not have helped writing the programs for a convenient batch workflow. and sinar was not the only one! leaf was 100% unacceptable with its centerfold ( sinar too, but here stefan saved the game once more again ... ), the kodak chips havent looked to me on par with dalsa and the C1 workflow to correct color casts was completely inconvenient at that time. hasselblad still said that there is no colorcast so nothing to correct, i did not agree seeing green- magenta casted files as soon a lens was shifted. it was stone-age for digital on location shooting ....
my camera was custom made from gottschalk, cause same situation here than with the backs. for me it was ( and still is ) a 100% no option to work either with view finders,
or with a removable ground glass/ sensor and/ or with a bellow based system to focus. i shoot mostly untethered and often on cranes, no need to make this more complicate as it already is.
so if the canon works or not will depend a lot how comfortable i can compose and work with it, including here the postpro. optically it seems to be over the top now, and resolution/sensor wise too, but i need more experience here in practical work.
i just visited an exhibition in Munich of my bangkok photographer friend Ralf Tooten: Bangkok Noir .
oh man. so nice photography, so atmosphaeric. and not any miss for my taste for detail even at 5" wide prints.
beautyfull grain ( digital ), great colors. all done with a kodak slr and a nikon 3d with 12mp but with a great eye .....
my direction clearly goes another way than to raise up detail sharpness. and DR depends very much on how you shoot and how you post.
i do many if not most of my mf shots stacking exposures too, so no real problem to spread that 1/2 step further or even 1stop working with 35mm.
i will start to use the canon right now in smaller and also personal projects, i have a very small shoot on sunday but also i have to go to south africa in february
for a larger project, for both i will shoot with the canon system only.
i will report.
-
Rainer's comments show exactly why this debate is so pointless. I mean we all work in different ways and we have to judge for ourselves what tools are most compatible with our workflow. I spend the bulk of my time indoors where the camera stays put for an hour or two (or three). I find that working on a view camera tethered to a laptop gives me the highest quality I can achieve and in the scheme of producing the shots it doesn't slow me down at all.
I have also shot tethered to the computer from a crane and let me tell you, the whole time I was up there I was wishing I had a dslr, so I know firsthand where Rainer is coming from. The process that I typically prefer would be totally incompatible with his daily workflow.
In the end, it's just a matter of knowing your tools and using the one that will get you the best shot in that situation.
I'm done talking about formats now.
Crop: I recently worked for a new client who asked that I shoot everything to 4x5 proportion. I think it's largely due to the fact that he's always seen his work on 4x5 chrome. When I shot film I always composed for the full frame. Now that the P65+ gives me so many pixels, I find myself cropping all over the place with little regard to proportion, just going with what feels right.
Do you guys try to constrain yourselves at all for consistency?
-C
(http://christopherbarrett.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/photo.jpg)
-
Ashley,
Could you define you for us the process of shooting and processiing on the last image?
Lighting/number of exposures/layers/etc.
- looks like that one was quite challenging to my eye, yet the results I find striking!
And yes, the square image! I've loved it's look ever since my 500cm and 503cw days!
Thanks,
Jack
-
Do you guys try to constrain yourselves at all for consistency?
Like you, when I shot 4x5, I always composed to the 4x5 format, always tying to create a chrome that required no cropping. Part of that was shear professional pride, wanting to deliver perfect chromes. Over the years more than a few magazine art directors and other clients commented on that so I guess it paid off. In one case it led to years of assignments from a national magazine. After seeing a stock submital, they called me commenting on the perfect full frame compositions and asked if I was willing to travel. This was early in my career and was a big boost to my career.
Now as I mainly shoot DSLR, YES. To get a decent file from a 21MP camera one must work at using the whole file and minimizing any interpolation etc. So yes, I carefully compose to the format, carefully align etc. so as much of the original file remains intact. Having said that I don't hesitate to stitch (which builds file size and averts the previous issues mentioned) to a variety of final, even random, formats (whatever fits the space). I also do some HDR and a fair amount of focus stacking (a huge boon to shooting architectural models where we could never get enough depth of field before). So it is a bit of both worlds.
As per the format of the final image, since most images are used by architects for electronic competition submissions (DVD slide show), magazine submissions, and websites the format shape is allot more flexible than it was when the 8x10 print or 4x5 chrome was the norm. For the electronic submissions the format is irrelevant and I find magazines appreciate the variety. So I deliver a big mix, primarily FF DSLR format but always a few panoramas etc.
-
Ashley,
Your work makes a fellow Irishman proud!
Thanks for info.
Jack
-
Thanks Jack (http://www.irish-nationalism.net/forum/images/smilies/gnome.gif)
These images probably come under the heading of 'advertising' more... as opposed to 'architectural'.
Having said that, 'Architectural Photography' in theory covers a huge range of things.
It's not just about the exterior of buildings, which most people first think of when they talk about Architectural Photography, it's about the interior too and everything within.
Plus it's not just about shooting for Architects; in fact, I'd personally say Architects were way, way down the list of people who actually need images in this field. Their actual Usage requirements are usually not that great; as a result, their budget for images are usually not that great neither.
It's been years since I've produced any images for an Architect to use; however, I've shot loads of 'architectural' stuff (including their homes and projects they have worked on) but it's been for others to use, not them.
Ashley
Largely true in my experience.
IME-this is rough and not meant to be rigid-there are allot of exceptions-the lowest end of the market would be for residential realtors (not of multi-million dollar houses), then editorial for local magazines, then small contractors, then local interior designers, then large contractors, local architects, editorial for national magazines, local ad agencies, national architects and interior designers, at the top is ads for national manufactures, big hotel chains, big retailers, annual reports etc. I work mainly for architects and related magazines because I love architecture and enjoy shooting it, I understand their needs and enjoy working with them, but their are more lucrative AP markets.
For beginners......You need actual assignment results in your portfolio, not just images you shot for yourself. Use the low end of the market which is more accessible to build your portfolio, equipment, expertise, personal style etc. Leverage assignments to move up the ladder ie leverage a shoot for a local commercial contractor to include more sophisticated clients involved in the project like the architect or high end materials manufactures. Does the project have stock potential for trade or consumer magazines? Don't shoot to the lowest expectations of an undemanding client. Even if you blow your estimate. Shoot to the level of client you want to move to.
-
That one was 99% as you see it.
Timing was the key - because like you say, it would have been quite a challenge otherwise to light.
This is part of the reason why we would recce the place beforehand - when taking on large projects like this.
Out of the 30+ images produced, that was one of the few that didn't need to be lit.
Some of my other favourites from that shoot:
(http://www.ashleymorrison.com/pictures/Castle-27.jpg)
(http://www.ashleymorrison.com/pictures/Castle-22.jpg)
(http://www.ashleymorrison.com/pictures/Castle-17.jpg)
(http://www.ashleymorrison.com/pictures/Castle-15.jpg)
(http://www.ashleymorrison.com/pictures/Castle-26.jpg)
As for the cameras - the 503's and FlexBody's are still my main workhorses.
Living in hope, that one day they will produce a full frame 6x6 digital back.
Cheers,
Ashley
great! really like your work,
you have developped a very own distinctive photography style, something very difficult in any kind of photography.
Tom
-
To bring the focus of this thread back to discussing equipment that has and has not worked, has anyone ever experimented with the Cambo X-2 Pro camera system?
Here is a link to their site:
http://www.cambo.com/ (http://www.cambo.com/)
Interesting concept and would allow use of the quality Schneider and Rodenstock lenses with a Canon or Nikon.
Jack
-
To bring the focus of this thread back to discussing equipment that has and has not worked, has anyone ever experimented with the Cambo X-2 Pro camera system?
Here is a link to their site:
http://www.cambo.com/ (http://www.cambo.com/)
Interesting concept and would allow use of the quality Schneider and Rodenstock lenses with a Canon or Nikon.
Jack
I see that like arca's dslr version of the M2, you are limited to Schneider's questionable retrofocus 28mm and then the next widest is a 72mm. Not real usable for architecture.
-
Thanks Chris.
I'll count that one out.
I'm still working on cost effective way to keep my Hassie and yet have T/S capability - about to give up and go the Canon/Nikon route with T/S lenses.
Was also considering Cambo WRS with a couple of lenses - far more affordable than the arTek route - but I just don't see a sliding back.
I hate the idea of constantly moving my back on and off to focus/shoot/etc.
Just won't do it - I shake too much and clumsy is my middle name. And Murphy's Law is the axiom that has defined my Life.
Jack
I see that like arca's dslr version of the M2, you are limited to Schneider's questionable retrofocus 28mm and then the next widest is a 72mm. Not real usable for architecture.
-
Thanks Chris.
I'll count that one out.
I'm still working on cost effective way to keep my Hassie and yet have T/S capability - about to give up and go the Canon/Nikon route with T/S lenses.
Was also considering Cambo WRS with a couple of lenses - far more affordable than the arTek route - but I just don't see a sliding back.
I hate the idea of constantly moving my back on and off to focus/shoot/etc.
Just won't do it - I shake too much and clumsy is my middle name. And Murphy's Law is the axiom that has defined my Life.
Jack
Whay don't you take a look at silvestri's products? they are not bad and you can use the sliding back also with the 24mm...
They seem to be a cheaper option...
-
Whay don't you take a look at silvestri's products? they are not bad and you can use the sliding back also with the 24mm...
They seem to be a cheaper option...
I knew a chap that owned the gear - he never seemed to be happy with it - problems on Focus - not being even across the image plane.
Thus, I've been a bit reserved of their gear.
Jack
-
So glad this thread turned about page 3 to a question of differing trans-Atlantic aesthetics.
I was fuming over some of the pictures referenced here . . . personally, I favour 'lit' exteriors but the examples shown, using 92 lights, had me choking in my cornflakes! Yes, you could get that shot with six assistants, 92 lights and a dozen multi-kilowatt generators: or you could turn up alone, with no lights, wait patiently for 20 minutes, capture 3 exposures and sensitively blend them manually in PP to achieve PRECISELY the same effect.
Similarly, invading a home or public space with a cavalcade of expensive lighting, and assistants to operate them - TRYING to achieve that nasty, over-lit 'actually, this is just a studio set' look could be considered insane.
There are specific instances when a room needs help, and sensitive use of artificial lighting can be almost as good as the real thing . . . but there's no substitute for patience, natural light and lots of post-production (in my view). It's also much less intrusive and time-consuming on location. And cheaper.
Being British, I'm surprised we haven't spoken a lot more about the weather. Outside of New Mexico, the best architectural photographers are also part-time meteorologists!
How all this is charged is also an interesting and rarely discussed question: the day rate mentality is hard to change, but with more and more being done in post, and with unpredictable time spent on site, many clients would still like to see change from the quote if shots are bagged quicker than expected . . . whereas we might feel that it demonstrates our skill and proficiency which should be priced commensurately. We're focused on the value of the image, they may be more interested in the budget allocated to the whole project, of which our photographs are just a component.
Regarding charging by time spent on the job vs. a creative fee, when the shooting is dependent upon circumstances beyond the photographer's control, such as the weather, it just seems to make sense to charge a creative fee. After all, by allowing for a certain shooting schedule based on uncertainties, the photographer might have to turn down other work. No?
-
I don't know if you guys have seen the Julius Shulman documentary, but it's absolutely phenomenal!
Must see!
-
Can I take the conversation back to the day rate versus per shot topic. I have shot in fashion for most of my career and Architecture is a fairly new direction for me so I'm still coming to terms with the best way to price things. Initially I have been working off a day rate but the variation in output varies wildly, i.e. one job may require 5 or 6 shots and another 20+, so I am thinking to have a day rate for 1-10 shots and another for 11 +. Then of course that can fall down a bit if the extra shots required are 1 or 2 rather than 10, so I then thought maybe a day rate for 1-10 and per shot therafter.
Some of the posts have referred to a per shot basis from the outset, how does that work if the client only requires 1 shot (unlikely I know). Also the higher the shot output the more time spent in post production, how is everybody squaring that?
-
Can I take the conversation back to the day rate versus per shot topic. I have shot in fashion for most of my career and Architecture is a fairly new direction for me so I'm still coming to terms with the best way to price things. Initially I have been working off a day rate but the variation in output varies wildly, i.e. one job may require 5 or 6 shots and another 20+, so I am thinking to have a day rate for 1-10 shots and another for 11 +. Then of course that can fall down a bit if the extra shots required are 1 or 2 rather than 10, so I then thought maybe a day rate for 1-10 and per shot therafter.
Some of the posts have referred to a per shot basis from the outset, how does that work if the client only requires 1 shot (unlikely I know). Also the higher the shot output the more time spent in post production, how is everybody squaring that?
Let me ask that we take the above topic over to part Three of the series, The Business Practices:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39513 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39513)
Thanks,
Jack
-
removed
-
This is a terrific thread that offers many diverse points of view regarding business, aesthetics, workflow, technique and equipment, and I think it deserves a bump.
Also, I would like to expand the discussion to ask about how photographers are dealing with limited access for obtaining the best ambient lighting and/or deploying supplementary lighting and light modification. And, is there any way photographers have found to help clients who are less experienced with using high-quality professional photography to ensure that they can obtain as much access as possible to their projects, in order to obtain the best quality photos under the circumstances.
Specific problems relating to access would be things such as access to do scouting photos, the amount of time available to capture the final photos, the ability to rearrange furnishings, access to controls for the "house" lighting, access for covering or filtering windows and house lights, and so on.
-
Hi David - this is Jack Brady - the chap that started this thread and part 2 as well.
I to am surprised that more current info and sharing of images/work has not been posted.
Let's see if we can wake up some of the folks to see how their techniques and tools have changed.
Jack
-
Hi Jack,
Nice to see you around! On the personal side, I am around getting a 24/3.5 TS system, just the camera (A7rII) missing, and I will do some nice travel to medieval cities. Hopefully, some nice pictures will results.
Best regards
Erik
Hi David - this is Jack Brady - the chap that started this thread and part 2 as well.
I to am surprised that more current info and sharing of images/work has not been posted.
Let's see if we can wake up some of the folks to see how their techniques and tools have changed.
Jack
-
Hi David - this is Jack Brady - the chap that started this thread and part 2 as well.
I to am surprised that more current info and sharing of images/work has not been posted.
Let's see if we can wake up some of the folks to see how their techniques and tools have changed.
Jack
Hi Jack,
Glad to see you coming back to this thread after a long time. I would love to hear how things have gone for you in terms of 'greatness' and 'success' as far as architectural photography goes? Any lessons to share along the way?
Thanks for starting a great thread.
-
... this is Jack Brady - the chap that started this thread and part 2 as well...
Hi Jack,
I can't find #2 with the search. Perhaps it would be useful to post links in each of the three installments to the other two?
-
Hi Jack,
I can't find #2 with the search. Perhaps it would be useful to post links in each of the three installments to the other two?
Here it is: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=39035
Search didn't find, but it was easier to go to Lust4Life's profile page, click on 'show last posts', then go to page 10 or so.
-
Hi Jack,
Nice to hear about your plans for a new carier! Seems your health improved a lot in in the recent year!
I don't know about gear for architecture, but gear is always intended to solve problems. So find out which problems you face and than find the gear to serve you. With digital photography we can do a lot without special tools, for instance I do a lot of stitching.
Best regards
Erik
I have a long history of shooting landscapes and really enjoy it (http://www.shadowsdancing.com), however I do not find it a profitable venture.
I’ve become quite interested in Architectural Photography for two reasons:
Beauty of the structure/s
Capacity to generate revenue in a hopefully more predictable manner than Landscape Photography
Given –
I’m 63 and retired software developer on SGI platform. I have a long history in digital image capture going back to the days of the Eikonics arrays.
I currently own:
Hasselblad H3D11-39MP
28mm, 80mm, 150mm
RRS Ultimate Omni-Pivot Package on Gitzo Carbon Tripod
I’m seeking suggestions/direction about:
Equipment required to do the best of work
Successful methods of marketing my services - seek architects, developers, high end realtors??????
Other ideas I’m not aware of to ask yet
I feel I have enough energy to start a new career and I want it to be a profitable one - thus Architectural Photography seems a natural transition to me.
I have been experimenting with local structures, some of the condos on the beach here in Naples, FL are beautiful, and find it fascinating but different than Landscpaes.
Hoping my knowledge of HDR might allow me to focus solely on Natural Light rather than getting into a menagerie of lighting setups.
I want to do this solo, not with an assistant.
Observations from folks actually earning a living from Architectural work and shooting digitally would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jack
-
Here it is: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=39035
Search didn't find, but it was easier to go to Lust4Life's profile page, click on 'show last posts', then go to page 10 or so.
Thanks for that. I had quit around page 6 or 7. :D