I'll probably take early retirement from my (non-photographic) career soon, so I've been building up an architectural photographic business over the last few years. I didn't start completely from scratch as I completed a degree in photography thirty years ago and have been involved in stock photography with a travel and architectural bias ever since.
I began by cold calling on property developers, I didn't want a web site because I wanted more control over the flow of work that comes in. That first job quickly led to working for other developers, architects, and manufacturers of building materials, mainly because I worked as hard at networking from that first job as on the photography!
This now more than fills up my available free time, so for the last 18 months I've been sub-contracting nearly half of the work to another photographer. The experience underlines a lesson I learnt during my photographic degree, if I'm honest I'm just an average photographer, but I'm a lot better than most photographers at running a photography business. In particular I don't find it difficult to generate new commissions and ensure they're profitable. Although I'm less confident that it'll be quite so easy in the future, the business climate (at least here in the UK) has been exceptionally benign for the last decade, but there's now signs of tougher times ahead for the construction industry. Architectural photographers can expect to take their share of the pain in a construction slow down.
My architectural photographic work falls into a number of categories.
Firstly, there's a market for "site progress photography", the regular recording of construction. It's not very well paid and it's dull, but this sometimes forms part of a wider commission so it has to be done. I'm looking at getting a trailer mounted, 30 metre photographic mast with a remote controlled Canon on the top as a way of adding some value and improving prices in this area.
Next is producing the photographs for the sales brochures, company published accounts, and materials for site marketing offices. The skills needed are as much Photoshop based as photographic. These shots will usually be taken in the final stages of construction, but need to portray the finished project. You need to remove the builder's skips, scaffolding, safety fences etc from the image, it's why I'm convinced that an all-digital approach is the way forward. However, because "high quality" in the commercial as opposed to fine art world, rarely means larger than 300 dpi at A4, or very occasionally A3, then a Canon 5D and a trio of Canon Tilt & Shift lenses is pretty much all you need. I still regularly use a Linhof with a Phase One back, but I often wonder if this is just technical overkill or justification of premium prices to the customer. Although, architects seem to have an enduring fascination with technical cameras and usually nod approvingly at the Linhof! Developers on the other hand couldn't care less, but normally get very excited at a dated shot taken with a fisheye lens or a star burst filter!
The most lucrative part of my business comes from equipment manufacturers, everything from hot water tanks to specialist ridge tiles. They have a steady need for in-situ product shots, and as their ranges are constantly changing this market seems inexhaustable. In Europe at least there's also a very specific requirement for shots of products from one country used in the vernacular construction context another country. I'll give you an example that also illustrates the difference between being a photographer and making money from photography. I was in Russia as part of my non-photographic job when I met someone who was completing a timber framed "dacha", or country cottage, that he'd sourced from a Danish company. On spec I spent a few days during the next few business trips photographing the build and the property, and then contacted the company in Denmark. They were anxious to develop the Russian market and wanted shots of their product in what was clearly a Russian environment, consequently I could negotiate a price that pretty much paid for my Phase One P25.
Discussing architectural photography today wouldn't be complete with a mention of environmental building practices. "Green" construction shots account for the majority of my stock photography income. Over the course of two years I compiled a portfolio of rooftop shots of European cities. I'm enduringly proud of the work, but the hard fact is that I've made far more money from a half day of technical shots illustrating 200mm under-floor insulation rafts than from all those lovingly crafted images of Dubrovnik, Stockholm, Lisbon, and Prague! Environmental architectural stock photography is in huge demand at the moment, and the more pedestrian, specific, and technical you can make your shots the more they'll earn. There's a million stock shots of Canterbury Cathedral or Stonehenge, but the competition is a lot thinner and the budgets a lot fatter when it comes to compacting toilets or trombe wall solar power units.
Interiors are a large part of any architectural photographer's workload. Personally I stay clear of magazine work (which is overwhelmingly interiors based) because the pay isn't normally that great and the editorial staff are very particular about the timing of the job. Interiors in the pre-digital era tended to be expensive to handle because the lighting component demanded at least one assistant, that often came out of the photographer's margin. The massive latitude possible with digital and Photoshop means that, at the bread and butter end of the job scale, you can complete a lot of interiors without complex lighting. But higher up the quality scale you'll still often need lighting, and that can cost as much in equipment (and a lot more in set-up time) than the rest of your photographic kit combined, certainly if you're a film based photographer.
However, it's not as easy as just saying no to interiors. They're sometimes the most profitable part of the job, and they're often the reason a professional gets involved at all. There's been a trend over the last few years for amateur photographers to progressively nibble away at the professional's cake. I can still remember when estate agents would commission professionals for the majority of domestic house sales. Nowadays it's invariably the estate agency staff who take the sales shots with the office digital camera. And when I look at even some large commercial property brochures they clearly bear the same amateur stamp. But quality interior photography has largely resisted this assault, chiefly because it's technically and creatively very demanding. So if you're interested in a career as an architectural photographer interiors are a key area to develop your skills and portfolio.
