Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?  (Read 86776 times)

haefnerphoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
    • http://www.jameshaefner.com
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #60 on: October 18, 2009, 08:25:33 pm »

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]
« Last Edit: October 18, 2009, 09:07:03 pm by haefnerphoto »
Logged

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2009, 04:36:55 pm »

Quote from: Yelhsa
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.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.



Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2009, 04:54:04 pm »

Quote from: Yelhsa
.......
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.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.
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

collum

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
    • http://www.jcollum.com
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #63 on: October 19, 2009, 04:57:48 pm »

Quote from: stevesanacore
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
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2009, 06:36:03 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2009, 06:42:18 pm by Kirk Gittings »
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #65 on: October 20, 2009, 06:31:11 am »

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
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.

Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #66 on: October 20, 2009, 06:40:41 am »

Quote from: Yelhsa
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.ashleymorrison.com
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #67 on: October 20, 2009, 06:47:18 am »

Quote from: collum
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.
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

collum

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
    • http://www.jcollum.com
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #68 on: October 20, 2009, 10:20:45 am »

Logged

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #69 on: October 20, 2009, 05:51:12 pm »

Quote from: Yelhsa
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.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.
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #70 on: October 20, 2009, 06:18:18 pm »

Quote from: John-S
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.


Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

MarkWelsh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #71 on: October 22, 2009, 04:20:01 am »

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.
Logged

marcwilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 411
    • http://www.marcwilson.co.uk
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #72 on: October 22, 2009, 06:22:10 am »

Quote from: MarkWelsh
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
Logged
www.marcwilson.co.uk [url=http://www.mar

MarkWelsh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #73 on: October 22, 2009, 06:30:11 am »

Quote from: marcwilson
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.
Logged

bernhardmarks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
    • http://www.bernhard-marks.de
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #74 on: October 22, 2009, 07:03:50 am »

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

haefnerphoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
    • http://www.jameshaefner.com
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #75 on: October 22, 2009, 08:21:51 am »

I've found that Photomatix's exposure blending mode works very well to create a believable and natural looking base file.  Jim
Logged

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #76 on: October 22, 2009, 10:44:52 am »

Quote from: marcwilson
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.  
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
    • Shadows Dancing
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #77 on: October 22, 2009, 11:46:48 am »

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

Quote from: haefnerphoto
I've found that Photomatix's exposure blending mode works very well to create a believable and natural looking base file.  Jim

marcwilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 411
    • http://www.marcwilson.co.uk
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #78 on: October 22, 2009, 12:17:32 pm »

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
Logged
www.marcwilson.co.uk [url=http://www.mar

haefnerphoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
    • http://www.jameshaefner.com
Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?
« Reply #79 on: October 22, 2009, 10:32:44 pm »

Quote from: Lust4Life
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]


Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Up