If I sent my clients IB style images, I would lose them as clients. One in particular has a definite style in mind and I think most of the European photographers here would hate it. The funny thing is I have pushed them a long way toward realistic from where they started. The person who hires me is the AD and they want me to execute on their vision to help grow the company's visual brand. Admittedly, this is more lifestyle than pure architecture. As I start to market more toward architects, I expect this will change.
Whether lifestyle and architecture are linked is a discussion I won't wade into. I think they are and I want to make photos that not only show the space, but show how it's used -- photos that make you feel like you can walk into them. One of my colleagues prefers photos that show no trace of people beyond the architecture itself, and another likes photos that look like the people just stepped out of frame. I'm not sure there really is a right answer, just what you and your clients like. I'm not a huge fan of much of Iwan Baan's work (that is not a slight against him or his clients, I doubt they would like mine), but I like that it is at the opposite extreme from what was a major trend in America architectural photography over the past decade where the lighting can overshadow the architecture and become the subject.
I think people get too excited about equipment, it is the vision that matters. There is a photographer I know who shoots mostly available light, but his final images are really over the top (IMO of course). Another photographer lights in a way that you might think creates really over the top images, but his processing style is very conservative and restrained. Sometimes I use a bunch of strobes, sometimes a bunch of tungsten lights, occasionally available light, but the end result similar. I use lights mostly to create shadow because it is the play between the two that creates space. I know photographers who want to get everything in camera and others who just capture data and creating the image in post. In either case, it is the photographer's vision that dictates the final image, not the equipment that was used during capture.
