Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer

[CBarrett]

Is the line really a part of the architecture? Or more a part of the way the photographer looks at the architecture?
This is not  to critisize the work of Christopher, it's more a fundamental question of who's in a picture: the architect or the photographer (respectively the architect's work or the photographer's work).
This is a question I ask myself daily (or every hour...) photographing architecture. Or where is the right balance between the two possible answers? Between documentation and interpretation? How much of each is necessary or desired?

There are no simple answers, I think.

Thanks for the compliments, guys and Thom I think that's a sound criticism and raises some significant issues.  Taken out of the context of the project that each shot came from, the approach feels very heavy handed, but I always felt like each one of those was like my signature at the bottom of the overall shoot.  While they do impress my view upon the architecture, I think you can get away with a little of that if carefully balanced.

Interestingly enough, the first shot, the greenish elevator lobby was not my idea... that composition belongs to the designer... so is it even that I am projecting myself into the environment or am I simply pulling out elements that I, the architect or the general public are all free to observe when given a chance to walk the line?  Perhaps the bulk of my clients just share a compatible vision?

It brings to light another interesting dilemma, truthful representation.  When we started doing digital retouching at Hedrich Blessing, the senior partner questioned the legitimacy of the resulting images.  I countered the argument by stating that we are deceiving the public the moment we place the camera.  When you set up your first light, you are altering the real experience of that space.  When taking any specific 2 dimensional viewpoint how can you be an impartial observer?  And is that out purpose?

Then again, our clients have to make so many compromises along the way... value engineering, poor workmanship, poor judgment on the part of their client all diminish the original design intent.  I think that my job is to render that intent more so than the reality, just as advertising shows us idealized human forms, glistening bottles of beer and the perfect cheeseburger.  I compose, light and yes, retouch to achieve what I feel was the spirit of the project and it often takes so much effort to comprehend that spirit, that enforcing a preformulated compositional approach often gets in the way.  But my ways evolve... lately I'm shooting wider, more obliquely and more spontaneously.  

I don't know if all of these hypotheses can yield clarity and help us make more successful imagery or if they just muddy the water...  Many of us are quite adept at making photographs by the seat of our pants.  In the end I just want to have fun, have my clients come back smiling and support my family.

Hmm, more coffee.  I definitely need more coffee.

[Lust4Life]

Great reflections that touch on what I've been pondering since starting these two threads.

I've looked at most every shooters work that has contributed to these two threads, and a hundred more AP sites.
USA work generally, at least from following the work of contributors on this topic, "paint" the scene with dramatic lighting.
Europeans generally reflect far more of what is "reality" by no lights, or very few.

Is this not a bit of our culture in the USA - try to make reality bigger than life???
(I could take off on a tangent of Silicone Implants, but I won't.)    

I admit to finding the work of a buddies images, Jeffory Jacobs, absolutely beautiful!
The images of the cabin is one excellent example - used over 100 lights!  Striking artistry and demonistration of a mastery of supplemental lighting.
Here's a link - click on the Cabin and have a read:
http://www.jeffreyjacobsphoto.com/news.asp

But is it reality?  No, unless the property owner wants to invest in massive lighting and pay the boost in the monthly electric bill.
But it's beautiful.  

Thus, the dilemma I find of interest; Reality or Altered Reality representation of the scene - are we being true to what a visitor to the scene will find once we and our lighting, and PS Magic, are gone?

Is the representation of Reality of importance?

Jack

Thanks for the compliments, guys and Thom I think that's a sound criticism and raises some significant issues.  Taken out of the context of the project that each shot came from, the approach feels very heavy handed, but I always felt like each one of those was like my signature at the bottom of the overall shoot.  While they do impress my view upon the architecture, I think you can get away with a little of that if carefully balanced.

Interestingly enough, the first shot, the greenish elevator lobby was not my idea... that composition belongs to the designer... so is it even that I am projecting myself into the environment or am I simply pulling out elements that I, the architect or the general public are all free to observe when given a chance to walk the line?  Perhaps the bulk of my clients just share a compatible vision?

It brings to light another interesting dilemma, truthful representation.  When we started doing digital retouching at Hedrich Blessing, the senior partner questioned the legitimacy of the resulting images.  I countered the argument by stating that we are deceiving the public the moment we place the camera.  When you set up your first light, you are altering the real experience of that space.  When taking any specific 2 dimensional viewpoint how can you be an impartial observer?  And is that out purpose?

Then again, our clients have to make so many compromises along the way... value engineering, poor workmanship, poor judgment on the part of their client all diminish the original design intent.  I think that my job is to render that intent more so than the reality, just as advertising shows us idealized human forms, glistening bottles of beer and the perfect cheeseburger.  I compose, light and yes, retouch to achieve what I feel was the spirit of the project and it often takes so much effort to comprehend that spirit, that enforcing a preformulated compositional approach often gets in the way.  But my ways evolve... lately I'm shooting wider, more obliquely and more spontaneously.  

I don't know if all of these hypotheses can yield clarity and help us make more successful imagery or if they just muddy the water...  Many of us are quite adept at making photographs by the seat of our pants.  In the end I just want to have fun, have my clients come back smiling and support my family.

Hmm, more coffee.  I definitely need more coffee.

[Kirk Gittings]

Between documentation and interpretation? How much of each is necessary or desired?

The answer for me, when the client is an architect, both. I am paid for both my eye and technical expertise. All photography requires interpretation just from the basic activity of framing an image, making a visual selection, but for some images it goes far beyond the process of selection.  Over the course of an entire shoot, I must deliver images that both accurately depict the volumes, masses, setting, facades etc. and I must deliver images that interpret the feel of the design. It is in attempting to interpret the feel of the design where I am most aesthetically free. Here are a few examples that I did recently for a project. I'm never sure that the client will appreciate some of my more abstract interpretations, but usually my more creative clients appreciate my more creative images. Project, the Aperture Center, Mesa del Sol, New Mexico, Antoine Predock Architect.

[attachment=17897:Aperture06.jpg] [attachment=17898:Aperture09.jpg] [attachment=17899:Aperture08.jpg]

[adammork]

Thus, the dilemma I find of interest; Reality or Altered Reality representation of the scene - are we being true to what a visitor to the scene will find once we and our lighting, and PS Magic, are gone?

Is the representation of Reality of importance?

Jack

first thanks for one of the best threads so far

Despite that I'm are not using lights here in europe - I can sometime be quite far from reality, I'm not making documentary here! I move things away, photoshop them away, move people from one exposure to an other so they are standing in the space just where I want them, and so on.... I also choose careful what to see, and most importen what not to see!!

But - and this is most importen - I always try to be faithful to the space I'm photographing - and since space are created with light and shadow, I find it to be the architects job to light it through daylight and/or artificial light - it's my choice of timing that can make my images different from others - and you can say that I'm "lighting" the space that way - but I'm not adding more light than already been given to me by the architect - It's now up to me to get the best out of it.

It's impressive too add 100 lights and controlling them technical perfect - but from my point of view as an architect, it's like turning architectural photography in to product photography - and make architecture looks like perfect beautiful images of jewels in a catalogue.

But maybe I'm wrong - here in denmark this november we have had only 3 hours of sun so far.... so what kind of lights can you recommend  

Kind regards
adam

[Kirk Gittings]

If anyone is interested, I will be teaching architectural photography at some interesting venues this coming year.

The first is a summer credit class primarily for university students, at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. where I have been asked once again to be a Visiting Artist. This class is jointly offered by the departments of Photography, Historic Preservation and Architecture, classes are Monday, Wednesday and Friday, June 1st to July 9th 2010. I don't have the class number as yet-the official class schedules are not posted yet. This class is a bit pricey (especially if you include lodging in Chicago for 6 weeks) but has attracted students from all over the world. It is primarily DSLR digital. I actually lose money teaching this class (by missing assignments) but I love the interaction with the students and being in Chicago.

The second is a workshop in Hartford Conn. at the New England Large Format Photography Collective annual conference. This workshop is about seeing architecture and is set in the historic Hartford City Hall. It is a Sunday morning workshop on April 10th 2010. The cost is very reasonable and included in the cost of the conference. This workshop is primarily largeformat film.[attachment=17902:hc.png]

see:NELFPC and scroll down past where I am giving the Friday evening talk to the workshop on architectural photography. There are many other interesting presentations at this conference and well worth the cost.

Email me if you have any questions.

[rainer_v]

first thanks for one of the best threads so far

Despite that I'm are not using lights here in europe - I can sometime be quite far from reality, I'm not making documentary here! I move things away, photoshop them away, move people from one exposure to an other so they are standing in the space just where I want them, and so on.... I also choose careful what to see, and most importen what not to see!!

But - and this is most importen - I always try to be faithful to the space I'm photographing - and since space are created with light and shadow, I find it to be the architects job to light it through daylight and/or artificial light - it's my choice of timing that can make my images different from others - and you can say that I'm "lighting" the space that way - but I'm not adding more light than already been given to me by the architect - It's now up to me to get the best out of it.

It's impressive too add 100 lights and controlling them technical perfect - but from my point of view as an architect, it's like turning architectural photography in to product photography - and make architecture looks like perfect beautiful images of jewels in a catalogue.

But maybe I'm wrong - here in denmark this november we have had only 3 hours of sun so far.... so what kind of lights can you recommend  

Kind regards
adam

its quite a bit funny this discussion over the ocean with europe contra us philosophy and taste.
for me the question which philosophy i follow its clear ( no add. light if not absolutely necessary ) , as it seems to be clear  for most of our american collegues too ( many seem to think its a part of the handcraftship of a photographer to use these lamps ) . it always was that way. meanwhile in germany becher ( although more documentary than architectonical but with big impact for architecture photography ) grew up it was in america shulman. although in terms of perspectives and atmospheres  certainly great, its not my taste to put in rooms so much ambient, furniture and people. neutras architecture would look much more timeless without all this 50s reminiscences. ( i am prepared to be fragmented now ...  )

i myself even refuse to put people in my shots, at least in the last years. it looks so often-seen to me and therefor stereotype, esp. these unsharp moving shadowed figures in the frame. it wants to show that the rooms are alive but for me it looks too often only boring and superficial , it disturbs the perception of the architecture and of the room. when i personally  involve people in my shots is when buildings are in use. otherwise i ask them to go out or i layer and erase, as i do it with plants if not part of the architecture, as i do it with carpets, lamps, images at the wall, and last not least with furniture if not designed by the architect and if ever possible.  .

next shot was lit with two handheld small canon and nikon flashes, moving around the machine, in 100% darkness 1000 meters down the ground. maybe an example where even an european photographer as me wanted additional  light.
the other two shots without light.
sorry me to bring some dusty shots here in this treat, but 1. its not that easy to shoot the 2.+ 3.  image  with natural light and 2. its architecture/ industrial photography too, at least in a bit wider context.

[attachment=17910:minas_.jpg]



[attachment=17911:minas2.jpg]



[attachment=17912:minas3.jpg]

[Carsten W]

As promised/threatened... no wonder I'm bored with walkin the line!

That first shot shows exactly what I meant. The line might be too powerful right underneath the tripod, but it is maybe even more powerful, in a negative manner, when it is asymmetrically off-center. To de-emphasize the line, one could raise the camera just a touch, or perhaps move a little more forward, to have less floor in the photo. Bringing the sofa more into the shot also helps the left-right balance, I think.

Anyway, I should stop here. I only saw this because a few posts earlier someone made a related comment about how to handle the camera in such situations.

[MattLaver]

[quote name='rainer_v' date='Nov 14 2009, 06:49 AM' post='324723']
its quite a bit funny this discussion over the ocean with europe contra us philosophy and taste.
for me the question which philosophy i follow its clear ( no add. light if not absolutely necessary ) , as it seems to be clear  for most of our american collegues too ( many seem to think its a part of the handcraftship of a photographer to use these lamps ) . it always was that way. meanwhile in germany becher ( although more documentary than architectonical but with big impact for architecture photography ) grew up it was in america shulman. although in terms of perspectives and atmospheres  certainly great, its not my taste to put in rooms so much ambient, furniture and people. neutras architecture would look much more timeless without all this 50s reminiscences. ( i am prepared to be fragmented now ...  )

It's interesting, Rainer, you should mention Shulman, in the context of philosophies and style. His work covering the mid 20th century Californian modernism really helped distill my desire to pursue architectural photography.

I agree a lot of his interiors feel rather staged, and of-an-era, which dates his work.  His exteriors, though, often made very interesting use of that wonderful Californian light, that I found really inspiring, back when I was studying photography, and architecture.

As someone working in the UK, but with a bit of the US in my background (life and education), I find myself somewhere between the European preference for unlit, and completely 'natural' photography (that I think some photographers and magazines think needs to be dark, depressing and gloomy, especially with interiors (obviously not my preference ;-)), and the American preference for brighter, more colourful representations. Looking at my own work, I tend to move more towards the American aesthetic as my preference, when I have the choice, but tempered by the use of additional light only when needed (as in your mine shot) used as unobtrusively as possible, so that I am only using light to make the image possible, or recreate the feel of the space that wouldn't otherwise be possible in-camera.

I wonder if the source of the different prevailing styles on opposite sides of the Atlantic isn't just a reflection of the dominant weather and light conditions? In the UK, and especially here in Scotland, blue sky sunny days are the exception rather than the rule and often very rare indeed. So working with a flatter, cooler, duller light is often the necessity, to get the job done. When I have had the chance to shoot in the US it has felt like a revelation, with all this amazing light to work with!

Sad to hear that Shulman passed away recently, but what a contribution to the genre.

Matt

[marc gerritsen]

I wonder if the source of the different prevailing styles on opposite sides of the Atlantic isn't just a reflection of the dominant weather and light conditions? In the UK, and especially here in Scotland, blue sky sunny days are the exception rather than the rule and often very rare indeed. So working with a flatter, cooler, duller light is often the necessity, to get the job done. When I have had the chance to shoot in the US it has felt like a revelation, with all this amazing light to work with!

I think that a lot of american interior and architectural photography has been very much influenced by Hollywood
especially the photography from the 50's through to the end of the 80's
a lot of those photos really remind me of some cheesy but well lit movies or even soap operas
european cinema did not have major budgets so the style was more 'au naturel'
the lighting of sets in hollywood must have produced thousands of lighting techniciens who
might have spilled over to the photography side.
movies used much earlier intricate lighting systems then the photography industry.
Some of the current interior photos from america still have a lingering of hollywood in there
if you would put people in the frame it could be a movie still.

no good or bad ......... i love hollywood!!  

[Craig Lamson]

The big difference between the two is more clearly see in the residential interior work (and to some extent Hotel type work), as opposed to commercial or industrial projects ... which often have little or no natural available light anyway and / or are glass-houses which are totally naturally lit.

Referring to residential interior work:
The weather will naturally effect what one sees and that will influence one's state of mind, both of which will naturally be reflected in the work; however, it's doesn't change one's style or more importantly, the style one's market and clients demand.
We have been commissioned to shoot interiors all over the world and the same rules apply, because of who we are shooting for:
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.

We are currently shooting home features for the Spring issues and even though it may be a dark and grey outside, it doesn't stop us from creating the look our clients want. Shot one on Thursday and it was pouring down outside - black as a boot - but I bet you couldn't tell from looking at the interior images.
(Sorry I can't post the images, to show you what I'm talking about, because it was sold on Friday for exclusive 1st Rights Worldwide)

However, here is one example I can show you - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=317982
It was shot in Italy a few weeks ago - bright and sunny outside - but inside was very dark and gloomy, as you can see from the recce images.
Not what the client or their market would have wanted or expected to see, so like you say "to get the job done" we created the look they wanted.

Remember, when the sun is high in the sky, it doesn't actually shine through the windows and into the rooms.
This first hit me about 6 years ago when working in Spain. I assumed because it was July and the skies would be blue, the sun-light would fill the rooms with natural light.
Wrong.
The lower sun-light you get in Scotland (UK, Northern Europe, Canada & Northern American), will in fact, do a better job at lighting up the room... should there be sun-light

Anyway, my point is, the big difference between 'us' and 'them' is the market.
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.

Trust me, if my main market demanded I changed my style tomorrow, I'd change it, to suit their needs... and I'm sure you would too.
We simply provide images for our clients to use.
They say jump, we ask how high.

Cheers,
Ashley

Nothing could be more true..."Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market."

This applies to all genres of commercial photography, not just the architectural market.

I shoot architectural of sorts, my subjects just roll or float and in general they are shot indoors with lighting (at least the interiors.) And much like Ashley I must create the mood and look of the light, and not rely on the sun.  In addition its not just the style but the textures and colors of the fabrics and woods that are important.  In fact, given the nature of the industries, that can be the entire difference between one company and the next.

In the end it's the crafting of light indooors and out that makes or breaks these images.

Examples:

RV interiors and exteriors

Marine interiors and exteriors

[Harold Clark]

The big difference between the two is more clearly see in the residential interior work (and to some extent Hotel type work), as opposed to commercial or industrial projects ... which often have little or no natural available light anyway and / or are glass-houses which are totally naturally lit.

Referring to residential interior work:
The weather will naturally effect what one sees and that will influence one's state of mind, both of which will naturally be reflected in the work; however, it's doesn't change one's style or more importantly, the style one's market and clients demand.
We have been commissioned to shoot interiors all over the world and the same rules apply, because of who we are shooting for:
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.

We are currently shooting home features for the Spring issues and even though it may be a dark and grey outside, it doesn't stop us from creating the look our clients want. Shot one on Thursday and it was pouring down outside - black as a boot - but I bet you couldn't tell from looking at the interior images.
(Sorry I can't post the images, to show you what I'm talking about, because it was sold on Friday for exclusive 1st Rights Worldwide)

However, here is one example I can show you - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=317982
It was shot in Italy a few weeks ago - bright and sunny outside - but inside was very dark and gloomy, as you can see from the recce images.
Not what the client or their market would have wanted or expected to see, so like you say "to get the job done" we created the look they wanted.

Remember, when the sun is high in the sky, it doesn't actually shine through the windows and into the rooms.
This first hit me about 6 years ago when working in Spain. I assumed because it was July and the skies would be blue, the sun-light would fill the rooms with natural light.
Wrong.
The lower sun-light you get in Scotland (UK, Northern Europe, Canada & Northern American), will in fact, do a better job at lighting up the room... should there be sun-light

Anyway, my point is, the big difference between 'us' and 'them' is the market.
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.

Trust me, if my main market demanded I changed my style tomorrow, I'd change it, to suit their needs... and I'm sure you would too.
We simply provide images for our clients to use.
They say jump, we ask how high.

Cheers,
Ashley

I have a question for architectural photographers working in northern ( ie. snowy ) climates. I find my architectural assignments to be quite seasonal, since most clients seldom want exteriors with snow. A summer photograph looks OK in winter, but a winter photo looks out of place in July. Most of my projects include interior & exterior, so both are done at the same time.

The busiest stretch for me starts early September, when architects realize that winter is approaching and they haven't done photography yet, until about now. So what do all of you do in winter, sail to the Caribbean on your yachts? Fortunately I do industrial & corporate photography too, or the off season would be pretty lean.

[CBarrett]

I have a question for architectural photographers working in northern ( ie. snowy ) climates. I find my architectural assignments to be quite seasonal, since most clients seldom want exteriors with snow. A summer photograph looks OK in winter, but a winter photo looks out of place in July. Most of my projects include interior & exterior, so both are done at the same time.

The busiest stretch for me starts early September, when architects realize that winter is approaching and they haven't done photography yet, until about now. So what do all of you do in winter, sail to the Caribbean on your yachts? Fortunately I do industrial & corporate photography too, or the off season would be pretty lean.

I pretty much take December off and do personal work, read up on technology, try to stay up to date on Photoshop and do marketing stuff.  In January and February I often shoot furniture in studio.  I do have smatterings of interiors jobs in the winter as a lot of my work is interiors only.  Typically, though, Late November through February are my slow period.

[JoeKitchen]

I have a question for architectural photographers working in northern ( ie. snowy ) climates. I find my architectural assignments to be quite seasonal, since most clients seldom want exteriors with snow. A summer photograph looks OK in winter, but a winter photo looks out of place in July. Most of my projects include interior & exterior, so both are done at the same time.

The busiest stretch for me starts early September, when architects realize that winter is approaching and they haven't done photography yet, until about now. So what do all of you do in winter, sail to the Caribbean on your yachts? Fortunately I do industrial & corporate photography too, or the off season would be pretty lean.

I read up on marketing as well, study the work of other photographers like Stoller, Robert Adams, Weston, Aaron, Halkin ... try to meet new people in the architectural market here in Philly, NYC, and Baltimore, make connections, and swim 5 or 6 days a week.  

As far as dyeing down, I just got a bunch of office interiors to set up and shoot in December, so just not yet.  Although I am looking forward to a slow January and the fact that I will have no lectures to plan.  I also plan on fooling around with food this winter.

[Lust4Life]

Craig,

Interesting what you are doing!
I've been pondering that market as I live in FL and there are numerous boat manufacturers located here.
As the home building industry is really lagging, logic was to use the yacht/marine market as an additional revenue stream.
I meeting with several really sharp Realtors over the last couple of weeks, working on the prospect of job orders from their firms, all of then have
emphasized that the commercial side is now taking a heavy hit.

Questions:
Are you finding SLR gear adequate for your market?
If so, use TS-E lenses for interiors?

How are you handling lighting in the interiors as reflections in a confined space of high gloss wood surfaces could prove to be difficult?

Your being in the Midwest is a perfect local for RV work.  I've owned several American Eagles, 40 footers in the last few years.  Great bus, and they are a wonderful way to explore the USA, as least before diesel became so expensive.  I also love to sail - had Hobie 14, 16, 18 when I had hair on my head, then a Cal 29 and Ericson 38, which was my favorite.  

Hope to start my Kiteboarding lessons before the end of the month.

In short, it would be great to be shooting that which I personally love and know well.

Jack

Nothing could be more true..."Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market."

This applies to all genres of commercial photography, not just the architectural market.

I shoot architectural of sorts, my subjects just roll or float and in general they are shot indoors with lighting (at least the interiors.) And much like Ashley I must create the mood and look of the light, and not rely on the sun.  In addition its not just the style but the textures and colors of the fabrics and woods that are important.  In fact, given the nature of the industries, that can be the entire difference between one company and the next.

In the end it's the crafting of light indooors and out that makes or breaks these images.

Examples:

RV interiors and exteriors

Marine interiors and exteriors

[MattLaver]

The big difference between the two is more clearly see in the residential interior work (and to some extent Hotel type work), as opposed to commercial or industrial projects ... which often have little or no natural available light anyway and / or are glass-houses which are totally naturally lit.

Referring to residential interior work:
The weather will naturally effect what one sees and that will influence one's state of mind, both of which will naturally be reflected in the work; however, it's doesn't change one's style or more importantly, the style one's market and clients demand.
We have been commissioned to shoot interiors all over the world and the same rules apply, because of who we are shooting for:
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.

We are currently shooting home features for the Spring issues and even though it may be a dark and grey outside, it doesn't stop us from creating the look our clients want. Shot one on Thursday and it was pouring down outside - black as a boot - but I bet you couldn't tell from looking at the interior images.
(Sorry I can't post the images, to show you what I'm talking about, because it was sold on Friday for exclusive 1st Rights Worldwide)

However, here is one example I can show you - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=317982
It was shot in Italy a few weeks ago - bright and sunny outside - but inside was very dark and gloomy, as you can see from the recce images.
Not what the client or their market would have wanted or expected to see, so like you say "to get the job done" we created the look they wanted.

Remember, when the sun is high in the sky, it doesn't actually shine through the windows and into the rooms.
This first hit me about 6 years ago when working in Spain. I assumed because it was July and the skies would be blue, the sun-light would fill the rooms with natural light.
Wrong.
The lower sun-light you get in Scotland (UK, Northern Europe, Canada & Northern American), will in fact, do a better job at lighting up the room... should there be sun-light

Anyway, my point is, the big difference between 'us' and 'them' is the market.
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.

Trust me, if my main market demanded I changed my style tomorrow, I'd change it, to suit their needs... and I'm sure you would too.
We simply provide images for our clients to use.
They say jump, we ask how high.

Cheers,
Ashley

I completely agree, the market, its use and the photograph's purpose within that market, dictates the style to which we shoot, and photographers will feed whatever demand is made of them, myself included. My query is why the North American market and the Northern European market have such different tastes and therefore expectations for that photography and its style? Whenever I have talked with people about this I've never met anyone who seems to like, or find appealing, the "all lights off, dark shadowed, strong contrast" style that I see in a lot of European (UK) publications. I'm thinking here mainly about the editorial side rather than commercial/industrial.

I appreciate that these different styles all have their place, but with the increasing availability of international publications, at least in the UK, I think the market is becoming more cosmopolitan in it's taste. Or maybe that's just me and my wishful thinking and personal tastes. I know that when I walk in to a Borders store with UK and American titles on the shelves next to each other (in the Architectural and Homes sections) I'm always visually drawn to the American titles and left cold by the European/UK ones, in general. And I think the visual style has everything to do with it.

Different people obviously have different tastes but its a conundrum to me why the UK market feels it should represent projects this way, hence my suggestion of the weather as an influence. Marc's suggestion of an evolution out of Hollywood in North American photography is an interesting one because there is definitely a parallel here in UK film and Television of a very 'grey' palette. Then again, perhaps its just art reflecting the social attitudes of its respective markets, but that's a whole other can of worms...

Sorry to take the thread so OT. Back to scheduled programming...

Matt

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

Interesting what you are doing!
I've been pondering that market as I live in FL and there are numerous boat manufacturers located here.
As the home building industry is really lagging, logic was to use the yacht/marine market as an additional revenue stream.
I meeting with several really sharp Realtors over the last couple of weeks, working on the prospect of job orders from their firms, all of then have
emphasized that the commercial side is now taking a heavy hit.

Questions:
Are you finding SLR gear adequate for your market?
If so, use TS-E lenses for interiors?

How are you handling lighting in the interiors as reflections in a confined space of high gloss wood surfaces could prove to be difficult?

Your being in the Midwest is a perfect local for RV work.  I've owned several American Eagles, 40 footers in the last few years.  Great bus, and they are a wonderful way to explore the USA, as least before diesel became so expensive.  I also love to sail - had Hobie 14, 16, 18 when I had hair on my head, then a Cal 29 and Ericson 38, which was my favorite.  

Hope to start my Kiteboarding lessons before the end of the month.

In short, it would be great to be shooting that which I personally love and know well.

Jack

There are quite a few very good and well known marine photographers in FL, and for the most part they had a dismal year.  Mine left a lot to be desired as well. The RV and marine industries took a huge hit during last year.  Sales dropped like a stone, dealer floorplan and retail credit dryed up, and sales all but stopped.  One marine company I know went from over 500 employees to 50.  The RV business is not any better and Elkhart Indiana, the largest area for RV manufacturing had over 18 percent unemployment.  It's starting to turn slowly, but I don't think I wll ever see either industry back to where they were.  Its too bad really because most of these companies changed product every model year so most of the prior years photography went into the trashbin and new was created.  It was very good for business

The long and short of it is that it is a crowded market with way more photographers than projects at this point in time.

Not saying you can't make a go of it, but its just not the best of times if you know what I mean.

I'm using a Canon 1DsmkIII and 24mm shift and non shift lenses.  I have a very nice copy of hte Sigma 12-24 and the new 17 and 24 shift is on my wishlist.  Sadly equipment purchases will wait until the economy recovers.  That said I have yet to have a client want more file.

Lighting is  tungsten, mostly peppers and small moles. I do a LOT of layering in post.

[rainer_v]

I completely agree, the market, its use and the photograph's purpose within that market, dictates the style to which we shoot, and photographers will feed whatever demand is made of them, myself included. My query is why the North American market and the Northern European market have such different tastes and therefore expectations for that photography and its style? Whenever I have talked with people about this I've never met anyone who seems to like, or find appealing, the "all lights off, dark shadowed, strong contrast" style that I see in a lot of European (UK) publications. I'm thinking here mainly about the editorial side rather than commercial/industrial.

I appreciate that these different styles all have their place, but with the increasing availability of international publications, at least in the UK, I think the market is becoming more cosmopolitan in it's taste. Or maybe that's just me and my wishful thinking and personal tastes. I know that when I walk in to a Borders store with UK and American titles on the shelves next to each other (in the Architectural and Homes sections) I'm always visually drawn to the American titles and left cold by the European/UK ones, in general. And I think the visual style has everything to do with it.

Different people obviously have different tastes but its a conundrum to me why the UK market feels it should represent projects this way, hence my suggestion of the weather as an influence. Marc's suggestion of an evolution out of Hollywood in North American photography is an interesting one because there is definitely a parallel here in UK film and Television of a very 'grey' palette. Then again, perhaps its just art reflecting the social attitudes of its respective markets, but that's a whole other can of worms...

Sorry to take the thread so OT. Back to scheduled programming...

Matt

i have spent in the last two years in the US around 5 months working, not using one lamp and not leaving one ( american or european  ) client uncontent ( although one of my clients was astonished why that nice flower had disappeared from the lobby, but liked it after i explained that i see this nice flower simply looking lonely and sad in such designed glass and steel environment and that i dont want to destruct the image with it ).
maybe you might think i am crazy, but its simply not my opinion to shoot whatever style i am asked for.
many clients are buying my work for my vision they are seeing in my existing photographs, i  try to work on this vision but dont try to serve all tastes and prices and to make it unclear whats to expect from me if hiring me.
but i dont do residential, real estate or hotel photography and dont speak about it, i am sure there are many reasons to create this lightened look and that one could be kicked out of work not to do it, so everything remains personal and depends for which part of the market one is working but also where the individual position in his market is.
but i am sure there is no general aesthetic rule to use lamps and if not using them certainly it does not result in dark and depressive looking images as result.

[rainer_v]

That's one thing we avoid, when talking to clients i.e. suggesting we are for hire.

We produce & provide images for people to use.
We therefore don't 'work for hire' or even suggest that to clients, as an option.

If they want us to produce some images, so as they can use them, then that's what we do.
We produce the images they are after and we provide them with those images, so as they can use them.
We then charge a 'Licence fee', based on the use of the images, which we provide.

Cheers
Ashley.

hired ? oh sorry.
maybe unilluminated bad english for being european ......  
probably i mean the same than you.

but in any case i wrote about the existence or absence of an individual style of images , not so much about the form of licenses or producing them.

[MattLaver]

I'm sorry if I've insulted anyone. I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone's work here. Especially not yours Ashley, I've been a fan of your work for a while.

I was really just trying to consider what it is that causes the differences we see in expected styles, in different regional markets.

Rainer, I wasn't suggesting not using lights has to make an image dull, far from it, but when done badly, it can, especially with residential interiors, and I see a lot of that here.

I think the Architectural market is one area where having a strong personal style really helps to set a photographer apart, I'm thinking of work like yours, Tim Griffith's, Peter Aaron's. As Ashley says, though, flexibility of style is important in other areas like the Commercial and Residential work.

I work in a market that is small enough that I have to wear a lot of hats to get by, so I have to stay flexible how I approach each project and client. As a result I see a lot of differences of expectation and I was just trying to explore that.

Sorry if anyone felt offended.

Matt

[aaronleitz]

What an awesome discussion! I have been following the work of Rainier, Christopher, Kirk and Marc for some time now and it's great to read all of their input. Though I have only been shooting architecture (and not really much architecture, mostly residential interiors) professionally for about 2 years, maybe my thoughts as a newcomer might be useful to Lust4Life and others....

As far as gear goes, I don't really have much money :-(. When I started shooting professionally, I already owned Nikon gear so that is what I have been using. On "bigger" jobs I used to rent Mamiya and Phase One gear. I was not completely comfortable using this system and though the files produced were large and sharp, I felt they suffered stylistically. Once the Nikon D3x came out, I gave it a test and have been renting it ever since (hopefully I'll be able to buy one next year). If you have not seen a file from the D3x you really should, it is noticeably different from other Nikons and Canons and is the most "medium format" like file (in terms of dynamic range and "malleability" in post) I have ever seen from a 35mm DSLR.

I have only used a T/S lens twice for interiors but I can see where they might come in handy for more "architectural" shooting. The 24mm is definitely on my wish list. I don't think I'd use a 17mm T/S very much at all. Too wide.

I think the idea that using a camera that forces you to slow down will improve your images is nonsense. I want my camera to get out of the way so that I can focus on creating the image that I want to create. A camera that is slow to operate only detracts from that goal. Moving furniture around, dealing with lighting, waiting for the weather, etc. slows me down plenty thankyouverymuch. A number of my favorite images were captured within a very small, spontaneous window of opportunity that I would have otherwise missed had I been using a cumbersome, slow camera.

Especially as a beginner lacking the experience to always anticipate the timing, light, weather etc that creates those fleeting opportunities, I think it is important to use the tool that you are most comfortable with and work the fastest with in order to increase your chances of "happy accidents." If that tool is an Arca, Alpa, Cambo, H3, Canon, Nikon or whatever and you can afford it then go for it! There are so many other important things that go in to a great image beyond what kind of camera you're using. Like Rainier said earlier in this thread, I think a smarter investment, especially in the beginning of your career, is to spend your money on those other things. I would love to learn how to use a technical view camera eventually though and I'll admit to a fair amount of jealousy over Mr. Barrett's Arca set-up ;-).

If you really want to be "great" I also think that it is extremely important to develop a vocabulary and knowledge of design and architecture.  This helps to understand your subject matter as well as relate to your clients. Definitely study the work of photographers that you like but also seek out good architects and designers and talk to them about their work and influences. I think you'll find their input valuable, as they often look beyond the technical components of an image that we photographers tend to obsess over, and view an image as a whole interpretation of their work.  I have had the good fortune to work with a very accomplished designer and his critiques have probably had the greatest influence on my interior shooting style of anyone.