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

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?

sean beat me on that one...

I have shot arch work for 10 years+. My thoughts.

Gear is the last thing to worry about here. I'll get to it last then.

Knowing your market area and what the work is worth is paramount. Join ASMP, APA or any other trade photo group which has a strong architecture base. ASMP has a specialty arch group of about 400 members who discuss things daily via a yahoo group. A wealth of information. Don't be a lone cowboy. You will make too many mistakes. None of this is rocket science. It's been done, just follow some leads, make it work for you and your clients but in the same vane as your fellow architectural photographer colleagues.

Start by going here:
http://asmp.org/find-a-photographer/search?city=&state=FL&country=0&radius=0&spec1=9&spec2=0&conjunction=and&lname=&chapter_member=&submit=Search
and call some of these photographers to get honest answers on what do the different Florida markets bear price wise, what do clients expect, learn some of the jargon specific to shooting architecture. Correct communication is important to have with your clients, and there is a lot to good business practices.

Each type of client for arch work is looking for something different. An architect wants a photographer who is acting as a visual extension to their original concept. Interior designers, homebuilders, realtors, magazines all want something a little different, they all have different needs for their target audience.

As a landscape shooter, you will be inclined to shoot sites more as postcards at first perhaps (example, the image on your site) which is ok, but only a small fraction of what the clients want.

While you can get away with only shooting natural light, not all sites are designed with the best interior and exterior lighting. So you may be limited in capabilities from site to site. HDR is cool and all, but most great arch work happened long before that even existed and the images were still stunning without it. So don't expect that HDR will be a savior to well framed, great time of day type of shots. What is lost so often in HDR arch work is mood and feeling because the shooter is trying too hard to keep exposure on all parts of the scene which leaves a flat and lifeless feeling sometimes.

I strongly believe a great arch shooter is someone who is passionate about the content itself. It's not that they try to be interested, it's that they are interested.

Then we get to licensing. Architects nowadays almost expect unlimited usage outside of paid advertising. They will certainly work with you on terms for editorial usage (because magazines want as much for free from the architects or designers themselves). I know that there is a market for real estate photography at the higher end but there is NO market for it below, don't waste your time.

Client relations is key. Get to know them. Spend the time with them. They will be repeat clients over and over. That's what this segment is about.

There is no way for me to write everything I have ever learned in this segment here in a forum, but plenty of outlets out there to get the needed info, they are just specialized.

Now about the gear, who cares really. There are great arch shooters who use 4x5 trans and neg, many who now use 21-24mp cameras with T/S lenses and some with medium format digital. This really is the last thing to worry about. It's not a selling point to say you have the most expensive camera, blah, blah. Someone who lights a scene well can shoot with a 5D and get a better shot.

I do believe perspective corrections are important in this type of work. Not all shots need it. A lot of lifestyle arch work, editorial in feel and nature are about selling the desire to have things and how to live, and how better a person's life will feel if they live in a home with x,y,z style. But a 4x5 camera and color neg film is as easy as it gets. It doesn't require many frames for this work. Sure your H3DII-39 will make nice files but learn to make it work for this segment.

To be completely honest, a lot of architects use photos in presentations, web, maybe print portfolio. They don't advertise much if ever. They really don't need 150meg files, They really don't care. I just read the other day on the ASMParch group a photographer said a long time client (high end client at that) asked why he kept sending such huge files all the time, files coming from a 5DII. I can't stress enough, clients don't care about our gear. They want stunning images, that's it. Along with a great working experience with you and little hassle.

And lastly for now, find a style, an approach, something that sets you apart. There are a lot of really good shooters in this country. But if you want to get work from clients who already hire other shooters, you need to give them a reason (and don't let that reason be because you're less expensive!)

Susan Carr is an arch shooter in Chicago and also does a seminar tour on the business side of things. Find a city where she is speaking or get that exact type of info from other sources.

Invent your own image style that will make clients want to hire you, but don't reinvent the wheel on the business side, that's been done and all there for your taking. Clients want some continuity in working with photographers on the business side. They hire us to create and solve their visual needs which is what sets us apart.

Added: Sure you can go the route of no assistant, but trust me when I say, you'll want one for every half or full day shoot. Clients want more images done these days, so someone has to be the gofer. Sweep leaves, wash windows, pull weeds, turn lights on/off. Run around and find the site's mechanical engineer, move your gear to the next view while you're shooting the current view. You are endlessly more productive on site if there is just one peron helping you. Without that, time is wasted farting around solving the most mundane crap on site. An assistant is really a small production charge in a day. Most clients understand.

Everything that can go wrong on site, does go wrong. So be prepared, which is having an assistant.

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

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

True, but learning even more about the business of photography and the specifics for a market and the photo genre/discipline will take you further if you are a good shooter to start. The photography is the easy part. I'm all for books. I've read many, but in the end of the day, few make you more successful. I see them as short coaching sessions. In the end, a lot of experience is key.

I have not read your book Michael so not my intention of directing these comments at your book, just general comments.

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

Ahh, so one thing I have learned is that you can never judge how to do something from the few people who are truly the upper tier in photo disciplines. Clyde Butcher being one of them. None of us could even copy everything he does and still present his work, just not possible. There is an intangible that can't be duplicated. Same goes for seeing some great architectural shooters and saying, I want to do that. So if you want to enter a new market, you have to learn everything you can and find what YOU can bring to the table that is different and sets your work apart.

Only saying this in a polite way, it is naive to think you can just start shooting X type of work and it all be hunky dory and make money. Many people are already doing X.

I'm learning the side of shooting motion and have been opened to a new world where I am just a neophyte and I don't kid myself of anything else, BUT I am absorbing everything I can to go the motion route and just stay on path. But I better bring something new to the world of motion or there isn't much of a point to be doing it. And I think sophisticated clients can sense the same.

Lots of great input above. A few things:

Why isn't landscape photography a profitable venture for you? What would it take to make it so? Apply these answers to your architectural venture.

Who's going to hire your services as an architectural photographer? What do they need photography for? Get to know these people and their needs. Don't shoot yourself in the foot by underbidding.

As mentioned above, success and greatness are not necessarily the same goal.

Understand Architecture and Design. Why are things done? What problems were overcome? Where did the designers have fun?

A lot of what "architectural photographers" are shooting is not Architecture. It's a pretty big genre, including commercial shells, hospitality, residential, cabinetry, real estate, decorating, engineering, structural detail, building products, home magazines, etc. etc. Most of these sub-genres have different needs, budgets & audiences.

Networking > business skills > planning > composition > lighting > technical proficiency > expensive camera

Bingo. I was about to add another long post to state this. Much shorter and to the point. Thanks.

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.

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

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

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

Jeff's work is among my favorites.

Hmmmm.
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

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.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Christian Richters, most prolific architectural photographer of The Netherlands,is wrong.

He happens to be German,

Cheers,

Willem.

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 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' 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 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 (Chile), Duccio Malagamba (Spain), Nelson Kon (Brazil) and Paul Ott (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

Pedro, thanks for the names/links - lots of interesting work.

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

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

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

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

I think they are all good examples of European architecture photography.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,
Thierry

Very well put!

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

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

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