Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Becoming a great Architectural Photographer!?  (Read 41123 times)
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #140 on: November 19, 2009, 10:41:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do you guys try to constrain yourselves at all for consistency?

Like you, when I shot 4x5, I always composed to the 4x5 format, always tying to create a chrome that required no cropping. Part of that was shear professional pride, wanting to deliver perfect chromes. Over the years more than a few magazine art directors and other clients commented on that so I guess it paid off. In one case it led to years of assignments from a national magazine. After seeing a stock submital, they called me commenting on the perfect full frame compositions and asked if I was willing to travel. This was early in my career and was a big boost to my career.

Now as I mainly shoot DSLR, YES. To get a decent file from a 21MP camera one must work at using the whole file and minimizing any interpolation etc. So yes, I carefully compose to the format, carefully align etc. so as much of the original file remains intact. Having said that I don't hesitate to stitch (which builds file size and averts the previous issues mentioned) to a variety of final, even random, formats (whatever fits the space). I also do some HDR and a fair amount of focus stacking (a huge boon to shooting architectural models where we could never get enough depth of field before). So it is a bit of both worlds.

As per the format of the final image, since most images are used by architects for electronic competition submissions (DVD slide show), magazine submissions, and websites the format shape is allot more flexible than it was when the 8x10 print or 4x5 chrome was the norm. For the electronic submissions the format is irrelevant and I find magazines appreciate the variety. So I deliver a big mix, primarily FF DSLR format but always a few panoramas etc.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2009, 10:42:52 AM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #141 on: November 19, 2009, 12:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Ashley,
Your work makes a fellow Irishman proud!  

Thanks for info.
Jack
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #142 on: November 20, 2009, 10:42:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Yelhsa
Thanks Jack

These images probably come under the heading of 'advertising' more... as opposed to 'architectural'.

Having said that, 'Architectural Photography' in theory covers a huge range of things.
It's not just about the exterior of buildings, which most people first think of when they talk about Architectural Photography, it's about the interior too and everything within.

Plus it's not just about shooting for Architects; in fact, I'd personally say Architects were way, way down the list of people who actually need images in this field. Their actual Usage requirements are usually not that great; as a result, their budget for images are usually not that great neither.

It's been years since I've produced any images for an Architect to use; however, I've shot loads of 'architectural' stuff (including their homes and projects they have worked on) but it's been for others to use, not them.

Ashley

Largely true in my experience.

IME-this is rough and not meant to be rigid-there are allot of exceptions-the lowest end of the market would be for residential realtors (not of multi-million dollar houses), then editorial for local magazines, then small contractors, then local interior designers, then large contractors, local architects, editorial for national magazines, local ad agencies, national architects and interior designers, at the top is ads for national manufactures, big hotel chains, big retailers, annual reports etc. I work mainly for architects and related magazines because I love architecture and enjoy shooting it, I understand their needs and enjoy working with them, but their are more lucrative AP markets.

For beginners......You need actual assignment results in your portfolio, not just images you shot for yourself. Use the low end of the market which is more accessible to build your portfolio, equipment, expertise, personal style etc. Leverage assignments to move up the ladder ie leverage a shoot for a local commercial contractor to include more sophisticated clients involved in the project like the architect or high end materials manufactures. Does the project have stock potential for trade or consumer magazines? Don't shoot to the lowest expectations of an undemanding client. Even if you blow your estimate. Shoot to the level of client you want to move to.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2009, 10:43:36 AM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
tom_l
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


WWW
« Reply #143 on: November 20, 2009, 11:04:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Yelhsa
That one was 99% as you see it.
Timing was the key - because like you say, it would have been quite a challenge otherwise to light.
This is part of the reason why we would recce the place beforehand - when taking on large projects like this.
Out of the 30+ images produced, that was one of the few that didn't need to be lit.

Some of my other favourites from that shoot:










As for the cameras - the 503's and FlexBody's are still my main workhorses.
Living in hope, that one day they will produce a full frame 6x6 digital back.

Cheers,
Ashley


great! really like your work,
you have developped a very own distinctive photography style, something very difficult in any kind of photography.

Tom



Logged
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #144 on: November 21, 2009, 08:39:29 AM »
ReplyReply

To bring the focus of this thread back to discussing equipment that has and has not worked, has anyone ever experimented with the Cambo X-2 Pro camera system?

Here is a link to their site:
http://www.cambo.com/

Interesting concept and would allow use of the quality Schneider and Rodenstock lenses with a Canon or Nikon.

Jack
Logged

CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #145 on: November 21, 2009, 08:47:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lust4Life
To bring the focus of this thread back to discussing equipment that has and has not worked, has anyone ever experimented with the Cambo X-2 Pro camera system?

Here is a link to their site:
http://www.cambo.com/

Interesting concept and would allow use of the quality Schneider and Rodenstock lenses with a Canon or Nikon.

Jack


I see that like arca's dslr version of the M2, you are limited to Schneider's questionable retrofocus 28mm and then the next widest is a 72mm.  Not real usable for architecture.
Logged
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #146 on: November 21, 2009, 09:23:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Chris.
I'll count that one out.

I'm still working on cost effective way to keep my Hassie and yet have T/S capability - about to give up and go the Canon/Nikon route with T/S lenses.

Was also considering Cambo WRS with a couple of lenses - far more affordable than the arTek route - but I just don't see a sliding back.
I hate the idea of constantly moving my back on and off to focus/shoot/etc.  
Just won't do it - I shake too much and clumsy is my middle name.  And Murphy's Law is the axiom that has defined my Life.  

Jack


Quote from: CBarrett
I see that like arca's dslr version of the M2, you are limited to Schneider's questionable retrofocus 28mm and then the next widest is a 72mm.  Not real usable for architecture.
Logged

michele
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 230


« Reply #147 on: November 21, 2009, 09:33:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lust4Life
Thanks Chris.
I'll count that one out.

I'm still working on cost effective way to keep my Hassie and yet have T/S capability - about to give up and go the Canon/Nikon route with T/S lenses.

Was also considering Cambo WRS with a couple of lenses - far more affordable than the arTek route - but I just don't see a sliding back.
I hate the idea of constantly moving my back on and off to focus/shoot/etc.  
Just won't do it - I shake too much and clumsy is my middle name.  And Murphy's Law is the axiom that has defined my Life.  

Jack

Whay don't you take a look at silvestri's products? they are not bad and you can use the sliding back also with the 24mm...
They seem to be a cheaper option...
Logged

Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #148 on: November 21, 2009, 12:00:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michele
Whay don't you take a look at silvestri's products? they are not bad and you can use the sliding back also with the 24mm...
They seem to be a cheaper option...

I knew a chap that owned the gear - he never seemed to be happy with it - problems on Focus - not being even across the image plane.

Thus, I've been a bit reserved of their gear.
Jack
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 12:40:14 PM by Lust4Life » Logged

David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


WWW
« Reply #149 on: November 23, 2009, 07:08:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkWelsh
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.


Regarding charging by time spent on the job vs. a creative fee,  when the shooting is dependent upon circumstances beyond the photographer's control, such as the weather, it just seems to make sense to charge a creative fee. After all, by allowing for a certain shooting schedule based on uncertainties, the photographer might have to turn down other work. No?
Logged

CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #150 on: November 23, 2009, 10:59:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know if you guys have seen the Julius Shulman documentary, but it's absolutely phenomenal!

Must see!
Logged
PhilipJames
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #151 on: November 24, 2009, 03:56:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Can I take the conversation back to the day rate versus per shot topic. I have shot in fashion for most of my career and Architecture is a fairly new direction for me so I'm still coming to terms with the best way to price things.  Initially I have been working off a day rate but the variation in output varies wildly, i.e. one job may require 5 or 6 shots and another 20+, so I am thinking to have a day rate for 1-10 shots and another for 11 +. Then of course that can fall down a bit if the extra shots required are 1 or 2 rather than 10, so I then thought maybe a day rate for 1-10 and per shot therafter.
Some of the posts have referred to a per shot basis from the outset, how does that work if the client only requires 1 shot (unlikely I know). Also the higher the shot output the more time spent in post production, how is everybody squaring that?
Logged
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #152 on: November 24, 2009, 05:28:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PhilipJames
Can I take the conversation back to the day rate versus per shot topic. I have shot in fashion for most of my career and Architecture is a fairly new direction for me so I'm still coming to terms with the best way to price things.  Initially I have been working off a day rate but the variation in output varies wildly, i.e. one job may require 5 or 6 shots and another 20+, so I am thinking to have a day rate for 1-10 shots and another for 11 +. Then of course that can fall down a bit if the extra shots required are 1 or 2 rather than 10, so I then thought maybe a day rate for 1-10 and per shot therafter.
Some of the posts have referred to a per shot basis from the outset, how does that work if the client only requires 1 shot (unlikely I know). Also the higher the shot output the more time spent in post production, how is everybody squaring that?


Let me ask that we take the above topic over to part Three of the series, The Business Practices:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39513

Thanks,
Jack
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 05:28:47 AM by Lust4Life » Logged

PhilipJames
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #153 on: November 24, 2009, 11:11:29 AM »
ReplyReply

removed
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 11:12:17 AM by PhilipJames » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad