Architectural photography - changes in shooting discipline

[Kirk Gittings]

Bold added.

You spend a huge chunk of your career developing a style and you get known for that style. I have no interest in change and don't like this new aesthetic. I am willing to become a dinosaur. This kind of reminds me of when Jaime Ardilles-Arce came on the scene in the early 80's. He changed the way interiors were photographed and almost took over all the shooting for AD.

Well I can't afford to become a dinosaur (even if I greatly resemble one). The recession has indefinitely postponed retirement. Jaime Ardilles-Arce boy I haven't thought of that guy in awhile. He must be  a dinosaur now too. I remember his use of big spiky ferns framing his interiors in virtually every shot.....

[georgem]

I agree in spirit, but I also have MY style. I can't be just a pimp to someone else's style [...]

Same here. If a client asked me to imitate someone else, the only honest answer would be, please go and talk to that guy. But only after I tried to convince the client that what I do is what he really needs.

Even if I was working in a place where the established discipline was very different from mine, I would still stick to my way of doing AP. Adapt a bit, sure, but without betraying my vision and style.

[Gandalf]

If I sent my clients IB style images, I would lose them as clients. One in particular has a definite style in mind and I think most of the European photographers here would hate it. The funny thing is I have pushed them a long way toward realistic from where they started. The person who hires me is the AD and they want me to execute on their vision to help grow the company's visual brand. Admittedly, this is more lifestyle than pure architecture. As I start to market more toward architects, I expect this will change.

Whether lifestyle and architecture are linked is a discussion I won't wade into. I think they are and I want to make photos that not only show the space, but show how it's used -- photos that make you feel like you can walk into them. One of my colleagues prefers photos that show no trace of people beyond the architecture itself, and another likes photos that look like the people just stepped out of frame. I'm not sure there really is a right answer, just what you and your clients like. I'm not a huge fan of much of Iwan Baan's work (that is not a slight against him or his clients, I doubt they would like mine), but I like that it is at the opposite extreme from what was a major trend in America architectural photography over the past decade where the lighting can overshadow the architecture and become the subject.

I think people get too excited about equipment, it is the vision that matters. There is a photographer I know who shoots mostly available light, but his final images are really over the top (IMO of course). Another photographer lights in a way that you might think creates really over the top images, but his processing style is very conservative and restrained. Sometimes I use a bunch of strobes, sometimes a bunch of tungsten lights, occasionally available light, but the end result similar. I use lights mostly to create shadow because it is the play between the two that creates space. I know photographers who want to get everything in camera and others who just capture data and creating the image in post. In either case, it is the photographer's vision that dictates the final image, not the equipment that was used during capture.

[kers]

I think because of the almost realistic possibilities nowadays of computer rendering- architects et al like to have photographs less perfect to show it is real...
I have seen renderings so perfect i thought it was real.

[Aphoto]

A good friend of mine M. Bredt (LINK), has big clients (GMP, Libeskind, Sauerbruch Hutton) and a very - as I would call it - modern style. He likes to include people in his pictures and shoots with comparatively light equipment.
I like his pictures very much.