New Books on Architectural Photography Legends

[speedfreak]

Kirk,
This is thread is starting to go a bit off topic, but here goes'. Is there any room, as a business, shooting architecture traditionally? I have a full time job, but have been looking to start something that feeds the creative side while helping to pay some bills, and possibly someday making the transition. When I mentioned wanting to shoot architecture traditionally, the whole purpose is to get my feet wet with what I have (currently, well setup LF, scan, print digitally, a fast lab near by, and most importantly a good eye and passion for architecture). I know that most shoot DSLR and tilt shift, and some are at the digital MF level, but right know it's not feasable to invest in a complete system. So, is speed and turn around the main barrier to entry? Would it be advisable to just shoot buildings in my free time until I can offer up a digital solution?

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes. The problem is expectations. They expect to see files in a week. That is hard to do digitally and in my busy season that means 16 hour days. If I was shooting film I simply could not do it. I was the last AP in my area that went digital and it cost me clients that took awhile to get back.. Right now there is no upside to shooting LF film for clients>quality they don't need and expenses they don't understand. Film, processing, scanning-what is that? That doesn't mean things are cheaper. I charge allot more now than I did with film.

You should know that the hottest AP in the world Iwan Baan for the last 3-4 years (not my call just a simple obvious fact) shoots a DSLR. The market has changed and is not going back. The "classic" architectural style has given way to a more editorial look with lots of people in the shots and more natural light. He also won the First "Julian Schulman Prize". He has revolutionized AP.

[Drew Wiley]

There's a superb bookstore specializing in arch books, incl photog, right on the next block.
Recently they've been partnering with us on related seminars. I attended a historical society dinner a couple weeks ago ties to intoduction of a new book, with a lot of 19th C
photos involved. Some of those old timers were remarkably good, others not. Nowadays I
don't think any real estate photo gives a damn about parallels or anything else for that matter. And I'd imagine that overall wouldn't make much difference labor wise whether one
has film or a digital camera setup. Maybe other coniderations involved. But 90% of the work is always setup and lighting anyway. The actual shotsa are almost anticlimactic.

[r.e.]

I'm in a deep architectural phase right now and am devouring everything I can get my hands on. I will be ordering these tonight!

I'm not sure if I have it right, but was Julius Shulman the third point to the triad that birthed modern architectural photography? I think he was on the west coast when the modernist movement was growing legs, and had the right style to put it in perfect context. Could he be akin to Miles Davis, in that they both really embodied the "new" west coast vibe that set out to differentiate itself from the deep seated, more traditional styles that were prevalent back east (New York, Chichago)?

I have Julius Shulman's book and very much like it.

Perhaps others more qualified than I to venture an opinion will respond to your question.

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe not the best role model for commercial technique, but for image sake itself, I really
like Philip Trager's work.

[Kirk Gittings]

No Triad, Schulman, Ezra Stoller, Hedrich-Blessing (a few staffers) and Baltazar Korab in the US.

[Merg Ross]

David, thanks for posting; those should be an interesting read.

Shulman was my mentor, although I never met him. Not long ago, I was in a house that he had photographed in the LA area, and a 16x20 print of same was on the wall. Amazing how he could interpret a building. Morley Baer was excellent here on the West Coast also, for residential work.

Korab and Stoller were, of course, tops.

Architectural photography is much more than equipment and lighting; it takes an immense understanding of form and perspective. A large percentage of my work entailed reshoots, often for architects who thought they could photograph their buildings with a 35mm and get the results they wanted -- they soon appreciated the skill and results from a professional.

Fortunately for me, I got out before the advent of digital; I think Kirk got caught in the transitition.

[David E. Rose]

Merg,
I agree with you about Shulman. He was the second architectural photographer I became aware of in the late 70s. The first was Korab, because I worked for an architectural firm that had his B&W prints all over the studio. I learned so much about how to compose an image of a building from those prints! The compositions of my early architectural sketches and renderings were heavily influenced by Korab's images (and Paul Rudolph's drawings). I came to know Shulman's work through his book "The Photography of Architecture and Design", still a good source of inspiration and technique for anyone interested in architectural photography.

I agree with Kirk about digital being where it's at for current commercial architectural photography. Take a look at the latest edition of Norman McGrath's book "Photographing Buildings Inside and Out". All of the recent work was shot with a Canon DSLR and TS lenses. This approach makes a product that is exactly what architectural firms need. When I shot 4x5, I knew it was overkill for the uses that architects had for the images most of the time. The good thing is that the view camera forced a methodical way of working that is the foundation for my current digital work, which is a good thing that younger photographers will not experience. I would not want to go back to the view camera for commercial work now days for the reasons Kirk cited and many others. Digital is pretty much essential nowdays.

As far as the economy and it's effect on the AP business, it is a cycle that I have experienced many times. During a recession early in my career, Korab tried to generate work (and fees) by shooting buildings without a commission, then visiting the architect to show him the images and attempt to sell them for a per-shot price. And he was a world famous photographer! It always gets better eventually for the talented guys, and the marginal "undercutters" eventually fade away. Korab is retired now, but he outlasted all of his local competitors due to his great talent. Once architects are earning enough to afford it, they tend to return to the top talents.

[Drew Wiley]

Morley Baer's work is quite well known in this area. His work documenting local Victorian
paint jobs in Painted Ladies became a classic, esp in the paint and deco trade. Then he
had an Oakland Museum show tied to his book The Wilder Shore, with his overexp underdev chromes technique, though they classified it as something of scientific interest,
and didn't display it in the fine arts area. Then his heir opened a gallery of his work around
the corner, along with some misc Weston work MB had collected, but that went bust in
a few months. He was pretty cut and dried in his approach to architecture itself - everything frontal and squared up, no nonsense. But the subject matter itself caught on.

[Drew Wiley]

Pros and cons. The digital gear, esp MF, allows the client to preview the shot for approval.
The downside of that is that it slows the whole process down and might be nervewracking
to a photographer used to working undisturbed, without "supervision". Portability and bypassing a scan - digital is the way to go. But I doubt it's any less actual work. At least,
that's what I'm getting told by those still in the profession. I never competed that way.
I combined technical and color consultation with the shoot, then charged for actual prints,
either b&w or Ciba color - had a wow factor in a portfolio or framed on a wall, now largely made obsolete by laptop portfolios presentations. But was sure good side money back then, and I didn't have to go head on head with those officially in that business. Even
charged travel time. Glossy magazine work was more of a chore due to lighting ratio restrictions. Would still be a tempting field if I still had any youthful nervous energy left,
but I'd want at least a working knowledge of both traditional LF and DLSR options.