New Books on Architectural Photography Legends

[David E. Rose]

Two new books are available for those interested in architectural photography:

Balthazar Korab: Architect of Photography

Ezra Stoller Photographer

These are both biographies with images. I have ordered them both, but haven't received them yet. I will follow up with details when I receive them. FWIW, Stoller is probably the co-founder (along with Hedrich Blessing) of professional architectural photography as we know it. Many branches of the family tree of architectural photographers lead back to Ezra. Korab is an amazing individual who worked as an apprentice architect for LeCorbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright and Eero Saarinen before devoting himself to architectural photography. Ezra passed away in 2004, Korab is alive and well here in Detroit!

[speedfreak]

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)?

[Sylvester Graham]

How is the market for architectural photographers anyways? Don't a lot of architects and real estate agents just send someone out with a good camera and correct the parallels with PS?

[Kirk Gittings]

You think that perspective correction is all there is to AP? I would say that the first few years of digital that was true for lower level clients and tiny firms who had no ambition and just did bread and butter work. It was never true of top tier architects/designers and these days most lower level clients know better now too after trying to do it themselves for a few years. Prior to the 2008 recession I didn't bother with LL clients-the big boys had plenty of work for me. Their volume has seriously declined forcing me to go to the LL clients to fill the gaps. Low and behold they know the difference now too and are willing to pay for good photography. Still the volume sucks overall but it is not for the lack of knowing what good AP takes.

In Feb I have been asked to give a talk to the AIA. Its not the first time or even the first time since digital arrived. I am not afraid to tell them how I do what I do. Unless they have someone on staff with the right equipment AND really talented with PS AND a great eye AND a feel for light and the patience/knowledge to shoot at the proper time (from sunrise to after sunset) etc. they are going to get crap and either they have already figured it out or will pretty quickly.

[speedfreak]

I'm not sure how the business of architectural photography is, but am sure it's been hit in the same way other types of professional photography have. Your statement about "just sending someone out and correcting in PS" is the mentality that's undercut many professional trades. The "good enough" attitude and the unwillingness to pay what a professional charges, has slowly degraded what is deemed acceptable quality. Look at all the cheap crap we deal with these days. Trying to find and buy quality tools locally, for instance, is often times an exercise in futility.


So I guess what I'm trying to say is that many of you local real estate companies and architects can probably get buy without needing the service of a professional, due to the technology that is available to the average consumer. Their needs are of lower quality at a relatively cheap price. But for higher end, possibly more well known architects and the like, they may deem it neccesary to hire a professional who is going to make their structure shine. By merely hiring the right photographer they can impress potential clients and land more business. At least this is the way I think it basically works :)


Sorry about the tirade, but architectural photography is something I've been seriously considering. I've been trying to get a sense of the market place, and how to approach it. Thoughts of approaching small businesses locally (architects, builders) with the plan to try and sell a higher quality image (done with a 4x5) at a competitive price with the knowledge that the shots arn't going to be done and on a cd in an hour, is what I've been thinking. We'll see what happens...

[Kirk Gittings]

Personally I think that 4X5 and film is overkill and the wrong tool for the job these days. You have compared what you want to do against the absolute quality bottom of digital AP-the lowest paying MO. That is a recipe for failure.. Try turning around 50 primo 4X5s in a week with drum scan quality files delivered at a competitive living wage price. That's a week worth of scanning alone, then spotting, working the files up etc. The numbers are never going to add up if you charge fot all your time.

I know top commercial APs all over the country and not a one of them shoots traditionally.

[Sylvester Graham]

You think that perspective correction is all there is to AP?

That's a bit of a leap.

Look, fact is, digital has made it a lot easier to get great shots. I know a great (not "famous" though) architect who just has an apprentice or intern go out to the site with a wide lens tripod and dslr, keeps it level, turns all the lights on inside, waits until the blue light of dusk, and gets someone to walk somewhere in the frame during the 2 second exposure. Bam. Instant high culture "manufactured landscape" photo straight out of dwell.

And seems like more and more amateurs go pro or semi pro every year--retirees and college grads amongst them willing to do good quality work for nothing or at a loss. How long before lower level clients figure out they can get 80% of the quality for 10% of the price if they go with a highly skilled ameteur instead of a seasoned professional? and that leaves, what, 100 full time, well compensated architectural photogs in the entire world to jet set around to major cities to get shots of the avant garde?

[Sylvester Graham]

Ok my second paragraph is a little harsh but, I would still like to know, how have all the ameteur photographers affected the AP market?

[Kirk Gittings]

I bow to your superior knowledge of the business.

[Sylvester Graham]

Irony? Used to humorously express a point?

[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 (http://www.iwan.com/iwan_index.php) 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" (http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662463/meet-iwan-baan-todays-leading-architectural-photographer-slideshow#1). 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.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know if you're listening in at the moment, Kirk ... but a long-term customer of mine
just showed me his final portfolio of the Buehler House here in town. It's a complete restoration of a Frank Lloyd Wright, including all the original furniture and fixtures. No paint,
totally clear finished wood (special finishes I supplied). He has an exquisite portfolio he had
professionally bound as a coffee-table book. Hope he gets its formally published. The shots
are superb, and there are lots of them, including documentation of the restoration process
itself. Or you could simply buy the house for 4 million, though it comes with a contract
basically turning you into a museum curator - it's on the Natl Historic Register.

[RichardSperry]

Julius Shulman Film
Visual Acoustics

Is on Netflix, btw. Very cool documentary.

I like the part where he is arguing with his assistant. His assistant tells him when they are setting up a shot that the 45 will vignette, and not to use it. Shulman (almost chortles) and says, 'we always burn the edges and that's the look we want anyway'. Paraphrase of course.

[David E. Rose]

Well, I finally have both books in hand. My impressions:

The Korab book is a modest biographical article combined with a photo monograph. I wish the biography were more detailed and complete- it is only 27 pages, but I did learn some new things that help to increase my understanding of Korab's life. I suspect that this is the most biographical information we may ever get in book form. The collection of photos is well selected to illustrate various periods and themes from Korab's career, but the quality of the reproductions is less than I would have hoped for. If you get a chance to look at Korab's original B&W prints you will realize that he is a very talented printer, which does not come across here. In summary, although it is not all I wish it could be, I am happy to have any new documentation of the great man's career!

The Stoller book is larger, thicker and better printed, but has some of the same issues. I would really like to see a true biography of Ezra Stoller, but again, I'm not sure we will ever see one. This is a monograph that includes 4 short essays on various aspects of Stoller's career. The images are well selected and inspiring, although I have seen many of them before, especially in Stoller's mongraph "Modern Architecture" from 1990. Again, anything that increases our understanding of this critical figure in the field of architectural photography is appreciated.

In comparing the two photographers, it is interesting to notice their similarities. Both studied architecture, Korab taking it further in working for Saarinen and winning a 4th place prize in the international competition for the Sydney Opera House. Their careers overlapped extensively, Stoller starting earlier, but Korab taking off quickly once he devoted himself to photography full time. They shot for many of the same architects and often the same projects. It is interesting that Stoller made it clear that he considered himself a commercial photographer, not an artist, and was uncomfortable when it was suggested that his work was art, even though it clearly is. Korab was clearly an artist in every way and in every aspect end of his career. Korab's book is titled "Architect of Photography", which is a reflection of the fact that he views himself as an architect who happened to photograph buildings. Neither man was academically trained in photography. The greatest overlap in their work is probably in their photographs of Eero Saarinen's work, and it is interesting to see how their images of the TWA and Dulles terminals and the GM Tech Center compare. Clearly they are both giant figures in the field of architectural photography, and deserve wider appreciation in the art world. Perhaps these monographs will be a step toward greater recognition!

[Ben Calwell]

Interesting thread. I've been hanging onto to my Sinar F1 thinking that if I retire from or get kicked out of my day job, I could supplement my meager SSN benefits by doing some architectural photos. I would be known locally as "that quaint, older photographer who still uses a view camera." Guess I'd better start saving for a full frame DSLR and a tilt-shift lens.