Help the Architect

[Gordon Moat]

North facing window, if there is potential for window light. Continuous curve at floor to wall, and wall to ceiling, on at least one wall, or ideally at a corner. Make capability to run lighting up at ceiling level, with room for large softbox. Skylights are a nightmare, unless you make some method of blocking them off; indirect light is more desirable for photography. Place for a stylist, make-up artist, or simply somewhere for talent/models to prepare. Include a counter and bar stools somewhere for refreshments.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[cjbroadbent]

Sal,
Hope you are not taking the micky. I post a lot on rainy weekends.
I'll do a sketch next Sunday.
C.

[r.e.]

Just in case someone who wants to get it right might actually have an opportunity to build a studio...

I'm in that boat at the moment. I've been so focused on stuff like the kitchen that I haven't even thought about a studio, but I am now, and so I'm intrigued by this discussion. At the risk of looking quite stupid, my best interpretation of Christopher's post is that the studio might look very roughly like this trapezoid, modified to include a north facing window, except maybe with more extension (a) of the upper and lower parallel lines toward the right or (b) of the lower parallel line toward the right. My interpretation does make for a studio that would seem to have a distinct impact on the rest of the floorplan and/or the orientation of the whole structure. From both practical and aesthetic perspectives, it might work better as a standalone building. It would also be possible to do it in a more conventional space with movable walls/partitions, or drapes attached to ceiling tracks. If my understanding is more or less right, I'm interested in finding out what the architect on my little project thinks. If I've completely misinterpreted Christopher's post, at least I'm likely to soon find out

[photographs42]

I don’t quite know where folks here got the idea that a studio should be included. Not all photographers want or need them. 1000sf isn’t much for a house in the first place and, if a darkroom and matting area is required, I don’t see how there could be room for a studio anyway.

You don’t say where you are attending school, but if the program they gave you didn’t include a list of required spaces it’s a weird school. I have been an Architect for 42 years and am yet to have a client that relied on me to tell him/her what they had in mind. As the Architect, you need to know how the person lives, are they married, kids?, what kind of photography?, and on and on. All of this information comes from the client and you should have been given that. I am also a photographer (LF B+W Landscapes) and I have about 800sf dedicated to darkroom, mounting, matting and framing, but I don’t have, need or want a studio.

Good luck,
Jerome

[neil poulsen]

What a neat project. You've come to the right place.

One question that I have, is this for the digital photographer or a traditional photographer? (Traditional means film, which implies a darkroom, etc.)

[r.e.]

I don’t quite know where folks here got the idea that a studio should be included.

We got it from this sentence in the original post: "Maybe a room for shooting film out of?"

aka a studio.

People are having fun with the question. Surely that's OK. To be honest, it isn't even entirely clear from the original post whether the "client" is necessarily an analogue photographer.

As for 1000 sq ft not being much for a house, I don't know. It's the size of a lot of European flats, including the one that I had. European architects/designers seem to have a real knack for designing for that much space.

It's also the size of a lot of the houses that the architect Robert Mellin talks about in his book Tilting: House Launching, Slide Hauling, Potato Trenching, and Other Tales from a Newfoundland Fishing Village (Princeton Architectural Press): http://www.amazon.com/Tilting-Launch...2958989&sr=8-1. The houses and ideas in this book are of particular interest to me at the moment because I'll be building in a fishing community in that part of the world this fall. I'll come in at quite a bit more than 1000 sq ft, which actually presents a design problem, because what I'm learning is that scale in relation to the rest of the community is something that I need to pay attention to. In fact, I'd recommend Mellin's book to the student who started this thread. He might find it very helpful.

I especially look forward to Mr. Broadbent's further post next Sunday, if he has time, on studio design.

Cheers

[cjbroadbent]

Off the cuff.

[NateArchitect]

WHAT AN AMAZING COMMUNITY.

You know, i belong to a forum for my 350z and they are nowhere NEARLY as helpful as you guys. I appreciate the time and thought you have put into your answers more than i can express. I hope all good things come to you guys for not tellin me to "search" or some empty ended answer like that. Once again, thank you so much.

[r.e.]

Off the cuff.

Maybe, but you have raised two really interesting questions.

First, how is the dispersal of northern/diffuse light affected by the geometeric shape, and height, of the box that it illuminates?

Secondly, where does the photographer want to be positioned in relation to that light and where does he/she want the subject to be?

Then there's the question of how this fits together with what you call the niche.

I suspect that there is already a computer model to test the first question, and that the model allows one to input sunpath data for a specific lat/long.

The first question could also be tested with a miniature physical model, and perhaps a flashlight, that made it possible to change the orientation and height of the walls.

Sounds like a fun experiment.

[cjbroadbent]

With a window facing north, There is no need for a diffuser. That's the whole rationale -the bare sky is the source. The photographer is facing the background, his subject is 6 ft. in front of the background. Nothing else to it.
A lot of us do the same thing with an artificial window-light or a big umbrella. The difference is light fall-off - because an artificial source is not a thousand miles away.
C
Ps. In fact, a round source is better than a rectangular source for a soft gradual penumbra. This is because a straight edge on something like a box or a nose often often gets parallel to the side of the window, creating an abrupt shadow.