You are on page 1of 4

Architectural Photography

http://www.urbanrealm.com/features/450/Architectural_Photography.html
15 Apr 2014

Always there but never seen architectural photographers are the ghosts of the
profession, unnoticed and undervalued. To redress the balance urban realm invited four
leading proponents of the craft to step out from behind the lens to give their perspective
on what makes the perfect image.
They are the unsung professionals who have the final say on any design, spending hours on
site after the design team have headed home and yet architectural photographers arent always
accorded the respect that their work demands. Bearing this in mind Urban Realm invited
some leading lights in the field to step out from behind the lens to offer their perspectives on
the importance of photography in shaping perception and communicating design. With their
work often viewed more frequently than the subject itself and cameras ever more entwined in
our daily lives, the temptation to simply point and shoot during a break in the clouds is all too
real and is one of the biggest mistakes a practice can make.
Andrew Lee is a photographer more painfully aware of these misconceptions than most,
telling urban Realm: Im surprised that someone will spend three or four years on a project
and take away nothing from it. Only the client and a few end users will know about it and in
the case of private housing it might just be one person. It would be like a film director
showing their new release to a friend in the living room, why would you not want to reach a
wider audience with your achievements as a stepping stone to your next project?
Comprehensive coverage in a journal might feature (at most) 12 photographs, on a website
maybe six or eight and in a magazine article just one or two and it is through this vanishingly
small window that practices must showcase their wares to the wider world. Lee observed: In
a magazine or journal people might read the text but theyll certainly look at the picture.
Architecture doesnt translate into words, especially the words that most architects use which
tend to be aimed at other architects. There is something less mediated about the graphic
image, it allows the viewer to make up their own mind.

Adding his voice to the mix photographer Tom Manley added: Having worked in practice for
a decade, changing career to pursue a passion in photography has been an interesting process.
The challenge is to bring together elements of space, light and time to break a building
down to its primary qualities. A practices work, and reputation is experienced through these
images as much as by the people who live and work in its buildings. Digital media and blogs
bring this work to a wider audience, and hence the importance of images that offer fresh and
striking perspectives has never been greater.
Fellow photographer Neale Smith, who liaises regularly with Lee and Manley, advocates
collaboration with the architect at the earliest stage to achieve the best results, ideally
including a site meeting to pick up on any details which need to be highlighted, allowing him
to concentrate on the technical aspects. At this point its good to feed my own experience and
technical knowledge to them and make suggestions based on what they want and what I know
is technically possible, advises Smith. Technicalities aside, the dressing of an interior is also
extremely important, more often than not you spend as much time moving furniture and other
objects around as you do composing and lighting the scene.
Vehicles may be the bane of urbanists but they are a particular irritant to architectural
photographers who must somehow find a way to prevent the omnipresent metal lumps from
ruining their shots. I have found myself offering to pay irate motorists to move obstructing
vehicles remarked Manley, who must also contend with street furniture, bin stores and
neglected landscaping. But where do you draw the line between an honest reflection of reality
and a dishonest enhancement? Ill use digital manipulation to overcome limitations of the
camera such as exposure, especially when youve got contrast between the indoors and
outdoors. Ill also use it to remove things that shouldnt be there; so if Im told something
will be snagged then I feel justified in airbrushing that out. Similarly if something is scuffed
through wear and tear, Ill airbrush that out too - but Im careful to avoid anything which
affects the design and execution.
Does this mean that the camera lies? Lee answered: The camera always lies! A camera taking
a very raw photograph, a very naive photograph, is lying. Its making the building look worse
than it is. Im lying if you want to put it that way, by making it look better than if you just
turned up - but theres a greater truth in my photograph in that Im describing the intent and
the execution. By retouching a fire extinguisher or some signage Im removing distractions to
allow the viewer to appreciate the design. Ill never make a building look worse than it is, Ill
always make it look better. At the end of the day were interested in seeing things at their best,
it would be like photographing a car on a smartphone for an advert. It is all about selling, its
selling ideas. No-one is selling the building apart from a developer but architects are selling
their vision, their principles and their ideas about what makes a good building.
Picking up on this theme when asked whether CGIs are now approaching photo-realism
Keith Hunter replied: The camera views the world impartially, it is the photographer who
dictates how the image created should be perceived, which can, if desired, give a distorted
view of the subject. It could nearly be switched around to say are photographs starting to look
like CGI creations? The visual industry photography, film and TV - are all pushing
technology that shows everything brighter, sharper, more colourful than we see in real life so
the boundaries are becoming more blurred. There are definitely instances where you have to
look hard to distinguish whether it is a real photograph or CGI render.
Commenting on how viewing a building through photography (as opposed to being there)

affects perceptions Hunter continued: Depending on how the photographer has captured the
building you can either have a very distorted or accurate representation of a building. One of
the common problems which can occur when comparing a photograph to an actual visit to a
building is the impression of size. The nature of photographing a building tends to need the
use of a wide angle lens to record it as a whole which will inevitably exaggerate the
perspective, making it look much bigger and sometimes more impressive than if you were
viewing it with your own eyes. On the other hand you can use the choice of lens and
composition to concentrate on a certain design aspect of a building which may not be easily
noticed if present.
But isnt there an argument that a more realistic portrayal should represent the typical
conditions in which a building will find itself, in other words dull and drizzly: Were talking
about selling. There are problems with rain, it will stain the building. It will create reflections
where there arent normally any and youve got no sense of depth because of the flat light. Its
also technically hard to do, I cant set my camera up in rain. The weather becomes the issue
which is why I dont want to photograph in the snow or with a Christmas tree or an Easter
Egg in shot. When you a see a photograph in rain it becomes more particular, it becomes more
about the moment. In ideal conditions you can create a timeless image - an illusion that this is
the way the building always looks.
There are reasons for using sunny conditions, you get direct sunlight which delineates place
so you see 3 dimensions, when youve got direct light you see those planes. I dont think its
bad to show something at its best; it would be like going to have your portrait taken and
deliberately going first thing in the morning without having washed or shaved. As an
individual you have a thousand different looks but it would be perverse to show your worst
view.
This is an approach which Smith finds favour with, saying: My view is that photography is
an intrinsic part of architecture, its the longest valued way of recording a building two
dimensionally, with the exception of more recent trends moving towards video and 3D
renderings - the latter of which is rare for a photographer to offer. Smith adds: I quite often
use lighting to enhance, separate and highlight furniture in a room, to give the two
dimensional space a three dimensional feel. One frame can quite often consist of 50 shots or
more, it takes skill and time to put them together in a way that looks credible. The idea of
blasting out 50 awful images in less than a day is just not on the radar. I think it is important
to keep it as subtle as possible though, over enhance it and people might end up being
disappointed when they visit the building. Its a balancing act between producing great images
to keep your clients coming back and not overcooking it to the point the space becomes
unrecognisable in real life.
There are very few architects, even with their own buildings, who will spend a full day
interacting with the building and seeing how it changes throughout the day whilst getting
objective feedback in the way that I do. If your goal is to use this project for your portfolio or
to lead to your next project then its worth considering how the building will appear in
photographs. One example would be not to spread your budget too thinly over a building as at
the end of the day your project is going to be defined by three or four photographs. Why build
15 slightly different features when you could have three or four elements with real visual
impact?
Medium-sized practices in Scotland spend less on photography than they do on toner,

laments Lee, noting that any fool with a phone can produce something called a photograph
but fewer of us would have the confidence to create a building. Contrasting the photography
profession with architecture Lee observes that there is healthy competition in the sector,
which has so far avoided the sort of back-stabbing and behind the scenes bitching which is
sometimes seen in the architecture community.
Having straddled both worlds Manley added: Architecture photography is by its nature a
slow, considered process and design teams can be unaware of the time and the procedures
involved in getting the required results, which include making sure a building is ready for
photographing. Photos tell a story and this can be overlooked in imagery fuelled by design
competitions, that often judge buildings on aesthetics alone. I think theres a case to capture
the wider context of a building, and the users interactions with surrounding environment.
Architecture and photography should influence each other. By taking time to look closely at
a building project, a process of familiarisation will occur. Comments by local residents or
passers-by often aid my understanding of a building, and suggest how to photograph it well.
Attention to detail in post-production is where the majority of a photographers work is done,
often with more time spent editing than on site shooting! Generally you want to limit
retouching so as to best recreate how you perceived the place and moment when the shutter
was released.
In contrast to a photograph, photography itself doesnt stand still, requiring a constantly
evolving approach to ensure that the wider world - beyond the immediate client team, is kept
in the picture. So the next time you spend a few moments looking at a photograph, think of
the many hours of investment it represents.

You might also like