A New Approach to Architectural Photography?

[Jeff Mottle]

http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/10/28/atticfire-a-new-approach-to-architectural-photography/

 

http://www.atticfirearchitecture.com/main.htm

 

Check out the before and after shots and read the top link for how they do it. Pretty interesting.

[Thiago de Andrade]

Pretty interesting and intriguing. But personally I would stick to the "before" im most of the cases. I found the "after" images to be a little tacky and vulgar.

[aaron-cds]

Most of the "after" shots look like bad renderings. I think they're trying too hard. Some were nice though.

[blowback]

tough crowd:)

 

a few images were a little much but I think over all there was some nice images there.

[kippu]

very nice ....i had this blog in my fav list ...never read it ...thanks for bringing it up

[Chad Warner]

There's definitely something un-natural about some of the images, but they do have a nice look.

[Ernest Burden III]

So we're all obsessed with imitating photography while the photographers are moving to imitate renderings?

 

The grass, the fence.

 

In the end, the successful artwork is about the subject and not the medium.

[chiquito]

Some look nice, some look a little bit overdone.

I´m thinking what would someone think, if they were sold something thats supossed to look in a particular way and its just much more dull in comparison. Lets say I buy a condo based on an actual picture, not a render, shall I feel a sucker latter on?

[Fran]

With all due respect to innovation, I much prefer the original photography. The after shots are all too garish for my taste. They not only look (to me) like CG, but they seem to incorporate every bad cliche possible in CG. Some of the photographs are not very good in terms of ideal conditions or exposure settings. But adding bad CG treatments to a photograph that needs help does not help.

[Koper]

what are you all on about??, i think its pretty d@m fantastic

 

i fear this might become a long post.

 

Ok, 1. Showing the images off against 'before' images, should not be done, it takes away from the artwork, which it is, but they had to make a point (meaning they've got skill)

2. don't compare to the before images because their quality have been visibly lowered, and purposefully shot bad (I’d rather say they look like renders gone bad)

then 3. in general, i think these images are mostly not for selling a houses/buildings, but for the people who created them, 'portfolio pics'. I have not been in too much big architect firms but the ones i have visited does have portF photos of all their buildings all over the place, its the wow factor. - Luckily we get people who does 3d beforehand for the selling purpose

[aaron-cds]

So we're all obsessed with imitating photography while the photographers are moving to imitate renderings?

 

The grass, the fence.

 

In the end, the successful artwork is about the subject and not the medium.

 

LOL, well said Ernest.

[blowback]

I agree, The final image is the goal....If it looks good who cares how I did it. I like the fact that renederings may be influencing photography, and that photography has been influencing renderings. CG visualization is starting to transcend its origin....not just be a by-product of design. This is where new ways of seeing can be created. awesome

[moshenko]

On the topic of HDR/blended exposure photography: I have a couple of friends that do architectural photography for a living. I asked one of them: "Are you getting into multi-exposure shots and HDR techniques?" His response was to tell me that he doesn't need to; that he relies on his skill (which is very good), timing, knowledge of subject and experience. He sees these techniques as fail-safes, meaning that average photographers can go out and shoot as much as they can knowing that they can fix everything when they get back to their computers. I'm not saying that I completely agree, but I do think that some of the samples shown on that website display similar properties: a marginal original photograph that was shot without a lot of care and with the specific intention of being "enhanced". It does seem kind of strange: one would think that major digital enhancement would be required and performed on a photograph that was unintentially poor and where there are no other options available (i.e., no access to space, photograph from a non-photographer, etc.). But here is a series of images where the photo shoots were under complete control of the photographers and could have been made spectacular by just doing better shots. I wonder if this business actually provides a reasonable model (they can shoot more spaces in a day, but how long does the post- work take and how much does it cost?) or is it just an excuse to use the techniques?

 

Hmm. I'm not really sure what my job is now.

[Koper]

i agree, but still within the shoot one can see a special technique used, which is painting with light (using a torch or flash light and lighting up wanted areas during long exposures), probably the hardest thing to do in photography, cause its long nights of trial and error (even with digital), but they adapted for daylight painting with light, and multiple exposures to compensate for the one long exposure normally taken during night, its actualy genius.

 

 

oh hehe, your job, well, they can't shoot anything before its built, and we tend to come before them, thats if you'r a vizualiser, hehe

[IC]

I thought there were more successful "afters" than unsuccessful but the unsuccessful ones were truly awful.