Darren Bradley
Well-Known Member
Architectural Photographer Geeks vs. "Normal" Photographer Geeks
Architectural photography as a genre is not widely understood or even appreciated - even by most photographers. Part of it is because we don't really speak the same language. Most arch. photogs came to it out of a love of architecture first - with photography being simply the medium or tool. So while other photographers love to wax poetic about old rangefinder cameras, or the merits of Velvia or Tri-X film, we are more likely to be found roaming the streets looking for an interesting building to shoot, or digging through city archives trying to identify an architect's project.
Most "photographers' cameras" - even the holy grail Leica M series or the new Fuji X100 - are fairly useless for architectural photography. We tend not to have as much sentimentality about the good ole' days of film because we care more about the building than how we shoot it. That's not to say we don't use or appreciate film! Architectural photographers do, indeed! Anyone checking the prices on medium or large format digital sensor backs these days will understand why!
High Barriers to Entry - Cost & Equipment
I'll get more into the specific equipment needed in a later section. But for now, I'll just point out that another reason architectural photography isn't widely practiced is the specialized equipment needed. Certainly, it's possible to do with any camera and lens combo - Hell, I've even used an iphone camera! But anyone doing it seriously will want at least a full-frame DSLR to go wide and capture as much detail as possible. You'll also need a good ultra-wide angle lens - preferably tilt-shift/perspective control.
If you don't have a TS lens, yes, it IS possible to correct perspective in LR or other PP program, but it distorts the image and also means you lost part of the frame in correction so not the ideal way to go (more on that later, too).
Those who can afford to do so (there are a few) instead opt for a medium or large format camera with either a film or digital back. Yes, those old-school cameras with the bellows and the cloth over the head are still made and widely used in architectural photography because the wider format captures more minute detail over a larger space and the bellows allow for infinite movements to correct perspective and DOF, etc.
Film versions are inexpensive enough at a few hundred dollars, but then your cost of developing film that size is pretty high. Digital versions can set you back the price of a nice sports car (a new one). Most of these cameras are highly specialized and look almost unrecognizable as cameras, and they are hand machined and assembled by Swiss elves in caves somewhere in the Alps, in very small quantities (which, I guess, partially explains the crazy prices)
So even if you go the "cheap" route, by the time you've added up a full frame DSLR, a TS lens or two, a few other lenses (it's not ALL wide angles, you know), a sturdy tripod, a pan/tilt three way head, a spirit level, etc... you're in for nearly US$10,000 (as my wife is fond of reminding me).
Back to Part I https://realphotographersforum.com/...itectural-photography-part-i-what-is-it.2901/
Part III - The Equipment https://realphotographersforum.com/...ural-photography-part-iii-the-equipment.2918/
Architectural photography as a genre is not widely understood or even appreciated - even by most photographers. Part of it is because we don't really speak the same language. Most arch. photogs came to it out of a love of architecture first - with photography being simply the medium or tool. So while other photographers love to wax poetic about old rangefinder cameras, or the merits of Velvia or Tri-X film, we are more likely to be found roaming the streets looking for an interesting building to shoot, or digging through city archives trying to identify an architect's project.
Most "photographers' cameras" - even the holy grail Leica M series or the new Fuji X100 - are fairly useless for architectural photography. We tend not to have as much sentimentality about the good ole' days of film because we care more about the building than how we shoot it. That's not to say we don't use or appreciate film! Architectural photographers do, indeed! Anyone checking the prices on medium or large format digital sensor backs these days will understand why!
High Barriers to Entry - Cost & Equipment
I'll get more into the specific equipment needed in a later section. But for now, I'll just point out that another reason architectural photography isn't widely practiced is the specialized equipment needed. Certainly, it's possible to do with any camera and lens combo - Hell, I've even used an iphone camera! But anyone doing it seriously will want at least a full-frame DSLR to go wide and capture as much detail as possible. You'll also need a good ultra-wide angle lens - preferably tilt-shift/perspective control.
If you don't have a TS lens, yes, it IS possible to correct perspective in LR or other PP program, but it distorts the image and also means you lost part of the frame in correction so not the ideal way to go (more on that later, too).
Those who can afford to do so (there are a few) instead opt for a medium or large format camera with either a film or digital back. Yes, those old-school cameras with the bellows and the cloth over the head are still made and widely used in architectural photography because the wider format captures more minute detail over a larger space and the bellows allow for infinite movements to correct perspective and DOF, etc.
Film versions are inexpensive enough at a few hundred dollars, but then your cost of developing film that size is pretty high. Digital versions can set you back the price of a nice sports car (a new one). Most of these cameras are highly specialized and look almost unrecognizable as cameras, and they are hand machined and assembled by Swiss elves in caves somewhere in the Alps, in very small quantities (which, I guess, partially explains the crazy prices)
So even if you go the "cheap" route, by the time you've added up a full frame DSLR, a TS lens or two, a few other lenses (it's not ALL wide angles, you know), a sturdy tripod, a pan/tilt three way head, a spirit level, etc... you're in for nearly US$10,000 (as my wife is fond of reminding me).
Back to Part I https://realphotographersforum.com/...itectural-photography-part-i-what-is-it.2901/
Part III - The Equipment https://realphotographersforum.com/...ural-photography-part-iii-the-equipment.2918/
Last edited:
