Q I just looked at a photographer's book and it looked wonderful but most of his work consisted of studio shots and 'people' photos. Is there really a difference between an all-around commercial photographer and someone who shoots architecture exlusively?

A Yes, and there could be a huge difference.

Architectural photography is full of unique challenges both technically and creatively. Your best bet is to go with someone who has been immersed in architectural and interior photography for a number of years. I have been shooting just architecture and interiors for 22 years now.

Q I have heard architectural photographers talk about the use of a 'view camera' and how it is better than 35mm and medium format cameras. What can a 4x5 view camera do that these other formats cannot?

A The 4x5 view camera is also called a 'large format' camera. The film that is used is roughly 4x5 inches and the actual useable image area is about 3.625x4.625 inches. The size of the film makes it possible to achieve astounding detail and clarity. But more importantly, a well designed view camera enables a skilled photographer to make adjustments that correct the common persepective problems of smaller cameras. Here is a simulated, but accurate example...

..

It's easy to tell the difference. The photo on the left looks as if it is falling over backwards. This is the way a 35mm or standard medium format lens sees things. The photo on the right appears to be, well... correct. The vertical lines are all plumb. Strange as it may seem, if the building WAS actually falling over backwards a view camera can still make it appear straight!

Q What about shooting digital formats? Are there any advantages to shooting digital as opposed to film?

A I also shoot digital. There are some strong advantages to certain types of shots done with digital as opposed to film and some techniques are very easy to accomplish with digital that are almost impossible with film. More and more I am finding that digital photography has a well-earned place in the arsenal of a professional architectural photographer.

Q What am I actually paying for when you shoot an assignment for me? It seems like I should just pay you for your time and then I own the pictures. But I have heard some horror stories about recurring fees and people getting billed again and again for the very same photographs. What's the deal?

A Good question. Phototgraphers have always had a hard time explaining these things. I hope I do a little better to help you understand these issues. When you pay the invoice for a photo assignment you are not paying the photographer for his or her labor and parts. You are actually paying a licensing fee for your use of the images. Traditionally, photographers have billed their clients using a 'day rate' as the basis. This has led to some confusion among many buyers of photography and understandably so.

Photography fees will differ even with the same photographer depending upon the end use. When more than one client is involved in the photography the fee may be increased before the invoice is split. Why? Because the photos will be used by more than one firm. Remember, you are purchasing the USE of the photos, not the time of the photographer.

I have had instances when I photographed a job for a client and billed thousands of dollars for the photography. After the work was completed someone else associated with the project called and wanted to buy a set of 8x10 prints. If I sold the set of prints at face value for, let's say 240.00, how would my original client feel when they realize that the second firm bought, for 240.00, what they paid 4000.00 for? The answer to this is simple. The original client purchased the use of the photos for 4000.00. The second firm will also pay a use fee for their use in addition to the print costs. If the second firm does not want to pay the use fee for the images that's fine. They can always pay another photographer to reshoot the assignment.

My standard fee is liberal in the rights released to the client. I do retain certain rights, but nothing that goes beyond good reason and common sense.