One of the biggest challenges I face when talking about photography with prospective clients is to be compared to other photographers on price alone (e.g. "I get the same thing for half the price"). While I try not to take this personally, it's always a difficult conversation to have, as the differences between an inexperienced photographer and experienced one can be pretty subtle, yet crucial.
Unfortunately, there is no perfect formula to distinguish between a crappy, a half-decent and an excellent photograph, but there are some criteria that will help distinguish them. I'm going to outline them below.
Experience. One of Vonnegut's characters once quipped, in answer to the question: "How do you know the difference between a good and a bad painting?" He answered: "Look at a million paintings and you'll know how to make the difference". While his answer was tongue-in-cheek, it held a near-universal truth about the appreciation of art's subjective quality. Indeed, people who look at these things day in and day out know best. The same way an architect can look at a building's facade and instantly know if it was carefully composed or is a mere afterthought. All that experience makes the expert an expert (duh).
Knowledge of architecture. Of all the architectural photographers I know of, I personally find that the best ones have trained as architects and are intimately familiar with the discipline. That understanding often translates into images that convey a sense of place, materials and texture while doing so with a high degree of artistry. Most are architects. The non-architects are usually easy to tell apart.
Post-production. The difference between a half-decent image and a great one often lies in the quality of its editing. A great composition that is rendered flat because of a lack of contrast and desaturated colours will look dull. The same composition with subtle, yet appropriately dramatic editing will mean the difference between "meh" and "wow!". I can't count how many times I've seen pro photographers release images where the perspective correction is wonky, which drives me absolutely crazy. Conversely, editing that goes crazy with the contrast and saturation to the point of losing image quality will make images look garish, like a creepy clown at a birthday party.
Connections with the media. Your photos are only the first step in promoting your projects to the public and a good photographer should be able to help you get published through their network. Since they get published on a regular basis, they should be known in the publishing industry.
Understanding of designer's marketing needs. Most design firms with dedicated BD staff are usually pretty good at knowing what kind of images work best for them. An experienced photographer is able to cater to those needs, but also push back when they demand things that are actually working against them. I once had a client who insisted on shooting their restaurants at night, when no one is around. When they rejected my suggestion of putting people in their images, I decided to not work with them again. There is no point in showing an empty restaurant, as these places are designed for people and should in my opinion show people in them.
An intimate command of weather patterns, natural daylight and solar orientation. Great compositions can look like absolute shit if photographed at the wrong time, yet a few hours later will turn into a money shot. Timing shots is crucial and requires a lot of experience to get right.
Photographing architecture is an exhilarating, yet very challenging endeavour. We have to accommodate a lot of requirements and manage many uncontrollable variables. But when the stars are aligned, the right talent makes your architecture look stellar.
If you like what you see, click “>>subscribe” at the top left of this page, to get our daily (or weekly) updates straight into your inbox. You can also write me a little love note here. I truly enjoy having conversations with you about what I write.