Anatomy of an Architectural Photograph

Sunbelt Building by KMA Architects (2003) in the Kearny Mesa neighborhood of San Diego, CA. Photo ©Darren Bradley

I was just informed this week that the above photo won the Silver Medal for the Advertising / Architecture category in an international photo competition called the Prix de la Photographie Paris. It's a nice honor, and I am happy about it (especially since there were no gold medals awarded, so technically I could say that I received top honors! (it's all about how you spin it, right?). But that's not why I'm writing about this photo or the contest here. 


But before I get to the main point, I suppose it's a good opportunity to reflect on what I'm doing and how I've improved. For example, here's a shot of the Le Corbusier's Swiss Pavilion in Paris that I shot back in April of 2009... 


I was apparently proud enough of the photo at the time to watermark it! It's a decent enough shot, I suppose. At least I corrected the perspective (By that, I mean that the walls appear straight). But it's not a very good photo, either, to be honest. 

For one, the sky's blown out. It's overexposed so it appears white. I see here that I didn't move the gates or signs or other stuff around. I didn't see that sort of thing back then. Didn't care. Also, it's too far back. My first instinct was to "get the whole thing in". But it makes for a very documentary style photo. Not terribly interesting. 

Here's a photo of this same building that I took earlier this year (February 2013)... 

Fondation Suisse at the Cité Universitaire de Paris, by Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret (1930). Photo ©Darren Bradley

I think it's better, but maybe that's just me... 

I am still dealing with a flat, dull, grey light just like in the previous shot (in fact, it was even snowing in my second photo!). So conditions weren't great and I really should have just come back when they were better. But I was only there for a few minutes and it was either shoot right then or wait until next year. So I made the most of it. I moved the barricades on the left, and the signs that were peppering the lawn out front were stacked in a neat pile just off camera. I got closer because I wanted to emphasize that central column. The rest was just a question of controlling the exposure to capture enough detail and texture in both the building and the clouds. 

As for the photo contest that I just won, I also happened to notice that some of the other awardees in the architectural photography category had managed to win with entries that weren't - technically speaking - architectural photographs. This got me to thinking about the nature of architectural photography. 

I almost never win photo contests - at least not if I submit actual architectural photographs. It's nearly impossible to do so unless there's a specific category for architectural photography. And even then, most of the judges (and even most contestants) honestly don't really understand what architectural photography is. Any photo of a building becomes an"architectural photograph". So what usually happens, to paraphrase a very successful architectural photographer I know, is that "...it isn't really "architectural" photography that is being judged, just a plethora of Chinese cityscapes, abandoned factories, post apocalyptic houses, and abstract details..." 

In fact, I shared my Silver Award with two other contestants. My friend wasn't far off. One was a detail shot of a dilapidated apartment block in Malaysia, and the other was a cityscape in Saudi Arabia. They may or may not be nice shots. Not judging that. But neither one had anything to do with commercial architectural photography in a proper sense. 

I like to say that architectural photographers are to the photography world what pastry chefs are to the culinary world. Anyone who knows about how to make pastries will know what I'm talking about. I frequently see very accomplished photographers (much better than me, frankly) decide to try their hand at architectural photography. The results are usually terrible. 

This is because the first rule in architectural photography is to represent the building correctly. Yes, you do want to show it in the best possible light. And you do want to photograph it in a way that emphasizes the elements that are most interesting, and tell a story. But that takes precision. You can't just wing that. 

Don't make it look distorted... 

Don't create an abstract tableau where you don't even recognize your subject building... 

UCSD's Geisel Library by William Pereira (1970). Photo ©Darren Bradley

Most successful architectural photography straddles a line between objective and subjective points of view. Show the building as it truly is, but also as it should be seen and understood. Use composition/context, light and angles to convey the moods and feelings that the building is trying to convey. 

UCSD's Geisel Library by William Pereira (1970). Photo ©Darren Bradley

And before putting the soapbox away, I'll make one final point about architectural photography. A fair amount of work goes into creating every single photo! Take this recent photo of a church as an example...

Carlsbad Community Church by A. Quincy Jones (?). Photo ©Darren Bradley

I spotted this church while driving by on the freeway, and pulled over to get a closer look. I had a camera with me (as usual), and also a tripod. So I set up in the middle of the street and grabbed a couple of shots. I decided to get closer than my lens focal length would normally allow, and to shoot the lower and upper sections separately, so that I could stitch them together later. Here was the result...

Lower section:

Photo ©Darren Bradley

...and the upper section...

Photo ©Darren Bradley

... stitched together, you get this:

Photo ©Darren Bradley

Like in those games on the kids menus that restaurants are always giving my daughter, you may notice a few differences between the above photo and the final, finished version I first showed. For one, you see this is a RAW file, so colors appear washed out. Also, my sensor was really dirty. See those spots? Yikes! OK, but besides that... You'll also notice that cities have a particular knack for always seeming to place light and power poles in exactly the worst locations in front of whatever building you want to photograph. Also, the entire street could be empty. But there will always be a car parked in front of the building you're shooting. And if there wasn't when you started setting up, one will arrive and park in front of you before you get your shots. Guaranteed. 

Since I'm not David Copperfield, I had to use Photoshop to make these nuisance objects disappear. And yes, it was a pain - especially that damned car. I took several shots from slightly different angles so that I'd have enough data to use behind the objects. Still, I know that shooting this church is the easiest part. I had probably an hour's worth of work in front of me, editing this photograph. Again, here's the result (which I did just for me - not a commission - because I thought the architecture deserved the time and attention)... 

Photo ©Darren Bradley

Now, some people may cry foul at this point. And if I were a photojournalist, that much editing of an image would be a big problem. But the fact is that all I'm doing is removing objects that are obstructing or distracting from the subject. The key here is to avoid going overboard. And besides, I'm pretty sure that this is much closer to the architect's intent...

So the next time you're hiring your friendly, neighborhood architectural photographer to shoot a building for you, please consider the time and effort that goes into creating every single image - especially when considering the price... Oh, and please move your car! 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

WINNER OF PX3, Prix de la Photographie Paris

DARREN BRADLEY OF UNITED STATES WAS AWARDED SECOND PRIZE IN THE PX3 2013 COMPETITION.

PARIS, FRANCE
PRIX DE LA PHOTOGRAPHIE PARIS (PX3) ANNOUNCES WINNERS OF PX3 2013 COMPETITION.

Darren Bradley of United States was Awarded: Second Prize in category Advertising for the entry entitled, " Sunbelt Office Building ." The jury selected PX3 2013’s winners from thousands of photography entries from over 85 countries. 

Px3 is juried by top international decision-makers in the photography industry: Carol Johnson, Curator of Photography of Library of Congress, Washington D.C.; Gilles Raynaldy, Director of Purpose, Paris; Viviene Esders, Expert près la Cour d'Appel de Paris; Mark Heflin, Director of American Illustration + American Photography, New York; Sara Rumens, Lifestyle Photo Editor of Grazia Magazine, London; Françoise Paviot, Director of Galerie Françoise Paviot, Paris; Chrisitine Ollier, Art Director of Filles du Calvaire, Paris; Natalie Johnson, Features Editor of Digital Photographer Magazine, London; Natalie Belayche, Director of Visual Delight, Paris; Kenan Aktulun, VP/Creative Director of Digitas, New York; Chiara Mariani, Photo Editor of Corriere della Sera Magazine, Italy; Arnaud Adida, Director of Acte 2 Gallery/Agency, Paris; Jeannette Mariani, Director of 13 Sévigné Gallery, Paris; Bernard Utudjian, Director of Galerie Polaris, Paris; Agnès Voltz, Director of Chambre Avec Vues, Paris; and Alice Gabriner, World Picture Editor of Time Magazine, New York.

ABOUT Px3:
The "Prix de la Photographie Paris" (Px3) strives to promote the appreciation of photography, to discover emerging talent, and introduce photographers from around the world to the artistic community of Paris. Winning photographs from this competition are exhibited in a high-profile gallery in Paris and published in the high-quality, full-color Px3 Annual Book.
Visit http://px3.fr

For Press Inquiries, Contact:
Press@px3.fr

About the Winner:

Contact Darren Bradley:
darren.a.bradley@gmail.com