Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, I'm a retired architectural photographer, the high-end type (Architectural Digest, Progressive Architecture, stuff like that), and it's my personal feeling there's a LOT more good bird shooters out there than good architectural shooters, but hey, everyone can have an opinion :-)
R. |
Dear Robert, I surely don't under estimate good photographers, wether they shoot birds, buildings, trains, bugs, or what ever.
Our teacher is an architectural photographer himself, earns the biggest part of his living with it and besides that he (tries) to teach us the general knowledge of photographing and the secrets of the dark room.
He statet himself that he prefered doing what he's doing for a living in stead of other type of shots "because most of the time he was able to take his time for a shot". He claimed that he spent less time in the dark room print his work than on site to make his photographs.
If he was telling the truth, I don't know.
I personally would like to try to become as all-round as possible over the years.
Birds are not yet on my list, at all. Because I don't have the material, because I don't have the skills yet.
Buildings are not yet on my list because when I do those I would like to do them on film, with a large format camera. I'm building up my budget for this.
So no, I don't under estimate architecural photography at all.
P.S.: sorry if somethimes/often I write errors, use wrong words (even non-existing perhaps):I'm Dutch speaking, I speak Dutch and French on a daily bases, but unfortunately English is less used in our daily work.
|
