At first glance both of these photography disciplines involve talking photos of properties so they must be pretty much the same right? Some of you may then be shocked to find that an Architectural photoshoot is likely to be in the £thousands range and require several days compared to the a few £100s and a few hours that is Real-estate photography.
So some of you maybe wondering what the heck is going on to justify the costs and what extra do you really get?
First thing to advise is that you will never employ/commission an architectural photoshoot for a poky student flat in the city. Even if you are going to clean, tidy, and paint your property and pay to get it on the front page of your local estate agency or management agency marketing media, you are still only going to need a real-estate photographer.
Secondly it would be understandable for a real-estate photographer to turn down an Architectural photoshoot, and equally an architectural photographer to be insulted to shoot a real-estate job.
Reasons being is that a real-estate photographer will gawk at the amout of extra effort required to shoot architecturally and a architectural photographer would not want to put their name to "lower" quality work.
Basically:
Real-estate Photography: showing the property as a whole, its size, shape, the layout of the rooms and the relationships between rooms.
Requirements: wide as possible, basic lighting, basic editing, every room.
Architectural Photography : Taking timeless images with attention to details, architectural design features, interior design features, artistic relationships between spaces, lighting and design elements.
Requirements: Be an artist. multiple off camera lighting and natural lighting control, Time, advanced editing, considerations for final print / media usage.
More detail:
Real-estate Photography in all honesty is not as high end as architectural photography. There is greater time and budget considerations and usually "average" properties getting shots for an average sales or marketing for letting are not set up in a way that warrants the expense for architectural photography. The majority of properties, do not have "special" details, design aspects of interest, a considered integration of lighting and interior elements such as furniture, decoration and space layout. This is true also of new build properties even if they are fully dressed/interiorly designed for show. Architectural Photography is truly for the most badass properties.
So some of you maybe wondering what the heck is going on to justify the costs and what extra do you really get?
First thing to advise is that you will never employ/commission an architectural photoshoot for a poky student flat in the city. Even if you are going to clean, tidy, and paint your property and pay to get it on the front page of your local estate agency or management agency marketing media, you are still only going to need a real-estate photographer.
Secondly it would be understandable for a real-estate photographer to turn down an Architectural photoshoot, and equally an architectural photographer to be insulted to shoot a real-estate job.
Reasons being is that a real-estate photographer will gawk at the amout of extra effort required to shoot architecturally and a architectural photographer would not want to put their name to "lower" quality work.
Basically:
Real-estate Photography: showing the property as a whole, its size, shape, the layout of the rooms and the relationships between rooms.
Requirements: wide as possible, basic lighting, basic editing, every room.
Architectural Photography : Taking timeless images with attention to details, architectural design features, interior design features, artistic relationships between spaces, lighting and design elements.
Requirements: Be an artist. multiple off camera lighting and natural lighting control, Time, advanced editing, considerations for final print / media usage.
More detail:
Real-estate Photography in all honesty is not as high end as architectural photography. There is greater time and budget considerations and usually "average" properties getting shots for an average sales or marketing for letting are not set up in a way that warrants the expense for architectural photography. The majority of properties, do not have "special" details, design aspects of interest, a considered integration of lighting and interior elements such as furniture, decoration and space layout. This is true also of new build properties even if they are fully dressed/interiorly designed for show. Architectural Photography is truly for the most badass properties.
