There's been a flurry of SMPS listserve postings about professional photography. The postings are full of terms and conditions that photographers like to have, and terms and conditions that their client firms would prefer to have, and a lot of emphasis toward the idea of hiring professional photographers.
I don't want to steal anyone's work, just as I don't want anyone to steal mine, but I can always find a talented young photographer who is eager to break in, and who will give me the rights I want for a fair price. They get business and exposure at a fair price, and referrals if their work is really top notch, and I get the work I need at a fair price with the right to use the work as I need forever and ever. Having paid the photographer to take the picture, I don't want to have to pay him or her again and again every time I want to use it.
Actually, I worked for a firm that had this kind of deal with a photographer 15 years ago. We paid a slightly higher day rate and he delivered electronic files on CD (already color-corrected, cropped and ready to use), catalogued and indexed, and we just had to copy the CDs and pass them out to our other offices that had marketing staff. We owned all rights and only paid him additional fees if we wanted actual prints, particularly large sized prints that we framed and gave to clients. Part of the deal was that he got every photographic assignment the firm had, regardless of where it was located. Both the firm and the photographer felt they had a good deal.
My problem with professional photographers is that, instead of treating the finished building as an example of the architect's art to be recorded for the client, the design firm's marketing or other purposes, they often tend to use the building merely as a prop to show off their own art. So we get purple sunsets that mask the fact that the facility is a wastewater treatment plant. Or we get artistic stormy cloudscapes reflected in the building's mirrored exterior, and can't quite make out the actual outlines of the building because of the reflections. These pictures are very artistic, but they are about the photographic arts, and not about architecture.
What is most discouraging is that so many awards seem to be given, as the many posts pointed out, to the projects with the best photography. This means that great photographers win architectural awards while spectacular, ground-breaking designs with original concepts and visions can be overlooked because they don't have the kind of dramatic photography that obscures the actual winning design elements that were so award-worthy in the first place!
One other thing: the postings hint - and with no subtlety - that ONLY professional photographers can get you that award-winning shot. NOT TRUE. While I wouldn't be surprised to find that the great shot came from a professional photographer, I wouldn't be surprised to find that it came from an amateur either. Many great photographers are hobbyists who just don't have the resources or desire to start their own business. I wouldn't automatically assume their work would always be second or third quality. I've seen too much great photography from people who did other things for a living to make that mistake.
In the long run, no matter how the person earns their paycheck, the work has to speak for itself and resonate with you.
