We’re talking about a couple of thousand dollars, according to an architectural photography firm who’s trying to take on an architectural photographer who charges more than $1,500.
It’s a story about what’s known as the architectural photography bill, and how the practice can be both lucrative and problematic.
What is an architectural photograph?
An architectural photograph is a photo taken of a building.
This is not a portrait.
The image is created and edited digitally by the photographer, often by hand.
The process of editing can take several days, and sometimes weeks, according the firm that takes on the photographer.
It takes a lot of time and money to create a photograph, and architectural photographers can expect to pay upwards of $2,500 a month for a license.
What are the fees?
Most architects have their own fees to cover their work.
Some, like the architectural photographer, have professional fees.
But there’s a difference between being an architect and a photographer.
Architectural photographers pay for their own equipment, such as cameras, flash, and lighting, and for services, such in setting up and arranging the shot.
If a photo isn’t shot in a professional setting, the photographer must cover his or her own travel expenses.
What’s the difference between an architectural and an architectural photo?
Architects often shoot architectural photographs for clients and for themselves, while architectural photographers often shoot commercial photos for clients.
Architectures typically have different budgets for different projects, and this can make them different photographers, according a recent article in Architectural Photography Magazine.
The architectural photographer’s fee is typically higher than the photographer’s.
Architecturally, there are also different fees for different styles of photography, so there are many fees to consider.
The costs of an architectural-only photo in Montreal for a house project are listed on a rental website.
If you want a photo that doesn’t include a studio or large building, you may need to pay for your own equipment.
What to look for in an architectural license fee An architectural photographer is typically licensed by a local or national architect.
An architectural license requires that the photographer is also licensed by an architectural association, and if that association is not part of the photographer-license process, it must provide some of the costs.
An architect-only photographer is licensed by the local architect, which means that he or she is also not licensed by any other association.
Anarchitects generally have higher fees for architectural photography.
An archivist usually costs a lot more than a photographer, so a professional photographer will typically cost a lot less.
The fee of an architect-plus-architect photographer is a little more.
If an architect only shoots architectural photographs, a photographer can charge the same fee as an architect, but an archivist has access to architectural drawings and other photographs of a given project, and can edit the photographs and add notes.
The archivist will also have the ability to take pictures of an existing building.
If there’s no architect-and-archist relationship, the fee of the architect-designer is usually $1.75 per photo.
A licensed architect will usually charge $2.50 for a studio.
The cost of a studio is usually about $1 million or more.
The photographer who takes the photo can expect some of that cost back in licensing fees.
How much do architectural photographers make?
The costs are varied.
Some firms charge an average of $400 for an architectural portrait, while others charge between $500 and $1 the price of a professional photograph.
What happens when a photographer doesn’t have an architect license?
An architect is responsible for any legal matters, such building regulations and permits.
AnArchitects, a Montreal-based firm, charges $1 per photo of a project.
An Architectural-plusArchitectural photographer, on the other hand, charges a photographer $500 per photograph, with an additional fee of $1 for each additional photo that is taken.
It can cost the firm more to license an architect than to hire a photographer because it takes more time to get the building approved, but the photographer will be paying more than the architect for the same work.
What should I do if I’m not an architect?
You may be surprised at how many architectural photographers have gone bankrupt because they couldn’t afford to pay the fees.
An example of an artist who couldn’t pay the bill: A New York photographer named Christopher Boesch sued a building company in the 1970s because the company didn’t charge enough to cover its fees.
The building company lost, and Boesk sued, saying that it was owed $6 million.
The lawsuit was settled out of court for $5 million.
A similar case is currently under trial in a Quebec court, and a judge has said that the case should go to trial.