At least half my work is moving image these days, and while the subject matter remains the same (architecture), there’s a growing interest in that area from architects and press outlets. I’ve made nearly 200 short films in the last couple of years, about various buildings around the world and it’s a wonderful way to tell a story.
At their cores, stills and film are pretty similar. I use the same cameras for both and I compose in a broadly similar way. When I’m doing a shoot that is only stills, I’m trying to tell a story with a collected set of images (the story of the building) but with a film, that sense of storytelling takes on a different dimension. You get to create a self-contained narrative, with interviews and sound and movement. The edit, the arrangement of the shots, becomes really important as we try to keep the viewer engaged with what the film is showing them. The sound, whether it’s the ambient sound around the building, music or a spoken voice, adds a huge amount of texture, and movement, either the movement of the camera or the movement of people in the frame, adds depth and a sense of life. Essentially, with the films I do I’m trying to create a cinematic space – a recreation in their mind for the viewer of the building and what it feels like to be there.
I try to do all that with a photoshoot as well of course, but with film it’s a bit more direct as it’s all self-contained and the individual shots can’t be extracted and moved around, taken out of context or shown on their own in the same way as they can with a set of photos.
I don’t think of film as an alternative to photography, I think it’s just another useful way to tell the story of a building to a viewer. For some people photos will be the most engaging medium, for some it might be text and for some it might be a short film.