Tom Ross

Today's episode of Office Talk is sponsored by Office Dave Sharp, striking the right balance between your business goals and the long-term integrity of your brand starts with a comprehensive and considered marketing strategy. At Office Dave Sharp, we work exclusively with architectural practices to provide you with a deeper understanding of your brand and an in-depth strategy that brings your practice ambitions to life. Through the creation of a bespoke 12-month marketing plan, we develop a complete understanding of your business and identify areas for elevation and improvement from your media strategy and brand identity to your messaging, project imagery and beyond. With a long-standing background in architecture, strategy and marketing, we use tested methodologies and measurable approaches to help you better navigate the path forward. To learn more about our process and request a consultation, simply visit office Dave Sharp.com. Welcome to Office Talk Australia, a monthly podcast featuring in-depth conversations with leading architects about their approach to business, marketing and communications. I'm your host Dave Sharp, and on today's episode, I'm joined by a very special guest, Tom Ross, a leading Melbourne-based architectural photographer. Tom works across architecture and editorial. He studied at the Victorian College of the Arts and Massachusetts College of Art, and keeps his speculative practice on the side, making photos and books about the built world. So I hope you enjoy my conversation with Tom Ross. Tom, thank you so much for coming on the podcast. Hi Dave, thanks for having me. Mate, give us a little bit of a rundown on how you became an architectural photographer. Like what was the background and how did you get into it? I studied environmental science, but then I wasn't really my cuppa, so I went and studied photography at VCA. It's more of a fine art course, but I started assisting while I was there. Other photographers, not architecture photographers actually. And then from there I started sharing a studio with a couple of architects, and Dave gave me an early opportunity and loved it, and then kind of grew from there. And when was that roughly that you started those first jobs in architecture? Probably shot the first architecture thing in 2010 or 2011, or something like that. It feels a long time ago now. Yeah, absolutely. And what pointed architecture start becoming the full-time thing? Even if it is the full-time thing, I'm not even sure if there's other stuff you do outside of architecture. Yeah, so I still should have been at it, what they call editorial work. I like to do more, but the industry is bit more than Australia, just because of advertising money and print and the size of the population, I guess. But there's a couple of people that have a couple of photographers, that have a good mix of editorial and architecture, or like editorial and fashion and stuff like that. I'd love to do more. I shoot for Monical Magazine occasionally, and a couple other outlets. But yeah, most of the time it's architecture, and it really gradually swung from being a jack of all trades, like I was shooting cafes and events, and just anything I could get my hands on it rather than like work behind a coffee machine or do a day job. And I was pretty grateful for anything. And yeah, gradually, I don't know what year, but it's an ongoing project. I'm still amazed to this day that it pays the rent, but yeah, do it full-time, and probably 80, 90% of what I do is architecture, and occasionally you'll get a brief from a design agency that's slightly different to that. But yeah, a lot of the time I'm out photographing houses and bigger buildings sometimes. Yeah. Man, I'm just curious about your kind of like mix of clients a little bit. What sort of portion of jobs that you would shoot in a typical month would be for architects that you or interior designs that you've shot for previously, versus people that you're kind of shooting for for the very first time? I guess like I'm wondering like how big a pool of architects is it that you would typically shoot for in a typical year or whatever? Is it a big mix or is it like this core group of people that you just kind of tend to be doing a lot of projects for over time? Yeah, I don't know the numbers, but for instance, if I didn't get any new people contacting, there's enough people now that I've been working with for a while that I'd be fine for the year. Sometimes people ask are you taking your clients or I just laugh and go, yeah, like they say no to that. Really, but I'm really lucky to have some really nice long-term relationships that would hold me over and then I'm probably getting emails about quotes from new people every week or every other week, but whether they come through is another story. Yeah, so most of it would be houses like most weeks I'm going out to Reki Orchute, a Victorian terrace house that someone's either knocked the back off or most of it down and it's like a huge amount of what I do in Victoria anyway and then lately I've started to get emails about bigger things like I got an email about a hospital last week and done more schools which is really nice to change the scale a bit. I'm a bit new to it, but yeah, really enjoying it. It's interesting how the scale shifts over time. I kind of feel like over the career of an architecture photographer you go from shooting tiny little things that young practices are doing because they're your kind of peers and they've just started their offices. To one day you'll be up in the helicopter shooting the football stadium. Yeah, you know, for sure. And you're like, now I only do stuff of that scale at I charge 50 grand a day. True. Yeah, I can't say that happening to me because I love like, I mean it because of houses, because of the people factor I find. Yeah. One of the things about the commercial scale, like an office or a hospital or something like that is that there's no, the human beings are a little bit more distant from the design. They're definitely there obviously, but you know, you're not going in and meeting Mr and Mrs and whoever in the house and the people who live there and chatting with them directly, which is what we do most weeks we go in to do a wrecking and we meet the people who live there and the house has been designed specifically for them and it actually is important because it informs the photos obviously quite a bit. Whereas when you work in something that's non-residential or even multiverse, that human element is slightly harder to access. I think I get, I think I'm starting to get asked for that different scale because of a recognisably residential or like human centric approach to the photography because I'm not a super formal photographer like I didn't train as an architecture photographer. I didn't necessarily architecture photographers. Like I only just started using tilt shift lens of that. So I've found in the briefs and in the conversations occasionally, especially with design agencies, but also from the architects directly that they're looking to humanise the building. So I think sometimes, yeah, the buildings can be big and a bit impersonal and sometimes maybe the type of photos I take can lend a bit of authenticity or humanness. You think that's the kind of the look that they're trying to go for the kind of the spin that they're trying to put on the project. Or maybe that maybe it's authentic and they're just trying to bring it out. Yeah, I mean, I think it's like how easy it is to make renders and fake pictures of things. I think they want you to be able to look at it and think that someone stood there and took that picture. Yeah, I think it's an authenticity thing that is hard to get these days for obvious reasons and I actually think like because my photos, because I'm not formally training and they're not always pin sharp or dead straight, or there's a bit of short depth of field or something that language maybe gives them that sort of sense of authenticity. Like you can see the camera. That's actually a hope for me. Like I don't want it to look perfect because you could do that with a computer, I guess. I like that the camera is present. I feel you. Is that as an approach that you've kind of always taken since like you started shooting architecture stuff, you know, 15 years ago, always that in something that's kind of evolved gradually over time. Like if we go go and look at the early early Tom Ross's, like what are we, what are we seeing? Yeah, I think it is to do is starting out shooting more editorial work and then coming to architecture rather than training with another architecture photographer and learning about the techniques and all the gear and all that. That was more, I was walking around hand holding where the 24th. of 70 and gradually moved into architecture from there. So I think it comes, I think it comes from that background. And then when things got published at the very beginning, some of the outlets thought that the photos were unedited or that they weren't up to snuff. Whereas now I've noticed, I think the, some of the magazines have started to come full circle. And yeah, that kind of more human look seems to be much more attractive now. Whereas when I started, I think, yeah, it was a little bit more of those wider lenses and everything squared up and it was a bit more formal. Yeah. That's so funny. That's really, really cool. Yeah, I even had a couple of times I had magazines edit the photos without asking because you're kidding. Yeah. Now everyone has that warm, low contrast kind of look or something. Yeah. Like a film kind of look. But at the time, I think they thought the photos looked undercooked. So they fixed them. They thought that, yeah, that was, that was sort of all the always-away-ass shot. And then it just, I applied it to architecture, not consciously. I just started shooting architecture and that was the way that I did it. Yeah. There's a confidence in the lack of editing, polishing, preparing the spaces that I enjoy. That it's not a glitzy high-end kind of look. It's a kind of, yeah, a comfort in the architecture being as it is and being used as it's intended rather than, I don't know, putting lots of contrast to me. Yeah. Trying to polish it up. Yeah. That's interesting. Again, probably about authenticity. Yeah. Well, it's kind of, it's the opposite of that sort of precision, right? All that precision and polish that you're talking about that maybe sort of associated with architecture photography. Yeah. With the handheld sort of background, I really embrace the serendipitous moments, like the things, like we've always got the camera on the tripod and everyone's standing around looking and there's a frame there, but often some of the better photos come out of when you run off with another camera or you see something that's quite kind of a femoral that is really specific to that day that iPhone really fun. And it also, I feel like that connects you to the building a bit better because of how specific it is, like maybe it was raining and then the sun came out and rather than, because sometimes architects get worried about continuity in the set of photos, like if it's cloudy for part of the day and then rainy and then all we have to go back to pick up something and it's a different conditions. I understand that, but I prefer to lean into the chance things that happen on the day and embrace the fact that it's a subjective take on that building and it's not the objective record of that building forever. I've felt like that's a bit of a futile thing to chase and it takes a lot of atmosphere out of the work. That's really interesting. Yeah, and that's a key issue isn't it? It's like that creating image is verse documenting a building, not that they're totally, they don't overlap at all, but there's like different opinions out there. I'm sure I think that's what I'm, that's the binary to is between there's an assumption with architecture photography in particular that doesn't exist in other photography disciplines that this is an objective record or you're there to document something, which is, it's interesting because you've got that set up in the background and you can depart from that or you can try and stay very true to it. You could be hardcore about it and like there's a famous German couple in photography who always photographed Bert and he'll have been always photographed. Always photographed. Always at midday, always overcast. For 50 years, that kind of thing is an approach to that was I guess a measure to strip away everything except the form. It's like scientific. It's like doing a looking at an electron. Doing something, you know. Yeah, which I love, but obviously there's practical issues with that and I really enjoy how a lot of good architecture will make you aware of the passing of the day and the different light and the different conditions and yeah the shoots that go well are where that's been considered in design of the building and then you know you're standing there in the morning shooting one thing and then you can turn around and shoot this. You can shoot the same corner of the building in the afternoon. It looks completely different. Yeah. Yeah, it's interesting right because it's like the building, the building is unchanging. It's an object and you can capture a permanent record of an object and that's fine but the way that it feels to be in a space or that atmospheric quality is like constantly changing so like the exercise of trying to document some objective version of that feeling is just not it's just like can't be done right so you have to be capturing moments. Yeah, various types of feelings and emotions and lights right because like you can't I don't know I don't know I'm interested. No, I agree. I think it's you've highlighted that exceptionally flawed nature of photography to document architecture which I'm constantly aware of like the eyeball is over prioritised as a way of consuming architecture obviously because of the way we live and rather than try to make up for that I prefer to embrace that flaw and yeah I think there is ways to create atmosphere that makes people think about other senses like like touch for instance with texture or the sound but yeah ultimately the camera is never going to get you close to standing in the thing. I guess coming back to kind of the purpose of why an architect commissions photography they obviously want to record document the building like as designed right like there's an incentive there because they're not going to get an opportunity to like that's all they get to keep of that building unless it's like a significant public project or whatever that like a visit but if we're talking residential it's like that's it that's what you got so I get that idea but I think you know the conversations I have with clients and when we're doing their strategies around and we're talking about photography and often I'm looking for a more atmospheric alternative or direction for their photography because I think that it's important that their images resonate with people on an emotional level and that that's a big driver of people's decision-making about like which architect they're interested in working with just from a pure marketing perspective so if they're a photography style that they've commissioned previously doesn't really have an emotional quality to it and it's just sort of strictly documenting in some way I just find that that's less effective for marketing purposes anyway like not that that's the most important thing in the world but no but that's the practical implication whereas what I think you're also talking about there is like emotions are good word they're just like more compelling pictures I think essentially if you've got like a motion when you say a motion it assumes that the person is having a reaction to the photograph so you know that's ideal really yeah there's something you should set out to try to do whereas you could set up the opposite of that end of that scale I guess would be these objective images of the building that are perfectly legible record but lack that kind of connection and like you've highlighted the difference between documenting and building and packing pictures for marketing which you're always going to be a balancing act between the two and it's not one or the other no it never is I think it differs what city what country you're in it sounds like to me I haven't shot overseas a lot but it does sound like it differs like there's some people you would commission photographers who you would commission who almost wouldn't take a brief you would just be inviting them to the building and you would take whatever they got kind of thing all the way through to the other end of the scale being here's the brief this is how wide you should be this is a time of day you should take a photo like and you're almost like a tradesperson in that and so you everyone would fall somewhere in between those two poles and it is a like what you said about the public private thing if it's a private building it there is pressure on you to make a good legible document of the building because that building will live as those 10 JPEGs if it's someone's house because no one's going back in there so that's definitely not lost on me I try to leave with my take on it but then also do definitely take notes on views that I wouldn't usually I wouldn't shoot usually I will try because the architect spent years with the building and I spent eight hours whatever so yeah we'll give the other views ago because often we're not getting in there again. Yeah yeah absolutely and tell me I'm telling you a little bit about your process because you've mentioned the wreck issue and I feel like that's sort of a step that you take that is interesting to talk about so yeah so what's the what's the approach when it comes to like visiting a building before the kind of shoot day like is that is that something that you do with like every project? Try to yeah I don't understand really how you could do it without it when I started I offered it as an extra thing and then I found when people didn't do it it was the outcome wasn't as good so I insist on doing it as part of the process it's mostly for me I think it benefits the architects as well though so you will go for an hour or so prior to the shoot ideally it's a similar time of day to when you're going to shoot so if it's like a dawn thing because of the way the building faces are duskting try and go then and then basically I just walk around with the designing architect talk about it and take and help photos and just kind of instinctively try to react to the building as well as we will have their renders or any images they had in mind like while they were building it or designing it any images that kept repeating in their mind I like to know those so we can look at them because it's a big thing if they've been living with the building for years in their head to then convert that into JPEG so I find the Scouts really interesting because then they've got like a set of flat two-dimensional pictures of their building and that because I can be kind of jarring which is fair and at least that jarring happens before the day so then they learn something and we both learn something and then we can go back on the day and shoot with that in mind so yeah I find it super useful often architects get married to the Scouts and increasingly I've found people want to use a Scout photo as a final image which is also interesting and practically not always ideal but I don't have to just from spending time with the pictures or the fact that they're just taken so instinctively that often people will like see it when we go to repeat a Scout photo on the tripod it kind of loses something that's pretty common I find that's interesting so the the Scout shoots usually do they doing those fairly close to the final shoot or is there a little bit of time there for like the architect to just kind of simmer with the Scout shots and just digest them for a bit of time yeah you know it'd be too close like the day before is almost useless which like but we'll take whatever we can get sometimes it is the day before if it's interstate that's the only way it's going to work and we go apply the day before we'll shoot something that afternoon and send it to them and then look at it overnight before and it's still still definitely useful other times it'll be months before and then they're waiting for the landscaping but at least we go in there and look at it try and plan the views and then go back later so yeah it ranges it's often just guided by when we can get access all people's schedules and things like that but yeah ideally it's like two or three weeks out so the building looks similar to the way it's going to look at me shoot yeah and how much planning around the individual shots themselves do you do in terms of like the shot list or do you get quite planned with that sort of stuff from that Scout shoot onwards to the final shoot yeah it's getting I'd say I'm noticed lately it's getting almost too planned in that we're often just repeating the Scouts which it's good because we've discussed it so at least we're all on the same page about why we're in those views but it can take a little bit of life out of the shoot and those serendipitous moments can get sacrificed when you've got a shot list and you're repeating them ideally trying to get a bit of bit of both in terms of planning it's super useful obviously because then when you know like if they pick 10 or 15 of the Scouts you can then plan when to be in those places based on the sun that's super useful I'm not at the level of like putting tape or chalk on the floor but I know some people are but you need to move so quickly Dawn and Dusk that once you've agreed on the views you literally will run around the house with your tripod trying to get them all with that beautiful light because it doesn't last and you know you can't go back tomorrow night but it's a good time I have to ask about the chalk on the floor oh sorry they probably made that sense I've never heard about that before yeah yeah so people will I have done it but I don't do it often you will put tape or something or chalk where the tripod legs are going to go because you're not going to get time to fathor and finding the spot again when you've got to take a photo every seven minutes or whatever so you'll put down yeah tape in different places I know over a couple of people who do it almost always so that you know we're going bang bang bang so and that like on a big project that's furnished where you can see inside that also involves like mad like architects running around moving couches for different views and turning lights on and off and opening and closing doors and whilst it feels like in an architecture shoot it goes for 12 hours and you only get eight photos often it's like sitting around while it's especially in summer it's sitting around in the middle of the day maybe shooting the bathroom but going quite slowly and then at dawn and dusk it's just madness oh it is with me because I like the light at that hour and I don't have one except the high sun and high contrast unless it's asked for specifically wow man that's a marking your spots is very I don't know it feels very hollywood I like it it's very professional yeah it's it's not always possible but yeah it has to on film if you're going to shoot that quickly you're probably enough to mark it out because you can't fudge it much on film yeah do you shoot on film mostly or mostly digital or what's your mostly digital I always shoot film frames out of project almost always because I like to look at the reference to see what the film did with different materials so carry around both some whole projects end up on the film camera it's a case by case thing doesn't suit all projects that I shoot the film especially if there's like lighting design where you're putting artificial lights on I don't find that films as good at that but yeah I enjoy I enjoy having the film cover there and I find it as great for a reference of like how to get a natural look to the photos that's really interesting do you ever do you find that it's a client preference thing often like an architecture preference yeah some people are like just we got to do it on doing on film and you get that brief a lot of people will ask for advice on it I don't have a strong preference I find it easier to work on digital because it's what I've done more and I'm a bit faster it's a little bit more forgiving in some ways you can obviously shoot more so films are expensive but yeah we'll see it's it's become much more popular obviously in the last few years so yeah I'm not sure where that'll go do you think that's just like a mood and atmosphere kind of thing again in terms of the demand like that architecture like wanting that look because they want things to look kind of more natural and more human eye and I guess film kind of has that kind of feeling yeah at the cynical end it's just a look like a treatment yeah people like it you could be the cynical one I'm not allowed to be the cynical one so at one end it's that it's just like oh that looks dreamy or whatever but at the other end it's really nice that the cellularoid the actual film was in the building like there's a physical thing there in the building that recorded the light in there and that's really attractive to some people that it was there on the day and in like I said in the age of like it being so easy to make pictures with computers there's something tangible that people can hold onto there that that film can do you mentioned earlier that spectrum from the photographer who turns up and And like, does the shoot and the client just get lost, you know, you don't want the art things to input on anything. I am an artist and it's cool. Yeah, that's awesome. Actually, if you had to pick, you'd probably want to be that guy at that end of the spectrum. Be nice. But then the other end, you got the guy who's basically the camera operator for the architect, who is doing what he's told, or she's told in taking the shots and all that sort of thing. I mean, what's the right amount of briefing that you feel like an architect should be bringing to the table? Or, you know, actually, you mentioned creative agencies as well. You know, and you work with branding studios and things like that. So you probably get like a more trained version of briefing through those situations as well that could kind of compare against what an architect who doesn't really necessarily know how to brief for the right way to brief looks like. Yeah, like, what do you think of as like a good sort of version of briefing from an architect? You say, for like a residential project? Yeah, so architects could definitely learn something from graphic designers or like people who work in advertising just purely in their so good at briefing. And when I say good, what I mean is they will give the right amount of information and know very well what they need out of the outcome while sleeping room for interpretation, which I guess would be the best way to do it. You kind of spoke to Anthony Gilles the other day a bit about this idea like, so if you tell me where to stand with, you know, what millimetre lens at what time of day you're just going to get that and nothing else, do you know what I mean? Like, whereas if you speak to the ideas, the intent in the architecture and some of your favorite views is going to leave there some room for my take or another person's take. I think it's like any consultant on an architecture project. If you macro manage them, you'll get exactly what you ask for and nothing more. Whereas the best projects I've seen from like joiners to even like electricians and everyone involved, there's trust and then space there for them to also do their own thing and it's more than the sum of its parts I guess. And yeah, the best shoots are the ones where there's a sort of creative shorthand and trust there where you know what they need to get out of it and you know what they are intending with the project but you've still able to bring yourself to it. But when you're talking about kind of the outcome that they are aiming for like the graphic design, it does like a good version of this. I mean, what does that sort of mean in terms of like a set of architectural photos? Like, what would be an outcome like that would be? Because I don't think many people would be that clear about what their outcome. Excellent. Excellent question, David. That is really interesting because you're right. A lot of the time people don't know what the outcome they're chasing is and that's obviously problematic because you haven't really identified the question that you're answering. Like what are we doing here? Are we drawing like often the conversation is which magazine are we trying to go for? That's a version of this chat. Better than nothing. Yeah, yeah, something in print. So, they want a mixture most often of, yeah, a document of the building that they can use on going but also something they can use to market the building and yeah, when the photography exercise comes up, they're often presented with that kind of issue. It was like, what are we trying to do here? And then it also ties into like, if they haven't done a branding exercise, it also presents like who are we as architects, they might know quite well who they are as designers. But maybe the not as well how to speak about that or communicate that. Like, you can have no brand, sure, but then that's still a brand. Having no brand. Just like got a brand that you're not controlling really. So I think it's definitely valuable to look at other people's work and how they talk and communicate it and think about what your principles are and how you like to, how you're going to get that across in a photography exercise. That sounds kind of abstract but, yeah, for instance, if it was something like comfort or human-centric design, that would obviously inform the photos in a certain way. Not going to go and get a fish islands and stand across the road and shoot it at midday and get the whole thing in because no one's experience of a building is like that. So you're going to look for more vignettes or intimate moments or include the residents or something like that. So there are questions you should ask because, yeah, often people are like, "Oh, we're having people or not," and they don't ask that until the morning of the shoot. Pretty, pretty big question. And it's kind of whatever that question specifically, but it's more the tip of a nice burger like, what are we trying to get here? What are we doing? Yeah. What are you trying to convey about your practice or the project, right? Yeah. And especially if they're a young firm or they've just started documenting their work, they're enough. You probably don't know exactly how that plays out in the photography, but it's definitely good to have a conversation about it beforehand. Yeah. Then on some level, they're just like, "We just want to be really cool and get lots of likes on Instagram." That is the worst. Just make it cool. You do occasionally get that. It's like, "We just want you to do your thing." What do that mean, though? Like, "Do you think, like, great, I'll go and do my thing." But then sometimes you go and do your thing in quotations, and then they're like, "Oh, but where's the photo of the courier, or the fridge, or whatever." And you're like, "Well, you said go and do your thing." So that's where you should probably think about, like, "Oh, we can't leave without a photo, you know, of the Tesla charger and the garage, because we have to have that." If you're enjoying today's conversation, you should go check out OfficeTalkUK, where I interview my favorite UK-based architects about their approach to business marketing and brand. The first season has featured award-winning guests like Mary Duggan, Alison Brooks, Field and Fowls in McLaren XL. We've got a lot of exciting guests coming up, so if you want to hear more OfficeTalk, look for OfficeTalkUK on Apple podcasts and Spotify. Work with a lot of architects, sort of very like leading in terms of the imagery that they are keen to put out there, progressive-minded studios, that are quite conscious of image and photography and perception. They might not admit it. You know, I have them on the podcast, purely for the purpose of getting them to kind of finally admit that they care about what people think about them. But you know, they're very conscious of how their work is communicated. I kind of think like, what do those types of studios interact with you or speak to you or brief in a different way to like the average studio, or are they just kind of like they trust you and they let you kind of get on with it? Yeah, I guess one of them maybe that firm know themselves, like they know their identity, they know what they're trying to do and that obviously makes it all, it comes through. Like I will have seen that, probably comes through. They're probably pretty confident in the work and they're able, within coming from that place they can then trust someone to interpret that work. So you can ask a photographer in and with the knowledge that they will add an aesthetic or bring themselves to it, but their work will also still come through because they have a strong identity or a sense of themselves. And then other firms will, yeah, they'll have like a brand document and they'll have like a set of central kind of tenants that they work to and they'll refer back to that. Especially it gets, obviously gets harder with a bigger practice. Like when you're getting, you know, above, when you're getting into like 20, 30, like a bigger staff, you've got comms teams. And so it's necessary then to, for the directors who probably started out going to the shoots and carrying plants and bunnings themselves and stuff and like being this with the photographer too, then you know, like the comms person being there and a grad or maybe a project architect. You don't have to find a way to communicate your identity within the firm as well and so it forces you to kind of write it all down. I have on shoots occasionally people like, no, that's not us. you've got something framed up which like sometimes surprises me sometimes. and so I prefer to know, yeah, from them, because it's useless to them if I run around and do a bunch of things that I like and then they don't think it fits in with who they are. Sometimes that's a bit tricky because increasingly I ask people if they've looked at my work, because yeah, you can just be like, all of it's not us. And it's like, well, did you look at my folio before? Like, why are we here, kind of thing? Because sometimes unfortunately they can be times where they'll just get you because it's cool to get you. And that's an awful idea because you might even use that. And yeah, you want to be on the same page and yeah, just trying to be cool. (laughs) Good luck. - Yeah. I mean, I don't know if there's definitely an aspect of that in photography and in the selection of photography. There is a brand association that studios want to have with certain photographers. If you're trying to position yourself as a cool creative, you know, (mumbles) just fucking awesome, like talented practice, it's like, it looks the part to be like, yeah, our stuff's being shot by Tom Ross or. - Well, I think then. - Yeah. - There are certain choices that just, it kind of like gives an appearance of coolness versus, you know, and I mean, honestly, that's just kind of, it's very like superficial, but. - Yeah, I get it. - It's not a game, not a game. - I get it. I think that's what you've done, then you need to accept what comes with that in terms of like that you've asked, what you're referring to there is like an authorship on behalf of the photographer that's identifiable. And like, in this case, it's being turned into a commodity. You have to trust them and the way they do it. You can't, they're micro-manage them and say, don't shoot there, don't shoot there. That definitely happens and you end up with a bad outcome because you've started out with, do you think and make it cool? And then you've said, don't do this, don't do this. Like, shoot it really wide and you're like, well, that's not how I work. And then you end up with some watered down in between things. And that actually is not uncommon. - I guess like the key thing is what you're talking about, it's more about is the client like researched, the architect actually looked at the work. Do they actually like the work? 'Cause they're doing it purely for marketing reasons, that's obviously not good. You know, I think. - Yeah, I mean, it's fair if that's like gonna get them in print, I understand that. - Like that's a strategic move that they're making. - Yeah, and that's a move that they're making. - Sure, that's not, but yeah, like I said, you gotta go with what comes with that because you're asking then that person to do what they do for you, but also then asking them to do it in your way, and like getting in the way of it, which is a set up for disaster, kind of. - Yeah, yeah. - And it's sometimes funny how a practice might actually achieve that superficial goal that they have through the excellent work that that photographer does, for example. Like I had exactly like a couple of years ago, where like an architect was like, I just dream of getting my project in this particular publication. - I would love to do that, that would make me so happy. And then we're like, okay, well, I know a photographer who could make that happen. Like it really was a question of like, I know a photographer who could make that happen. - Right, yeah, it's true. - Low and behold, yeah, photographer made that happen. - Amazing. - Yeah, an architect didn't like the photos and they didn't like the process and they didn't like shooting with the dude and they didn't like any of the interaction afterwards. They got the outcome they were looking for, but it was so bitter, I wish that hadn't happened and this was a lesson, like this was a mistake. - That's like a fable. - Yeah, that was for me, that was a really important lesson. This was years ago, but like working with people where we weren't going through the kind of strategy process to get to a point to make those kinds of tactical decisions. It was more just, there's a shiny thing a client wants to do. And then like, let's take that at face value and do it because that sounds cool. - You know? - So now you know to like mine that idea a bit more. Like so when they say they want to be in that publication, like let's talk about why. - And like what is the basis for that? And why should your foot work? Like that publication wants a certain type of photography and like why would we want that photography for your project? - You have to interrogate that a lot more now because I learned from situations where it's like, yeah, achieving that goal because photography can do that for you and certain photographers can do that. But like there's more, there's much more to it than that and you're not necessarily just going to be happy because you've got that outcome. You know, so I don't know, that was an interesting lesson. - Yeah, yeah, maybe that was interesting when they hated it. - And it's also that like a rival fallacy kind of thing is like if I'm in this publication then my life was, I've definitely heard of, I've text talked about like, oh, and then after we're in this publication, what will happen then Tom? It's like, I don't know, maybe nothing. - Maybe nothing? - Yeah, maybe you'll get 50 phone calls about big houses out, I don't know. That's a little bit of a risky thing is like, one plus one equals two, like Jess need bone and I occasionally get the situation where it's like if we book Jess and Tom that will get us in ex publication and when it, if it doesn't happen, which we obviously can't guarantee and it only is partially up to what we do on the day. Like it is also to do with the architecture. Yeah, then yeah, sometimes people are a bit crestfallen because I guess they've like put in an investment and they've got a specific return on that investment in mind. Especially if you're starting out, it's a big, it's a big spend to get an established photographer, like any established photographer I understand that I'm acutely aware of like the pressure and wanting to get them something good out of the exercise and yeah, if they've got something specific in mind, just try to manage that expectation of, you really don't want to go because occasionally the conversation is like, let's shoot like this, specifically for that publication. I think that's a bad idea because obviously if it falls over then you've got these pictures that you don't like or don't necessarily like because you've tried to do something for someone else. So you should just always do it for yourself and then hope maybe that someone will publish it and more than likely will because you've been honest about it and tried to and you've done something specific and personal. Yeah, and that's the right way to do it at thinking about it at that kind of broader practice brand level as well to have an overall direction of like what you want your work as a whole to convey whereas if you're just chasing one publication at a time with each job or some very specific outcome that isn't even tied into your biggest strategy but it's just something that you thought would be cool then like that's gonna feel very narrow. I actually also think that dilutes your brand publicly anyway. Like no one knows what you're at, what you're doing. If you just go for the photographer of the moment and for the publication of the moment and then you change tack six months later, very confusing to everyone outside, probably inside too. Yeah, it's really interesting and you probably worked on this kind of thing but when you've done, when a graphic design agency has done a branding exercise with a big firm it's really nice because they have gone through this whole thing where they've talked about what the firm are about and how they're gonna communicate that and then often what they'll do is make a rolladex of photographers that once they've come up with that fit in with that and then yeah, if you end up on that rolladex I'll call and you know why they've called and it's for a specific thing and that's really nice but yeah, there's a higher level of sophistication to that. We're talking earlier about photographers having a brand and an interest in their work specifically because they're very unique and particular. My observation from looking at photography like here in the UK primarily is that it's partially through the work that you shoot and the clients that you shoot for that's a part of the prestige of a photographer but I find that the thing that tends to also make a big difference is photographers shooting their own kind of independent work as like fine art or documentation or doing their own exhibitions or books or whatever pursuing work that is just purely creativity that is not that commercial side and that that sort of ends up becoming the thing that people get really drawn into and I'm curious about stuff that you do outside of commission work for clients but also what kind of role has it played I guess in terms of the impression people have of what does Tom Ross do? Like has it influenced things do you think? - Yeah, I think everyone probably starts out or I started out shooting 1% of overlap between what I was interested in and what I was taking pictures of for money does that make sense? And then as you go along that starts to overlap more and more So people see, so I'm always taking photos for myself. I've got a couple of different series on the go all the time or shooting projects with architects or writers that are just unpaid love projects like making books or something. But then, yeah, obviously people see some of that and they identify shared interests with it, I guess. And I guess it helps to get more that you're interested in because you've shown the rest of the world that you're interested in something specific, I guess, is the really basic way of putting it. I think I would be doing it regardless because I would get really stale or I'd start to feel like photography starts to feel like a job otherwise. But if I didn't have my own stuff going on the side, I was just shooting just to shoot. I've been working with another couple of other architects and Stuart Getty's, a graphic designer on a book about our poll coach who's an Australian architect who worked with Robin Boyd for a long time and had his own practice really in the whole time and he kind of never documented his own work. He's made a lot of great work, but it's not really well known, and hasn't really even been placed in the Australian canon, really. So yeah, I got lucky where a friend was doing a thesis with Philip Go to put him onto poll coach and we went out to this project called Touring Bale House which he built for himself. Anyway, we went out there and photographed that and then we looked into his work and seven years later we're still on it and we're just finishing a book now which comes out soon through a euro and through the exciting project that I've been working on for a long time. I can't wait to finally set. Like Tangible have a book. I would definitely not recommend making books as any kind of money making exercise, but it's beautiful to make something physical and to do a really long, deep dive into one topic rather than jumping around constantly, like working with Paul over such a long period and has been, I feel super lucky and to look at one person's work, especially someone, his ilk has been working for so long it's been really, I felt really lucky. And I think it'll be pretty good to book. Have you done any other books at that kind of like time scale of your photography? Like over that many years. - Yeah, so Michael Wright-Barr of architecture architecture and I did a book called Among Buildings which we did a second edition of, did the first edition in 2016 and did another edition in 2023. I think. And that was like a collection of 26 significant Melbourne private and public buildings and that was all black and white photography and Michael Wright's poetry. So it was like poetry and photos. So that was another book we did. And kind of always had a book or something similar or an exhibition on the go since I started, it just seems to just pop up. They just happen and I'm always keen to do things, especially like it when it's a collaborative thing with other people, but yeah, I got some things on my own as well. So yeah, I think it's really good to have something outside of what you do for work, that's for sure. - That's awesome. - Well that's really exciting. What other than the book, like what else? I mean, I always like to ask guests about like the future and you know, longer term, what are you thinking? What are you planning? You're gonna disappear to your earth and become one of those guys. Like what is that? - That's the, yeah. So yeah, I am going to Helsinki in a couple of weeks to launch that book, which would be really nice to it. It has Helsinki Design Week. It's gonna be great. - I look forward to my free copy. - Yeah, yeah. It's giving me your address, Dave. It's only cost me $50,000 to make the book unpaid. Yeah, going to Helsinki, which I've never been there. That would be really nice. And then yeah, after that, we're just basically spring is coming. So that's extremely busy in Melbourne. And generally trying to shoot slower, like spend longer on projects, which is kind of always the hope, not very good at saying no though. So we'll see how that plays out. - Well, thank you for saying yes to this podcast, Tom. I appreciate it. - No, it's a thank you very much. - It's an absolutely privilege, Dave. Thanks for having me. - That was my conversation with Tom Ross. You can see more of his work at tomros.xyz or follow him on Instagram at tomros.xyz. OfferStock is hosted and produced by offerStaveSharp, a strategic marketing and communications practice for architecture. We work collaboratively with clients across the globe, so to learn more about our approach, simply visit offerStaveSharp.com. That's all for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I'll see you next time. (upbeat music)