Capturing Architecture: Moving Image and Storytelling

WEBVTT
00:00:01.100 --> 00:00:03.125
Roll camera on limited release.
00:00:03.125 --> 00:00:07.993
32, the Smith's NZIPA Challenge 2025 People's Choice winner.
00:00:07.993 --> 00:00:15.926
This bold blockbuster bursts with tropical white wine and citrus notes, all playing out against a pale gold backdrop.
00:00:15.926 --> 00:00:20.388
The finale A firm bitterness that leaves you wanting a sequel.
00:00:20.388 --> 00:00:21.330
Try it now.
00:00:23.201 --> 00:00:25.286
Welcome back to the Design Principles Pod.
00:00:25.286 --> 00:00:34.645
Today we're diving into the world of moving image and architecture yes, the cinematic side of how we share and experience buildings To guide us through.
00:00:34.645 --> 00:00:40.447
We've got two esteemed guests Claire Chapman, editor of Home Magazine and friend of the podcast, Simon Devitt.
00:00:40.447 --> 00:00:42.371
Check out our previous episode with him.
00:00:42.371 --> 00:00:43.121
If you haven't already.
00:00:43.121 --> 00:00:48.670
You might be wondering why have we two guests best known for still media, here to talk about moving images?
00:00:48.670 --> 00:00:50.621
Well, that's kind of the point.
00:00:50.621 --> 00:01:02.662
As architecture becomes increasingly consumed through screens, film and video are stepping up as powerful ways to represent space, atmosphere and story, and these two are well entrenched in that change.
00:01:02.662 --> 00:01:09.960
We'll explore why moving image is growing in popularity, what it can do that stills can't, and why there is still space for the frozen frame.
00:01:09.960 --> 00:01:11.281
Let's dive in.
00:01:11.281 --> 00:01:29.114
We've got Simon Devitt back again.
00:01:29.114 --> 00:01:30.715
Welcome, Simon, Hello mate.
00:01:30.736 --> 00:01:33.697
Welcome For your annual visitation to the pod.
00:01:33.697 --> 00:01:41.411
Lovely to have you here and excited to have Claire Chapman from Home Magazine on the podcast as well.
00:01:41.411 --> 00:01:41.891
Welcome.
00:01:41.912 --> 00:01:43.174
Claire, I had to kick Gerard out.
00:01:43.280 --> 00:01:44.790
Yeah, we've decided five was too much of a crowd.
00:01:44.790 --> 00:01:45.519
So Gerard's, we paper-scissors-rocked and he lost that one.
00:01:45.519 --> 00:01:45.734
Welcome Claire.
00:01:45.734 --> 00:01:46.140
I had to kick Gerard out.
00:01:46.140 --> 00:01:47.016
Yeah, we've decided five was too much of a crowd.
00:01:46.984 --> 00:01:53.730
So, gerard's, we paper-scissors-rocked and he lost that one, so yeah, yeah, he's actually gone to the eBoss movie night.
00:01:53.909 --> 00:01:58.843
So sort of topical, I guess, a little bit with what the conversation is going to be about today.
00:01:58.843 --> 00:02:12.717
We thought we'd get you both on, simon, I think you and I were sort of bouncing around ideas on this at a shoot one day and sort of talking about moving image and architecture and the role that it has to play and its use in portraying architecture in a different manner.
00:02:12.717 --> 00:02:28.091
Thinking about it before we jumped on the call, it's sort of funny that we've probably got two people that are potentially better known for still media on to have a chat, but then again, I think you both are excellent proponents of the moving image format as well just to clarify moving image.
00:02:28.170 --> 00:02:30.033
You're talking videos.
00:02:30.074 --> 00:02:42.057
You're talking like render walkthroughs yeah, in my head I'm thinking more completed project stuff, just the way that it sells architecture in a different manner, um, to the, to the still image and claire.
00:02:42.057 --> 00:03:03.801
I just jumped off looking at a bunch of the shorts that you did for the Home Awards and I think something that struck me with those is firstly, how brief they are, but how much more of the narrative they give to the project that you wouldn't have got otherwise, and it'd be interesting just to get your thoughts on that and what it was like producing those for the awards.
00:03:04.704 --> 00:03:09.567
Yeah, I think it's really interesting and they are really short, you know, sometimes just six seconds.
00:03:09.567 --> 00:03:15.627
But what you can portray in six seconds with, you know, short-form video like that is quite amazing.
00:03:15.627 --> 00:03:23.080
And I think it's just, you know, focusing on those little details and they become quite immersive just even in that short amount of time.
00:03:23.080 --> 00:03:27.292
So it's really interesting, sort of what you can do with that format.
00:03:28.199 --> 00:03:32.020
I found the one of Rafe's Kākāpōd Like.
00:03:32.020 --> 00:03:40.680
I know the project relatively well but you see it in such a different light, particularly in the way that he talks through the project as well.
00:03:40.680 --> 00:04:07.264
I think that's something that is often missing with still image and we can try and maybe write it down, but I'd say most of the time we as architects aren't particularly good with our words, so it's quite good to try and kind of like draw it out of us in front of a camera and I feel like somehow maybe this is just self-consciousness talking, but it seems less wanky when you're explaining it in front of the camera rather than writing it down.
00:04:07.264 --> 00:04:08.985
I don't know, is that something that you guys sort?
00:04:09.004 --> 00:04:09.347
of feel.
00:04:09.347 --> 00:04:13.210
I definitely think it's a more relaxed way of doing it, isn't it?
00:04:13.210 --> 00:04:26.055
I mean not necessarily for the person in front of the camera, but you know you're in the space and you can just sort of talk through it, rather than you know it's not as composed and sort of structured, I guess, as it would be if you were trying to write about it.
00:04:26.055 --> 00:04:28.084
And, simon, do you reckon?
00:04:28.464 --> 00:04:33.331
did you do, because I know you took the stills for the bunker house that won Home of the Year?
00:04:33.331 --> 00:04:35.447
Did you do the moving image for that one as well?
00:04:36.480 --> 00:04:48.701
No, paul does a lot of well almost all of the Home magazine moving image, promotional, award stuff and does a beautiful job and also a really lovely guy.
00:04:48.742 --> 00:05:02.403
We work together a lot on shoots and typically I'd be a no to having anyone else on a shoot with me, but Paul's great, so we have a good time and he shot a really nice piece for Home Magazine of the Bunker House.
00:05:02.403 --> 00:05:09.524
I did also shoot my own video and often well, not even often I always shoot stills and video.
00:05:09.524 --> 00:05:50.389
Now, even whether it's a part of the brief or not, for me it's a part of being able to understand a project and I sort of dip in and out of those two mindsets, those two sort of head spaces of the still image and the power of that kind of narrative which is more in the ambiguous and the kind of meditative, more implication and not explanation, and video sort of tends toward more explanation and it sort of sits with that fast-moving kind of appetite we have for visuals versus the still, which is perhaps more of the slow cooking kind of tension and wonder kind of area in the visual realm.
00:05:50.389 --> 00:05:50.750
I think.
00:05:51.961 --> 00:06:05.093
I wonder if that sort of more easily digested or maybe just more easily accessible aspect of video makes it more palatable in a way, I think, for the general public.
00:06:05.093 --> 00:06:10.809
You know a lot of people and we've had clients come to us being like we want a house that could one day be on the local project.
00:06:10.809 --> 00:06:13.088
You know that's an ambition for them.
00:06:13.088 --> 00:06:18.507
They never really talk about with like a house that could be in a magazine, like it's always video related.
00:06:18.507 --> 00:06:33.036
And I feel like a lot of people when they send us documentation or you know, like a briefing document or something, it always comes with a local project attachment or a YouTube video attachment or they've seen such and such on Grand Design.
00:06:33.036 --> 00:06:39.374
I think that the digestible nature of video seems to resonate more with the general public.
00:06:39.374 --> 00:06:41.528
Is that something that you guys reckon we have found?
00:06:41.800 --> 00:06:42.285
Definitely.
00:06:42.285 --> 00:06:43.980
I think we find that with our audience.
00:06:43.980 --> 00:06:59.249
It's just in some ways, and I think it's more palatable in a way you know you can connect with walking through a space or you know understanding how it might feel, or you know how spaces connect, especially if you can't see that from one image.
00:06:59.249 --> 00:07:06.562
You can experience that from moving through a house and it just becomes, I guess, that emotional connection through a house and it just becomes, I guess, that emotional connection to a space.
00:07:07.583 --> 00:07:14.014
I guess like storytelling must play a quite a big role, especially in the video realm.
00:07:14.014 --> 00:07:18.997
I know like obviously for you, simon, a lot of it is about storytelling as well.
00:07:18.997 --> 00:07:26.922
Perhaps slightly different how, yeah how, does the storytelling kind of come into it and and shift between still and and video?
00:07:27.161 --> 00:07:32.132
a lot of videographers who shoot stills, or a lot of stills photographers who shoot video.
00:07:32.132 --> 00:07:43.038
They'll in my experience from what I know anyway, um, is that they'll separate out those days so they won't be on the same day, um, or it might be a half day stills and a half day video.
00:07:43.038 --> 00:07:51.250
I really enjoy mixing and matching between them on the same day and I'll just sort of take in a really well-heeled brief.
00:07:51.250 --> 00:08:22.451
And so for me, that creative process starts with listening first and foremost, and then asking some well-aimed questions and then taking that into that sort of level of intention, if you like, realized level of intention, into the experiences that I have on the day and it's sort of on a good day and most of them are pretty good wandering around, making it up as I go, which which, uh, is is a hell of a good time, and so, yeah, I will change from one camera to another and for me that sort of they go hand in hand.
00:08:22.451 --> 00:08:22.951
They can't.
00:08:22.951 --> 00:08:26.209
For me they, they can't be apart stills and video.
00:08:26.399 --> 00:08:34.589
I think it's by virtue of comparison that we know what stills are versus what we know the experience of stills are and what that offers.
00:08:34.589 --> 00:08:41.793
Video kind of can mimic how the mind maps space, whereas stills can't really do that.
00:08:41.793 --> 00:09:00.133
But stills hold another power that video can't possibly entertain, the idea of which is the idea of suggestion and allowing the viewer to use their imagination, where we hold that threshold in a moment in time forever, rather than crossing over it.
00:09:00.133 --> 00:09:04.363
So with video we can do one thing, with stills we can do another.
00:09:04.363 --> 00:09:07.004
So I really love both.
00:09:07.466 --> 00:09:15.351
Do you find it difficult, Simon, jumping between the two, Like you said, on a shoot day you're saying some people obviously separate those days out.
00:09:15.351 --> 00:09:21.397
It's almost akin to, I don't know, drawing with graphite in the morning and then watercolors in the afternoon.
00:09:21.397 --> 00:09:27.048
You're painting a picture, but it's quite a different like medium in a way that.
00:09:27.048 --> 00:09:31.004
Do you find that transition quite difficult or do you think it's quite fluid in the way that you approach your work?
00:09:31.787 --> 00:09:32.389
really fluid.
00:09:32.389 --> 00:09:41.412
Yeah, and there's no kind of um intended pacing or time spent on one or the other, it's just whatever feels right at the time.
00:09:41.412 --> 00:09:58.571
Um, I had a three-day shoot recently up at tar Eadie for Olsen Kundig in a beautiful house they did up there and you can imagine in three days you've probably covered everything right, whether it's just stills or a combination of video and stills.
00:09:58.571 --> 00:10:12.126
And this was definitely a combination of video and stills and we had three incredibly beautiful days with the weather, an amazing project, some great people around us to help make sure everything went really well On that third day.
00:10:12.126 --> 00:10:23.850
What I found really satisfying was that on the afternoon of that third day, I was still finding things I never would have shot on day one or two and I thought that was really telling of that project and that place.
00:10:24.500 --> 00:10:36.168
Was that a similar experience that you had going back to, I assume, the videos for the awards, kind of referencing them because they're the most current thing and you know that they're there and a lot of people are probably familiar with them?
00:10:36.168 --> 00:10:47.546
But did you find that, going back to those to shoot post, you know, the awarding of the prizes did you find that you sort of discovered more about the project through that process than you had beforehand?
00:10:48.227 --> 00:10:56.159
Absolutely Interesting and I think it's sort of like Simon was saying then you know it's the time spent at a place that really reveals itself.
00:10:56.159 --> 00:11:11.408
And I think some of those projects you know visiting on different days and different weather, and you know then talking to the architects on site, it all just slowly sort of evolves and you realize all these different elements sort of come together and make it what it is.
00:11:11.408 --> 00:11:13.392
And I think that's always the way.
00:11:13.392 --> 00:11:16.807
You know, the more you visit somewhere, the more you kind of uncover with it.
00:11:18.061 --> 00:11:22.893
I like that idea of talking to the architect on site.
00:11:22.893 --> 00:11:39.490
So, like a lot of it, especially, I think, local project are a pretty good example of you know, you get the feeling that you're kind of like walking through the project with the overlay of a description from the architect or with the architect kind of as though you're there.
00:11:39.490 --> 00:11:50.659
Just having that overlay of the intention behind the spaces, why they kind of designed it that way or what they were thinking or what it relates to, is really powerful.
00:11:50.659 --> 00:11:55.312
And I mean, I'm obsessed with a lot of those YouTube videos.
00:11:55.312 --> 00:11:57.467
I can spend hours watching them, that's for sure.
00:11:58.139 --> 00:12:08.446
What's interesting is I reckon that what's more powerful than a lot of those videos is actually the client's view or the client's reflection on their own project.
00:12:08.446 --> 00:12:19.629
Because I think we as architects can appreciate the architecture People that sort of where's architecture and IBM than anybody else that sort of inhabits that realm.
00:12:19.629 --> 00:12:30.413
For prospective clients or people that are looking to kind of understand a project better, I do reckon that the client's opinion and views is equally as powerful, if not more so.
00:12:30.413 --> 00:12:37.453
I've just recently watched that video is it Shepherd Hut that Farron Hay did down in Wanaka?
00:12:37.453 --> 00:12:45.308
And just the client's passion for that project you can kind of feel it just like resonate from them and I don't think you'd get that necessarily from an architect.
00:12:45.308 --> 00:12:52.870
Like we obviously love our projects, but they're one of many, whereas for a client oftentimes it's everything.
00:12:52.870 --> 00:12:58.672
You know what I mean and I like that really tangible feeling that you get from the client's narration of their own project.
00:12:59.200 --> 00:13:00.506
Yeah, palpable way, I think.
00:13:00.928 --> 00:13:01.149
Yeah.
00:13:01.801 --> 00:13:09.562
That experience it can be and there are, you know, different stories from different clients and some speaking of that Pihar bunker.
00:13:09.562 --> 00:13:10.023
That was a.
00:13:10.023 --> 00:13:11.524
How long was that, claire?
00:13:11.524 --> 00:13:15.110
Seven years, I think that, chris 14 actually, I think.
00:13:15.110 --> 00:13:15.831
Was it 14 or?
00:13:15.850 --> 00:13:16.371
something.
00:13:16.371 --> 00:13:17.113
Oh, my God.
00:13:17.874 --> 00:13:19.696
That's a, that's a journey, all right.
00:13:26.440 --> 00:13:26.900
Journey journey.
00:13:26.900 --> 00:13:29.448
You know they fired each other at least once and the building, and so some great stories come from these things.
00:13:29.448 --> 00:13:49.816
And you know thinking of my time sitting down with sirian ethfield and and the stories he was able to tell me about different homeowners and projects, let alone his own house, the, the village on the hill hill here in wellington and kala I mean the stories that came out of that that were ripe to be told in my first book Portrait of a House.
00:13:49.816 --> 00:13:55.173
And so there's a hidden section where all the clients get to speak and some of them even drew pictures.
00:13:55.173 --> 00:13:59.711
So I think the client's view is underrated and really important.
00:14:00.019 --> 00:14:08.565
That's something that's pretty hard Although, Simon, you just painted a pretty good example of it coming across in stills but it's something that's quite hard to get.
00:14:08.565 --> 00:14:12.273
Is that client's view in a still image?
00:14:12.273 --> 00:14:24.488
Oftentimes we're commissioning the photographs for our own promotional purposes and I think it's changing, but less so video, but it's interesting in conversations.
00:14:24.488 --> 00:14:30.363
Recently we went through a brand renewal and chatting to the brand strategist and she was like why don't you have more client videos?
00:14:30.363 --> 00:14:32.711
Why don't you have more feedback?
00:14:32.711 --> 00:14:37.385
Shorts can be 30 seconds of somebody being like this is the process.
00:14:37.385 --> 00:14:39.653
This was great, this is my house kind of thing.
00:14:39.653 --> 00:14:43.683
That in itself is quite a powerful tool for helping you grow.
00:14:43.683 --> 00:14:47.792
You're only your business, but also the architectural understanding, I think.
00:14:48.413 --> 00:14:49.214
That's great advice.
00:14:49.214 --> 00:15:00.504
I think one thing I talk about when I'm doing a workshop or mentoring is that on our own websites and our own Instagram feeds, it's us talking about us the whole time.
00:15:00.504 --> 00:15:04.664
Here are my pictures, here are my projects, here is me, me, me.
00:15:04.664 --> 00:15:24.323
When do we not talk about ourselves or when do we give that space, or that, um, uh, that that channel the opportunity to breathe a bit more of someone else talking about us, and I think that's where testimonial can come in yeah um, and suddenly when someone talks about you instead of you talking about yourself, it unlocks all of that other stuff.
00:15:24.364 --> 00:15:30.294
You did all of that other hard work you did getting that website off the ground and the money you spent doing it.
00:15:31.081 --> 00:15:33.027
I mean, that's your whole job, isn't it, claire?
00:15:33.027 --> 00:15:34.671
To talk about other people in a way.
00:15:35.761 --> 00:15:42.964
Yeah, to tell their story and I think just having you know for us it's it's.
00:15:42.964 --> 00:15:45.937
All these perspectives come into play with everything we do.
00:15:45.937 --> 00:15:47.099
So it's it's interesting.
00:15:47.099 --> 00:15:59.418
One of the um, one of the most recent videos we did was um of Clive Barrington's house um Christchurch based architectural builder, and it was really interesting hearing the architects.
00:15:59.418 --> 00:16:02.806
That was Johnstone Callaghan, you know talking about.
00:16:02.806 --> 00:16:20.167
You know their input and how it was quite special because he was sort of you know well, is in the industry and was really wanting some challenging designs and wanted to be challenged with his own home and I think that was a key part of the narrative and how the architecture came to be.
00:16:20.167 --> 00:16:21.759
Yeah, it was quite unique.
00:16:21.759 --> 00:16:24.703
Actually, you don't often sort of hear that side of the story.
00:16:24.703 --> 00:16:32.385
So, yeah, there's a lot you sort of learn, but I think in situations like that it is where we can.
00:16:32.385 --> 00:16:36.365
It's lovely to kind of hear the perspective from the homeowner and the clients.
00:16:37.674 --> 00:16:39.495
Yeah, I was going to ask is it something that you do commonly?
00:16:39.495 --> 00:16:45.288
Do you try to get as many kind of perspectives when you're formulating your stories as possible?
00:16:45.288 --> 00:16:51.263
Is it oftentimes more architect-driven, or is it more client-driven or what's generally the approach?
00:16:52.674 --> 00:16:58.947
Generally it starts with the architect and from there, you know, we will try and get as many perspectives as possible.
00:16:58.947 --> 00:17:05.116
In most cases the clients aren't that keen to chat, so it makes that a little bit difficult.
00:17:05.116 --> 00:17:08.707
But we will get anecdotes and, you know, little bits of feedback and whatnot.
00:17:08.707 --> 00:17:10.803
So yeah, just depends on the clients.
00:17:12.218 --> 00:17:19.160
I guess, when your key focus is the residential sector, you know, people do often maintain their privacy a little bit.
00:17:19.160 --> 00:17:26.201
Absolutely and fair enough and I almost wonder if that's a little bit of a barrier to the moving image aspect of it.
00:17:26.201 --> 00:17:45.424
I mean you can kind of hide emoticons through a still, so I know we've been on shoots and don't worry about what's in the background kind of situation as you move junk away or furniture or something, but it's a lot harder to cultivate a space cleanly or flawlessly for moving image.
00:17:45.535 --> 00:17:48.182
Is that something that when you're working on this?
00:17:48.182 --> 00:17:56.402
Is it something that you consider the privacy aspect and also just like how fabricated the space in a way needs to be to be able to undertake that?
00:17:56.402 --> 00:17:59.765
Or is it any kind of chopping change a little bit on the shop floor?
00:18:00.734 --> 00:18:03.463
Typically Claire will be able to speak to this really well.
00:18:03.463 --> 00:18:15.537
As well as that, when, when I turn up to a shoot, there's already a lot that's happened and, um, I don't know how they lived before I turned up, but often what from my understanding, is that a lot has happened before I got there.
00:18:15.537 --> 00:18:18.924
Even the fridge is tidy on many occasions.
00:18:18.924 --> 00:18:20.167
So people are house proud.
00:18:20.167 --> 00:18:21.356
They've said yes.
00:18:21.356 --> 00:18:22.980
It's usually for a very good reason.
00:18:22.980 --> 00:18:33.965
They don't just love the architect although they do love the architect but they're really proud of what they've achieved and they want to make sure that it comes across on the best light, and often that means things have been at least tidied.
00:18:34.125 --> 00:18:36.835
Often it can mean furniture's been changed out.
00:18:36.835 --> 00:18:44.388
Whole moving trucks sometimes come in and take whole house loads away and another company will come in and style the whole thing.
00:18:44.388 --> 00:18:50.347
So there are iterations, of course, but generally quite a bit has happened.
00:18:50.347 --> 00:18:52.623
So when I turn up things are pretty mint.
00:18:52.623 --> 00:18:54.923
There's not a whole lot for me to do or tidy away.
00:18:54.923 --> 00:19:13.821
So, whether it's stills or video, there's a different set of constraints to consider, different thoughts to have around how you're moving through a space, but there's not, in my experience at least, much to move or change yeah, interesting, do you find that the same player?
00:19:15.365 --> 00:19:26.442
yeah, yeah, absolutely, and I mean, often we do get involved in styling beforehand, so, but I think, like, like Simon said, with still and video it's the same parameters we're working with.
00:19:26.442 --> 00:19:30.124
So, yeah, not much different there, really.
00:19:30.144 --> 00:19:31.346
I love that.
00:19:31.346 --> 00:19:37.503
Yeah, subject of turning up and that being ready to go, how much prep do you put in?
00:19:37.503 --> 00:19:42.102
Probably more so considering the moving image thing and the storyboarding aspect of it.
00:19:42.102 --> 00:19:44.980
Simon, I know quite often your still work.
00:19:44.980 --> 00:19:52.974
You like turn up and see where the day takes you, you know, or see where the light and situation and weather or whatever kind of directs you Do.
00:19:52.974 --> 00:19:57.121
You need to be a little bit more, I guess, structured when you're considering.
00:19:57.422 --> 00:20:02.527
No, I think that there are longer moments with more breath that sort of reveal themselves.
00:20:02.527 --> 00:20:07.515
You know, I'll see something and I think that would really suit or make a really great short clip.
00:20:07.515 --> 00:20:20.384
And we are talking short clips, quite small moments, even sometimes 10 seconds, but usually anywhere from sort of 30 to a minute, and then it might be edited down after that when we start putting the story together afterwards.
00:20:20.384 --> 00:20:30.821
But I've always got that sort of bigger picture in mind and for me when I'm on a shoot, having that bigger picture in mind for stills and for video, it's really, it's yeah, there's.
00:20:30.821 --> 00:20:34.914
There's not a lot of preparation for me going into those moments.
00:20:34.914 --> 00:20:40.368
I see something, I'll imagine how good that could be and then I'll set about getting it.
00:20:41.451 --> 00:20:47.218
Yeah, sort of a longer form still, because often I've got a locked off frame with a lot of what I'm doing.
00:20:47.218 --> 00:20:49.566
I'm not moving the camera, I'm not panning and tilting.
00:20:49.566 --> 00:20:54.141
If there's any movement, it might be the drone video just moving very subtly through a space.
00:20:54.141 --> 00:21:06.827
Otherwise, it's really a lot of moments where the architecture animates the scene, not the camera animating the scene, which is my preference, and it's how those two things still in videos sit together so well.
00:21:06.827 --> 00:21:10.155
I think.
00:21:10.155 --> 00:21:11.078
For me that makes that work.
00:21:11.098 --> 00:21:22.479
Would that be a similar approach for you, claire, or are you looking at it a little bit more structured, as you're kind of trying to weave it into a story or help it support a story Do?
00:21:22.499 --> 00:21:23.946
you come up with a story first.
00:21:23.946 --> 00:21:24.631
Yeah, yeah.
00:21:24.631 --> 00:21:26.741
Well, that's it, which is what I've recently done.
00:21:26.954 --> 00:21:37.606
Do you come up with a story first and then go and seek the image, or do you kind of take something that maybe Simon's done or another photographer or videographer knows that as a driver for a story?
00:21:38.795 --> 00:21:45.925
I think if Simon's already shot the house, we obviously have that set of images and that's a stunning place to start with for video.
00:21:45.925 --> 00:21:50.434
But when we turn up on the day we're quite non-structured, you know.
00:21:50.434 --> 00:22:03.106
It's always turning up talking to the architect or the designer walking through, and then it's following the day and that goes for getting the narration too and sort of drawing that story out.
00:22:03.106 --> 00:22:21.729
We really like to do that organically, so we avoid sort of sticking to a set of questions or anything like that or sort of developing the story beforehand, because what we find is the more casual the chat, the more candid it is and the more you sort of can gain from that.
00:22:21.729 --> 00:22:26.338
So it's a really organic process every time yeah, that's really good to know.
00:22:26.398 --> 00:22:30.976
Actually, I've recently just done one for myself, a little bit different though.
00:22:30.976 --> 00:22:42.420
These are like houses that we're selling, so you kind of have to like talk about the architecture even though it doesn't really exist yet, and you're like overlaying it with whatever images you have, which are, you know, renders, and.
00:22:42.420 --> 00:22:51.925
But I definitely went in one day and I was like, yeah, sweet, I'm just going to talk about it, and as though you know, I've spent a lot of time designing it.
00:22:51.925 --> 00:22:57.443
I know what it's all about, I know what's what man, I just could not get anything out.
00:22:57.443 --> 00:23:04.183
I literally had to go home and write a script and then practice it a hundred times.
00:23:04.183 --> 00:23:09.548
So it sounded somewhat natural, because it was a disaster.
00:23:09.548 --> 00:23:12.964
I guess what I was trying to do is cram it all into one or two hours.
00:23:12.964 --> 00:23:22.575
But what you just said then is you're spending a day and you're just kind of like walking around and it's kind of like you're drawing out of whether it's your clients or the architect.
00:23:22.575 --> 00:23:27.207
So I think, yeah, that scenario sounds a lot more pleasant, that's for sure.
00:23:28.414 --> 00:23:35.701
It's interesting, Ben, because I reckon when we're forced to talk about ourselves by ourselves we find it really hard.
00:23:35.701 --> 00:23:44.843
But just like Claire was saying, if it's far more relaxed and more candid, I think you get all the juicy stuff right.
00:23:44.843 --> 00:23:48.924
But when you're forced to think about it, that definitely disappears a little bit.
00:23:48.924 --> 00:23:56.798
I've found anyway, you sort of get a little bit too much in your own head and then you get a little bit too architected about it.
00:23:57.320 --> 00:24:08.502
Yeah, or you say one thing that's wrong through a whole sentence, or that whole sentence is just wasted now Because the last part's not even true.
00:24:08.502 --> 00:24:10.782
I don't even know where that came from.
00:24:11.194 --> 00:24:13.103
That's what editing's for yeah.
00:24:14.096 --> 00:24:15.882
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
00:24:15.981 --> 00:24:16.904
Yeah, exactly.
00:24:17.415 --> 00:24:19.303
We need to see some of those outtakes, can you see?
00:24:20.316 --> 00:24:24.163
You're just the bloopers, some bloopers in there, that's for sure.
00:24:24.163 --> 00:24:25.901
We've got a whole pile of those.
00:24:25.901 --> 00:24:37.686
Yeah, that'd be fun actually, no, but it is definitely a good experience and I think, like post-construction, I think I'll you know do something similar again.
00:24:37.686 --> 00:24:41.280
I think it's quite a powerful tool.
00:24:41.320 --> 00:24:41.962
Tell the truth.
00:24:41.962 --> 00:24:43.826
Yeah, I'll try.
00:24:43.826 --> 00:24:44.958
Do you see that?
00:24:44.958 --> 00:24:59.503
I mean like one thing I kind of alluded to it with the website side of things video, feeling like it should be more prevalent in our promotional stuff, like, do you, are you seeing that as a key for your practice versus still renders or anything?
00:25:00.315 --> 00:25:04.125
Yeah, so we do a lot of marketing because you know, we do, you know, because you know, we do.
00:25:04.125 --> 00:25:13.496
You know design and then sell off plans, so we have to present our designs in a way that is captivating for an audience.
00:25:13.496 --> 00:25:21.037
Um, and what we've definitely found recently is the video is just 100 times more powerful.
00:25:21.037 --> 00:25:36.951
Obviously, we can't get proper photography done, so it's like you're weighing up between renders and a video, whether it is even just a rendered walkthrough or what is working even better is talking about your project.
00:25:36.951 --> 00:25:42.015
Firsthand does seem to be a lot better, and then cutting them up into little reels and putting them out there, it seems to be working a lot better.
00:25:41.972 --> 00:26:08.203
Then, cutting them up into little reels and putting them out there, it's, it's um, seems to be working a lot better reels, the favoured format, that little 30 second 30 yeah, it is for marketing for us anyway, because ultimately the goal is to get people to the website, um, and so like that's just a really easy way to do it, but completely different than I guess, um, or maybe not too dissimilar well, I was just thinking about, glenn, like you said, the videos.
00:26:08.223 --> 00:26:11.967
That's just a really easy way to do it, but completely different than I guess, or maybe not too dissimilar.
00:26:11.967 --> 00:26:15.950
Well, I was just thinking about, glenn, like you said, the videos that you did for the awards.
00:26:15.950 --> 00:26:16.411
You know that.
00:26:16.411 --> 00:26:16.830
What are they?
00:26:16.830 --> 00:26:18.112
A minute to a minute and a half max, did you?
00:26:18.112 --> 00:26:24.624
Was that short format intentional Because you know modern day attention spans are a lot shorter, or would you have liked it in a longer format?
00:26:24.624 --> 00:26:28.326
What's your take on the length of, or the ideal length of video?
00:26:28.326 --> 00:26:31.325
You know, considering that local project ones are about what?
00:26:31.325 --> 00:26:38.564
10 minutes or so, but then I think you can get just as much information almost from like one of your short minute 30 type videos.
00:26:39.815 --> 00:26:55.086
Yeah, well, most of ours the cinematic ones anyway are about three minutes, and that seems to be a really good amount of time to sort of capture a whole property, understand the narrative and really be able to sort of articulate that nicely Any shorter.
00:26:55.086 --> 00:26:55.867
It's a bit difficult.
00:26:55.867 --> 00:27:05.585
Obviously there's always scope for longer, but then, you know, on different social platforms the most successful, you know, sort of short forms are really six to eight seconds.
00:27:05.585 --> 00:27:10.125
That's all it is, and those are the ones that will get the most engagement over and over again.
00:27:10.125 --> 00:27:13.806
It's just these brief moments and that's what's capturing people's attention.
00:27:14.375 --> 00:27:22.589
Are you doing much storytelling in those brief moments or is it more just moving image of essentially what would be a still, but it's moving instead?
00:27:22.589 --> 00:27:26.481
Or are you trying to capture a little bit of narrative in that sort of very brief?
00:27:27.655 --> 00:27:28.981
Yeah, both actually.
00:27:28.981 --> 00:27:30.140
So we sort of do a mix.
00:27:30.140 --> 00:27:43.324
So we will do ones where there's a bit more narrative and they sort of are up to about 30 seconds, and then the really short form ones that you know, like an image will just capture one small detail or one moment, and so it really depends on the context.
00:27:43.324 --> 00:27:50.265
But yeah, I do think it's interesting what sort of resonates at the moment, and it is that very, very short form video.
00:27:51.694 --> 00:27:57.144
Yeah, it seems to be the way with most things the attention spans are pretty short.
00:27:57.144 --> 00:28:00.057
Yeah, it's interesting.
00:28:00.057 --> 00:28:14.900
Have you considered, given the majority of this or you know, magazine is print media, do you see yourself operating in that digital realm equally as much, given that kind of speaking of attention spans?
00:28:14.900 --> 00:28:24.558
Not many people sit down and read an entire magazine, as you'll probably be well, which is difficult, but, um, you know they're beautiful things, difficult, but you know they're beautiful things to have.
00:28:24.558 --> 00:28:30.762
But you know, often the reality is, unless you're stuck on an Air New Zealand plan, you don't have a lot of time to digest the whole thing.
00:28:30.762 --> 00:28:35.903
Like, is that something that you're looking to investigate a bit more or work a bit more in that digital realm?
00:28:36.954 --> 00:28:38.220
Yeah, well, it's really interesting.
00:28:38.220 --> 00:28:48.107
You say that we got some fascinating stats back recently from Nielsen Media and the average time apparently people spend reading home magazine is 90 minutes.
00:28:48.107 --> 00:28:49.875
I'm sort of quite taken aback by that.
00:28:49.875 --> 00:28:50.375
It's awesome.
00:28:50.375 --> 00:28:51.720
So I think it's.
00:28:51.720 --> 00:28:54.188
Uh, you know it's yeah not me clearly.
00:28:54.730 --> 00:28:56.114
no, not me either.
00:28:56.114 --> 00:29:00.021
You know, but you know people do apparently.
00:29:00.021 --> 00:29:01.022
Yeah, it was.
00:29:01.022 --> 00:29:01.845
It was fascinating.
00:29:01.845 --> 00:29:21.675
But I think, yeah, like you say, with home, it's print has been the core offering for home for decades, but now most of our audience is online, so that is our main space now and print is a key part of that and I think always will be, but it's the digital where we have most of our readers and audience Did.
00:29:21.715 --> 00:29:27.280
Nielsen ask or tell you how long rather people spend looking at the photos.
00:29:28.355 --> 00:29:31.224
They didn't specifically, but perhaps I could ask Simon next time.
00:29:32.497 --> 00:29:34.463
Point of comparison, because the pictures are so beautiful.
00:29:34.463 --> 00:29:39.983
I find so often that it's not surprising that they're not reading Federico's beautiful words.
00:29:42.537 --> 00:29:48.685
Yeah, I always read through twice, Flick through first and kind of just skim over everything.
00:29:48.685 --> 00:29:50.863
Look at all the images first.
00:29:50.863 --> 00:29:53.078
Look out for you, Simon.
00:29:53.078 --> 00:29:53.582
Good on you.
00:29:53.602 --> 00:29:53.721
Ben.
00:29:55.740 --> 00:29:59.528
And then I'll go back and I'll read the interesting articles.
00:29:59.528 --> 00:30:05.403
So I would say I'd be like a good you know, I'd spend a good chunk of time reading through it.
00:30:05.595 --> 00:30:12.080
It is a good point that, yeah, I'd do the same kind of flick through until something piques my interest, and then you sort of circle back around again.
00:30:12.784 --> 00:30:16.865
Exactly, but so I do just going on to that 90 minutes.
00:30:16.865 --> 00:30:30.675
So I definitely go back through and read some of the articles and when we're talking about kind of storytelling, they are pretty in-depth.
00:30:30.675 --> 00:30:33.321
You know, although it's kind of perceived that you know, video is especially in short form, is telling a good story?
00:30:33.321 --> 00:30:39.781
Good, you know a bit more of the story perhaps, but those articles are really telling the story.
00:30:39.781 --> 00:30:49.467
Are we kind of of at risk of losing a little bit of that or do you think that you know the longer videos kind of make up for that, or what does that part look like?
00:30:49.734 --> 00:30:53.704
I kind of feel with it that you know, this is all powerful in combination.
00:30:53.704 --> 00:30:58.784
So video is great, it's definitely engaging and that's what's capturing people's attention.
00:30:58.784 --> 00:31:05.503
Then you've got still images and I think really they are still the iconic representations of architecture.
00:31:05.503 --> 00:31:08.849
It's lasting and that's sort of what people remember.
00:31:08.849 --> 00:31:16.239
You know it's one image, or with video, you know that they'll remember the space or you know what it was, one element of it.
00:31:16.239 --> 00:31:26.417
And then I think you know you've got those written articles and all together that's a really powerful marketing package, you know, for architects and it's.
00:31:26.417 --> 00:31:28.663
It is engaging, giving people that choice.
00:31:28.663 --> 00:31:30.047
You know, do they want to video?
00:31:30.047 --> 00:31:32.180
Do they want to look at these beautiful images?
00:31:32.180 --> 00:31:33.423
Do they want to read about it?
00:31:33.423 --> 00:31:39.008
It's that's where you sort of get that um, I guess the wider picture, isn't it?
00:31:39.490 --> 00:31:42.118
yeah and, as you're saying, they are doing kind of two different things.
00:31:42.118 --> 00:31:50.777
I'd probably watch a video once, but I would like to sit there and open that book like 10 times before the next issue comes out.
00:31:50.797 --> 00:32:01.882
In many ways, as you say, the photos are long form for sure but it's interesting because with a video, if you see something you like, what do do you?
00:32:01.882 --> 00:32:09.461
Do you pause it right, so you can spend more time with the still image I have literally never paused a video.
00:32:09.461 --> 00:32:10.304
Do you not?
00:32:10.304 --> 00:32:11.964
I do not pause it.
00:32:13.460 --> 00:32:14.343
I do it all the time.
00:32:14.655 --> 00:32:19.761
I've never thought about pausing it If something's really interesting, right, you kind of pause it and try and understand it a little bit more.
00:32:19.761 --> 00:32:22.201
Maybe that's just the designer mentality, right.
00:32:22.201 --> 00:32:23.605
You kind of know well, why is that.
00:32:24.815 --> 00:32:24.934
That's.
00:32:24.934 --> 00:32:33.265
If you don't have, I would definitely Google it and, like you know, see what other work they've done and that sort of thing for sure, yeah, but if you don't have stills on hand but you force the stills upon yourself.
00:32:33.365 --> 00:32:34.195
You know it's interesting.
00:32:34.195 --> 00:32:43.971
You're saying that all these things work hand in hand, because I think this circles back to talking about the way that potential clients digest this sort of stuff.
00:32:43.971 --> 00:33:03.443
I see video as being that introduction to a project a lot of the times, that quick understanding of what it's about, and if something interests you then you go seeking that further time with that project or with that piece of work, whatever it may be, and that could be looking at stills, it could be reading a magazine article.
00:33:03.443 --> 00:33:16.505
It could be reading a magazine article, it could be reading even a long-form essay about it or something Maybe like a tear process with depths that you want to go into a project video at the top and written word maybe kind of not at the bottom.
00:33:16.545 --> 00:33:22.086
That sounds negative but you know, like sort of the deeper you dive, the more nuanced it gets a little bit.
00:33:22.086 --> 00:33:28.902
In a world where design speaks louder than words, what story does your space tell?
00:33:28.902 --> 00:33:33.221
At Autex Acoustics, they believe great design is more than aesthetics.
00:33:33.221 --> 00:33:39.262
Every product they create strikes a perfect balance between form, function and sustainability.
00:33:39.262 --> 00:33:52.041
Made to enhance how space sounds, looks and feels, from using recycled materials to pioneering carbon-negative wool, their commitment is to help you shape environments that inspire people and respect the planet.
00:33:52.041 --> 00:33:57.200
Explore the future of acoustics design at autexacousticsconz.
00:34:00.431 --> 00:34:10.532
Yeah, I think we've gotten to a point where in the media, particularly whether it's Instagram or Facebook or YouTube, we are starting to question is that real or is it not?
00:34:10.532 --> 00:34:27.519
And so, because we have a well, my assumption, I'm 167, so maybe a 21 year old might see this differently, but I've got quite an appetite for things that are authentic, you know, and that I know are real and were crafted and worked on.
00:34:27.519 --> 00:34:28.782
Blood, sweat and tears were involved.
00:34:28.782 --> 00:34:33.577
And so we're at a point now where we question whether something is authentic.
00:34:33.577 --> 00:34:51.655
So, by virtue of that, I think we've gotten to a point where we have now a value decision to make around what we're looking at, and when we know something is real, then we're able to, I think, spend our time with that differently, make different set of value decisions, spend our time with that differently, make different set of value decisions around our experience with that.
00:34:51.815 --> 00:35:00.001
Stills and video could, could and can easily be be doctored, you know, and be made on a hard drive somewhere.
00:35:00.001 --> 00:35:03.612
So, um, we have that sense at least that something is real and authentic.
00:35:03.612 --> 00:35:08.498
I think we we do value it differently and I think that's going to grow, or my, my suspicion is, it'll grow.
00:35:08.498 --> 00:35:14.958
Maybe the 21-year-olds don't want that or don't care about that, I'm not sure, but my suspicion is that they do.
00:35:15.690 --> 00:35:25.081
I think that depth of reality kind of comes from like we've talked about those layers of project presentation stills, video and written.
00:35:25.081 --> 00:35:33.541
It's quite hard, I feel like it would be very hard to manufacture a project with all of those things, with all those things having any quality to them.
00:35:33.541 --> 00:35:43.860
If you know just video, fine, you can fabricate that, just stills, renders, you know dime a dozen these days, but then having but then written word and all those things allowed on top of each other.
00:35:43.860 --> 00:35:46.394
I think that's where you know that reality really comes in.
00:35:46.394 --> 00:35:49.623
21, 21-year-old Simon, you mentioned TikTok generation.
00:35:49.623 --> 00:35:51.853
Do you think that?
00:35:51.853 --> 00:36:00.222
Do you see there being more of a focus towards digesting and like moving image over anything else?
00:36:00.222 --> 00:36:14.876
Or do you I mean like, clearly, 90 Minutes on Home Magazine kind of proves otherwise, which is awesome, yeah, but do you see a shifting momentum towards the video aspect over anything else at the moment?
00:36:15.510 --> 00:36:31.163
I can think back to when I spent 10 years lecturing at uni, sitting down, talking, discussing making work with 23rd-year architecture students, and they deeply care about getting revenge on pixels.
00:36:31.163 --> 00:36:33.396
They love making like in the studios.
00:36:33.396 --> 00:36:34.398
They're making models.
00:36:34.398 --> 00:36:41.777
There's pva on their hands and stanley knives everywhere and we were, you know, in my studio.
00:36:41.777 --> 00:36:47.563
We were making a photo books like we were absolutely physical photo books.
00:36:47.583 --> 00:36:52.780
Physical photo books, physical photo books, and that involved making book dummies and printing photos.
00:36:52.780 --> 00:36:56.219
We had disposable cameras, we were at it.
00:36:56.219 --> 00:37:00.521
Our sort of pixel footprint, if you like, was being heavily weighed in on.
00:37:00.521 --> 00:37:15.280
And yes to the pixels, like great Instagram's telling us to absorb a lot of information, a lot of influence, very quickly through video, and they're deciding how we do view that by setting up stories and reels and things like that.
00:37:15.280 --> 00:37:19.358
I think wonderful, like to a point, but if that's all we have, I think there's a problem.
00:37:19.358 --> 00:37:34.099
I think if we have that and we can usefully compare not destructively compare what fast is by knowing what slow is, and I think slow is in the studio, it's crafting, it's making and it's, for me, getting revenge on the pixels.
00:37:35.389 --> 00:37:39.876
Yeah, there's sort of a sense of impermanence, I feel, with video to a degree.
00:37:39.876 --> 00:37:47.440
There's something that's really tangible and long-lasting with something physical like a magazine, a book.
00:37:47.440 --> 00:37:52.152
So we have architecture books in the studio, biden books, 20th century.
00:37:52.152 --> 00:37:57.480
You know that massive 20th century architecture, one that was produced in 2010 or something.
00:37:57.480 --> 00:38:02.496
It's wildly out of date now, but it's a beautiful look at and it's just as inspirational, you know.
00:38:02.496 --> 00:38:15.818
But I can't see a lot of people these days purchasing books like they used to to digest, or purchasing magazines like they used to digest architecture, but I actually think it's the most purest way of doing it.
00:38:15.818 --> 00:38:23.762
It just seems a shame that, like you said, instagram's sort of starting to structure the way we view things.
00:38:26.132 --> 00:38:33.175
I often watch a lot of those little, you know, short clips, um, mainly on youtube, but I guess instagram as well.
00:38:33.175 --> 00:38:44.931
One thing I wish there was more of and I'm sure they are out there, but it's actually like hard to kind of dig them out is actually more long form videos, claire.
00:38:44.931 --> 00:38:48.221
Have you guys ever thought about doing something like a little bit longer?
00:38:48.221 --> 00:38:57.954
I would say even the local project is quite short.
00:38:57.954 --> 00:39:02.603
You do get through one building, but without getting into a documentary is short the way to go, or is that just kind of like the start?
00:39:02.603 --> 00:39:08.250
And then is there like space for long form as well, to kind of really dive into the story?
00:39:09.476 --> 00:39:11.550
And is there space for long form as well, to kind of really dive into the story?
00:39:11.550 --> 00:39:14.155
I think definitely there is space for longer form.
00:39:14.155 --> 00:39:16.862
But I mean for us, you know, as a media outlet, I guess it's volume.
00:39:16.862 --> 00:39:23.262
So you know, we are dealing with so many different projects and actually creating space for each of them.
00:39:23.262 --> 00:39:31.809
It's a whole nother proposition, I think, to create much longer form video and whether there is more value in that potentially.
00:39:31.809 --> 00:39:49.407
But I think, you know, that sort of shorter length gives us the leeway to tell the story of a project, I think, in enough detail so it's palatable and understandable and relatable, without sort of, you know, investing into more of that documentary length.
00:39:49.449 --> 00:40:05.306
There's sort of nothing between that sort of 10 to 15-minute project expose and feature-length documentary which, a lot of the time, is more about the architect or the designer themselves than a specific building, except for something like Grand Designs.
00:40:05.306 --> 00:40:07.434
Right, but that's so focused on drama.
00:40:08.920 --> 00:40:09.521
I guess you're right.
00:40:09.521 --> 00:40:11.188
Yeah, that is an example, though, isn't it?
00:40:11.409 --> 00:40:20.998
It is an example, for sure, but I think it's not a great example of portraying a project like the realities of the project.
00:40:20.998 --> 00:40:22.936
In a way it's dramatized right.
00:40:22.936 --> 00:40:40.498
So it would be interesting if something was to kind of fall into that hour-long, maybe 45-minute to hour-long space, whereas a little bit more in depth you almost think that maybe for a single building it's too much time to tell the story Just maybe you know, if you're looking at it from the whole process, right from the beginning.
00:40:40.659 --> 00:40:43.153
You know before it's out of the ground and through construction.
00:40:43.153 --> 00:40:44.820
I think there's so much scope.
00:40:44.820 --> 00:40:47.583
It just depends where you want to go with it, doesn't it?
00:40:48.262 --> 00:40:53.152
It's a lot of narrative for an architect to do, though, yeah.
00:40:53.152 --> 00:40:56.842
That would be a process in itself Probably need quite a bit of storyboarding.
00:40:58.110 --> 00:41:00.577
Yeah, couldn't go with the flow on that one, I don't think.
00:41:01.599 --> 00:41:02.581
Otherwise it would be just really.
00:41:13.230 --> 00:41:13.851
I was going to say otherwise.
00:41:13.851 --> 00:41:14.614
It would just be really juicy content.
00:41:14.614 --> 00:41:15.757
But now we're just back to grand designs again, aren't we?
00:41:15.757 --> 00:41:16.480
It's really entertainment, isn't it?
00:41:16.480 --> 00:41:24.304
And so it depends on on the intention and our kind of reality tv states of mind really are looking for tv like that, or entertainment like that, or or seven or eight minute videos and not, you know, 25 minute videos.
00:41:24.304 --> 00:41:33.257
Um, some of the tv shows of the past david mitchell's tv show back in the 80s was was about single projects, and that was the appetite for then.
00:41:33.257 --> 00:41:38.760
It's not the appetite for now because our intention is different, the way we're selling or what we're selling is different.
00:41:38.981 --> 00:41:46.896
So I think, yeah, it's a lot about intention we come up with, like a reality tv, like love island, love for architects, or something as you're trying, trying, trying to.
00:41:46.896 --> 00:41:50.583
You're trying to find the right client for a building that you've designed.
00:41:53.931 --> 00:41:55.257
You'd be great on love building.
00:41:55.530 --> 00:41:58.175
Just love building, just really lean into it.
00:41:59.853 --> 00:42:06.260
So, yeah, you buy some architecturally designed homes that have come up on Trade Me and try and sell them to the general public.
00:42:06.280 --> 00:42:07.806
Yeah, yeah I don't know man, it's a format worth exploring.
00:42:07.806 --> 00:42:08.268
I don't know man it's.
00:42:08.268 --> 00:42:10.317
It's a format worth exploring, I don't know.
00:42:10.317 --> 00:42:12.746
I think it's hilarious popular content.
00:42:12.746 --> 00:42:28.088
That's yeah, yeah, reality tv, but based around architecture, just helps bring us more to the fore that would be funny do you see yourself doing any doing more um more video stuff or just sort of sticking?
00:42:28.168 --> 00:42:28.670
with it More TikTok.
00:42:29.030 --> 00:42:40.039
Yeah, more TikTok or dancing in front of your videos, but do you see yourself like trending more in that direction or is it still a balance, or is it still more, still focused?
00:42:40.039 --> 00:42:56.644
Following on from that question to Claire about do you see things moving more in the video direction or not, I'm trying to get a handle on where the people that provide this content for us, yourselves, where your heads, are at with it all, because I see videos starting to start to dominate no, I think there's.
00:42:56.764 --> 00:42:57.969
There's, from my perspective.
00:42:57.969 --> 00:43:00.496
There's a desire for both, still, some video.
00:43:00.496 --> 00:43:10.673
The camera manufacturers and their technicians sort of marketing departments put all of those features on one beautiful, relatively inexpensive camera, so it's all available to us.
00:43:10.673 --> 00:43:26.019
So the expectation is that photographers or videographers can now do both and show up and offer both, and so it looks like video and stills are cousins, but in my experience they're more like very, very distant relatives.
00:43:26.019 --> 00:43:30.757
They're two very, very different things and should be treated carefully and treated as such.
00:43:30.757 --> 00:43:33.670
So for me I'm very mindful that they are very different.
00:43:33.670 --> 00:43:40.793
I avoided shooting video for quite a long time for the simple reason that I didn't feel like I needed to or wanted to.
00:43:40.793 --> 00:43:50.201
But I got to a point where I felt like I could have those two things sit well together and work with each other, not against each other.
00:43:50.809 --> 00:43:56.382
And did the demand start to come a little bit more from ourselves when commissioning work from you as well?
00:43:57.710 --> 00:44:16.391
It started more with me making speculative video clips and shoots and I remember the actual first thing I did was at Pete Bosley's Waterfall Bay House in the Marlborough Sounds Michael Saracen's place, and it was a pretty intimidating place to turn up to.
00:44:16.391 --> 00:44:32.757
Michael Saracen, who's who's shot more um academy award-winning films than you could throw a sledgehammer at, and um uh, an incredibly articulate, very passionate, incredible cook and great company who makes sure your wine glass is full as well.
00:44:32.757 --> 00:44:34.737
So it was a very interesting weekend.
00:44:34.737 --> 00:44:45.489
We had a power cut, we had a storm, we had sunshine and I was able to make the video that I wanted to make, then recorded Pete talking about the house as a voiceover to accompany the video.
00:44:45.489 --> 00:44:53.536
So that was my first experience and something that I had imagined making and set out to make and made it.
00:44:54.429 --> 00:44:57.739
Looking back on it, I don't think it's that great.
00:44:57.739 --> 00:44:58.260
It's good.
00:44:58.260 --> 00:45:03.476
It's got all the intention and all the ingredients that I think make it interesting.
00:45:03.476 --> 00:45:04.994
Would I do it differently now?
00:45:04.994 --> 00:45:15.836
Of course I would, but as a first attempt at video with some interesting audio and a very small kind of I think, six or seven-minute clip, it's good.
00:45:15.836 --> 00:45:16.518
I like it.
00:45:18.936 --> 00:45:19.135
Was Pete?
00:45:19.135 --> 00:45:23.579
Given that you kind of instigated that, what was Pete's response as the architect?
00:45:23.579 --> 00:45:27.862
Was he like oh, this is something new for us to digest.
00:45:27.862 --> 00:45:28.934
Was he sort of a different?
00:45:28.934 --> 00:45:31.695
Was it excitement, something that he'd like to do more?
00:45:31.929 --> 00:45:32.753
I think he really enjoyed it.
00:45:32.753 --> 00:45:35.318
At the time we recorded the audio off-site.
00:45:35.318 --> 00:45:36.596
We weren't even there together.
00:45:36.596 --> 00:45:48.034
I was there for Condé Nast doing a shoot for their magazine and went to other properties around New Zealand for that same feature, so I had another reason to be there.
00:45:48.034 --> 00:45:55.001
But I had plenty of time up my sleeve and the local New Zealand Canon rep was trying to sell me some very expensive video gear.
00:45:55.001 --> 00:45:59.724
So he was there helping me and I made sure I had everything I needed, which was good, good fun.
00:46:00.706 --> 00:46:03.978
Nice and Claire, are you finding that there's more?
00:46:03.978 --> 00:46:07.739
Do you demand, I guess, in doing features for projects?
00:46:07.739 --> 00:46:12.065
Is there an expectation from you that video accompanies the imagery, or do you?
00:46:12.065 --> 00:46:17.722
Are you finding that architects are sending that to you more regularly, given that we're sort of the ones trying to get stories?
00:46:17.722 --> 00:46:27.976
Or, from our perspective, I feel like we're seeing more, a lot more power in video than we used to, and I'm just wondering if there's the appetite for it from the publishing side.
00:46:28.916 --> 00:46:29.838
Yeah, absolutely.
00:46:29.838 --> 00:46:33.164
I mean, I'm not sure about others, but our thing has.
00:46:33.164 --> 00:46:36.655
I guess our ethos now is to try and film everything that we cover.
00:46:36.655 --> 00:46:42.034
So we've sort of been building up to that and we're getting quite close to achieving that now.
00:46:42.034 --> 00:46:52.987
So what we want to do is, you know, for every feature, we've got the beautiful stills, we've got the story and the video, and often short is, you know, for every feature, we've got the beautiful stills, we've got the story, um, and the video, and often short, you know very short clips as well.
00:46:52.987 --> 00:47:07.614
So it just allows us to really market each project and and get it to every different audience in the way that they want it, um, and so we, we create all our video ourselves, rather than I've never had an architect send send us a video.
00:47:07.614 --> 00:47:09.659
So it's's something that we sort of do.
00:47:10.070 --> 00:47:18.878
And is that for every, do you kind of target most platforms as well, now as in, like you know, instagram and YouTube and whatnot?
00:47:19.278 --> 00:47:26.483
Yeah, yeah, all of them, Apart from TikTok, which is our sort of growing child that we're working on.
00:47:26.483 --> 00:47:31.697
But apart from that, yeah, we're across everything, and video is on everything too.
00:47:32.210 --> 00:47:36.219
And just out of curiosity, are there some platforms that do better than others?
00:47:36.510 --> 00:47:38.719
Yeah, I mean, I think they're all different, aren't they?
00:47:38.719 --> 00:47:44.856
So obviously you know YouTube with their short speech and that sort of content on there.
00:47:44.856 --> 00:47:48.978
It's a different, you know, we will sort of create different content for different channels.
00:47:48.978 --> 00:47:56.579
So what will work on YouTube and pique the interest of that audience will be different to what works on Instagram or on the website.
00:47:56.579 --> 00:48:02.981
So it's just sort of understanding, I guess, what works for each channel and who the audiences are.
00:48:04.193 --> 00:48:13.840
Before we kind of go, do you guys have any final thoughts, statements on the role of video or moving image or where it might be going, or just anything in that ilk?
00:48:14.090 --> 00:48:32.898
I think, obviously, you know, video is huge and it'll be a big part of our future, especially, you know, as all these channels evolve and I think that mix of sort of short form and cinematic and how they complement still imagery, just yeah, it's the way of the future, isn't it?
00:48:32.898 --> 00:48:36.661
It's something we're all working towards.
00:48:38.150 --> 00:48:41.480
Yeah, I think to pick up where Claire left off.
00:48:41.480 --> 00:48:41.721
There.
00:48:41.721 --> 00:48:56.420
I feel, even after 30 years of pointing a camera at architecture and the world and what we're all up to and how that all looks, I genuinely feel like I'm just getting started and video is sort of a latecomer into that picture for me.
00:48:56.420 --> 00:49:03.858
It's only really in the last maybe 12 years that I've really taken that seriously and that's been a slow trajectory.
00:49:03.858 --> 00:49:07.818
For me it hasn't been a wholesale all-in decision.
00:49:07.818 --> 00:49:14.742
I've sort of just really put my feet in the water initially, but I'm really enjoying the results I'm getting from it.
00:49:14.742 --> 00:49:20.061
I enjoy collaborating with people and video is definitely potentially more collaborative than stills.
00:49:20.061 --> 00:49:23.275
But together, I think, is how I like it.
00:49:23.275 --> 00:49:28.704
I like to shoot both and I like to shoot both on the same day and my clients seem to love that.
00:49:30.251 --> 00:49:49.956
We've had stills forever and we've digested stills forever and they've been such a strong precedent and informer, I guess, for any of us really along our design journeys, whether you're an architect or an artist or whatever really a photographer, magazine editor, I'd say that we've all been pretty influenced by the still image.
00:49:49.956 --> 00:50:04.980
But I think that the moving image has started to have a bit more of an impact, you know, ever since the inception of YouTube really, and it continues to grow, I think, and I know we see that in demands of the industry.
00:50:04.980 --> 00:50:08.260
So I think it's something to certainly be aware of.
00:50:08.260 --> 00:50:20.856
If you are commissioning work or looking to publish your work or looking to get your work out there, it's moving images probably Something to consider pretty strongly I'd say Thank you both for coming on today.
00:50:21.309 --> 00:50:22.394
Thanks for having me.
00:50:22.394 --> 00:50:26.510
It's always a pleasure.
00:50:26.510 --> 00:50:49.190
It's always a pleasure, it's always a pleasure.