Architecture Photography

Exactly, I sincerely wanted to be amazed by the results and then buy the freaking tutorial to expand my current skill set, but in my opinion, it may hurt my professional work if this is the standard.

I work with the largest team of Architectural Photographers in the world. It is a major media company with a massive QA team and gloabal reach, in many ways we set the bar for the industry and that's all I am going to say about that. Here's what feedback they would give me if I submitted these photos (please note I also entered this contest for kicks but knew none of my old freelance photos would do well, I wish I could use the stuff I have from work in DTLA, anyway here's what my QA team would say about these winners:

First place (Monument Valley Photo): "This is a great photo, but we need shots of the building not the landscape." Even if I drove 500 miles to get this shot, they would send me back out to retake this to capture more of the building and less of the landscape.

It's a great photo but in my opinion the architecture is not the subject, Monument Valley is.

Second place, this is straight up a landscape photo. My team would say, "you need to go back and capture the architecture or crop out the landscape and resubmit."

Again beautiful photos, I aspire to take world class landscape photos like this but this being architecture is a huge stretch and has me questioning the logic here. Willing to be humbled here and I am definitely not saying I could do better but I am familiar with what fails and what passes as architecture and if we are the company that sells more architectural photos than any other in the world and we would only approve the second one as a context shot, I am not sure if we should call this something else? This would not sell with the clients I deal with, maybe appear in a snooty magazine but again I wish I could be more excited about these results as someone who does this every single day.