The local magazine article from my very brief venture back into Architectural Photography this summer is out. It's a lot shorter than originally promised, with about half the photos, so I'm disappointed about that. Also, they did a bad crop on the exterior in the body of the article. Makes it look like something somebody just grabbed with their cell phone. I hate to be grumpy about photo credits, but photos from another photographer were also used, and even though four of the six shots used are mine, including the primary, center spread opening one, I got second billing in photography. I know that seems like nitpicking, but things like that are just annoying, when it's your work. Things like bad crops and credit bother me more than they should. You can see the article HERE. BTW, that opening photo is one I shot 20+ years ago on 4x5 transparency film. The other ones of mine (on the last page) are digital from this summer and the two on the middle page are the other photog's and were shot probably 15 years ago. If you look at the shots critically, you might see a fundamental difference in the approach between the other photographer and me. I really avoid extreme compositions and severe wide angles. It's really just a different approach, but I like to think mine is more pleasant and less showy. I like to think it shows the best of the architecture, without being extreme. Still, the fact is, the showy stuff is more popular.