Widely considered to be among the UK's finest photographers, Richard Bryant has won numerous prestigious awards for his work and represented Britain at the Venice Biennale. To coincide with the exhibition of his London photography at Somerset House and the release of his book Greater London: Photographic Celebration of a City, we caught up with the man himself to discuss his work, his career and his least favourite London landmarks.

How did this Greater London project come about?

The American Arts publisher Rizzoli had produced some huge limited edition monographs on New York and Los Angeles. They then decided to do one on London and came to me for that purpose. It was a great commission really because they just said, "do whatever you like!"

I agonised for several months drawing up lists by geography, by history, by this, that and the other; lists of buildings, lists of areas I wanted to cover. We came up with a structure which was the sort of idyllic west - with all the greenery, all the parks - through to the industrial redeveloping east. It seemed logical to organise the exhibition in much the same way.

The first thing that struck me about the exhibition was the sheer size of the images. Was that always your intention?

I wanted to show not just the tonal qualities but the wonderful detail as well. This was also a turning point in my approach, changing from film to digital. Normally I would shoot this on 5x4 film and I wondered whether digital could do the job. I thought this could be an interesting time to find out and so I tested some of these medium format digital backs and was astonished by the detail.

What did you use?

I shot on a Leaf digital back. There are three or four portable, single capture digital backs in the world; I tested a couple of them side-by-side and I really liked the filmic quality of the Leaf. So basically, my back would be attached to a monorail camera in the same way as traditional film. I think the new technology has proved itself.

What difference does shooting these kinds of pictures on digital make?

The quality is different from film, but it's difficult to identify. Film has wonderful smooth tones and an ability to capture reasonable detail. My concern was that I would not be able to capture the smoothness of tone with digital and that the possibility of enlarging the image would be limited. However, the ability to capture detail is astonishing and the Leaf back does seem to have captured the tones successfully. As you can see, the limitation on enlarging the images is not an issue.

Digital cameras, PCs and the internet have helped democratise photography. Do you see this as a positive movement?

Everyone thinks they can be a photographer these days and in a way they can. It's great the way it's opened up photography to everybody but on the other hand there's also a load of rubbish around.

So what do you think differentiates an amateur from a professional photographer?

It's the eye, the composition and the thought behind the image that really makes the difference. People that notice things and notice how light works - whether it's on someone's face, on a space or on the façade of a building. Whatever it is they've got to have a sensitivity to light and form combined with an understanding of how the end result can be achieved.

Tell us a little bit about your career. How does someone end up taking architectural photographs for a living?

I've done photography all my life, since I could hold a camera virtually. Don't know why - I've just always loved it. I went to school and did it, then went to college and did it. I studied architecture and trained as an architect but I kept doing the photography and then it just seemed the natural thing to slip into architectural photography - I didn't intend to do it for a living. Architecture and photography is just the perfect match for me.

So you never actually studied photography?

No, and I do regret that in a way now. I think it would have been great fun to have gone to photographic school but I suppose I had a natural feel for it so I just absorbed it all.

Do you ever read up on photographic theory?

I've never studied a textbook on photography. I actually feel I'm more influenced by Dutch painters like Vermeer or Saenredam. They have a great feeling of light, composition and space. With a Vermeer you'll get this feeling of the amazing quality of light and glimpses through from one space to another and that is very architectural.

You must have photographed some fascinating places in your time. Has your career taken you round the world?

Yes, but not everywhere - there are still huge gaps I'd like to fill in before I pack it in! I used to be in the States three months of the year early on in my career. Subsequently I spent a lot of time in Europe, then East Asia - Singapore, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and a little bit in India. Now it seems to be mostly Europe again. At the moment I'm doing a lot of work in Morocco and Italy. Although I enjoyed the project enormously, in one way it was driving me mad. The down side was that I was largely tied to London and I wanted to travel again. Now I can fulfil that desire.

All your images seem to portray London in a very positive light; there’s not much sign of the urban decay that also characterises the city. Was this intentional?

This book was not about the gritty side. I enjoy that too and it's actually very photogenic but I accepted that this book is more about a celebration of a city rather than showing the urban grit. That's another project.

The London skyline has changed dramatically in the past few years and it's continuing to evolve. What do you think of the enormous Shard building that's currently under construction in London Bridge?

I'm really in favour of tall buildings if they're grouped together imaginatively. If you have an area with several tall buildings in a cluster it can look absolutely stunning. You've only got to go to cities in the States to see that. But to have one individual tall building over here, one over there and everything flat in between I don't understand.

Are there any buildings you particularly dislike in London?

This is very easy! It's not a building specifically but a whole stretch of buildings. Go to the Tate Modern and look across the river towards St Pauls - all those buildings along the river are truly disgusting. They're all built at the same height and of mostly of the same period. Someone with very good intentions obviously said, "We've got to preserve the view of St Pauls" but actually it's a disaster because you get a string of blocky, characterless, very poor quality buildings all the same level, which just looks horrendous!

To finish on a more positive note, do you have a favourite building?

Probably the building I've enjoyed photographing more than anything else was the Canova Museum in northern Italy. There was an architect called Carlo Scarpa in the fifties and sixties whose modernist work I love. He did this intervention to a museum of the work of the sculptor Canova in a place called Possagno, northern Italy. It's just architectural bliss. It combines new and old, transient light, sculptural form and these are the things I love to photograph.

- Richard Bryant was talking to Joe Ryrie

Related links
Richard Bryant's architectural photography tips
Buy Richard Bryant prints
See more of Richard Bryant's work