One of my posts:
Seems like there is allot of confusion here between advertising photography where buildings are a secondary subject and the primary purpose is to sell some use of the building verses traditional architectural photography where the building is the sole subject and the intent is to celebrate the creativity of the building designer. Some photographers do both but few do both well as they are completely different visual languages and mind sets. Few people are that versatile. Historically the former has been much better compensated than the later, but better money doesn't mean one is superior or more meaningful than the other. Nor does how many images you make in a day.
I have always been more comfortable and stimulated by the creative motives of traditional architectural photography, because I have a heartfelt love of light on form. Commercially that led me to a focus on architecture, which is essentially and simply just light on form. I believe I understand architects and what drives them and my better architectural photographs demonstrate a profound symbiotic relationship-creative interpretations of architectural design. For me personally there is no higher purpose and I find it immensely satisfying. Personally, I don't find the same shared purpose and comfort with ad agency creatives, though to pay the bills I have waded in that market off and on. But it is just not me and when I have enough architectural photography, I don't touch it despite the money. For those starting out, I personally think it is more important to find your aesthetic passion and that will lead to success however you choose to define it.