Thread: Architecture?

I´m finding myself more and more fascinated with the ugly buildings in the town of Tromsø, Norway. So much that I´m spending a lot of time using narrower apertures, from f/8-f/13 (sensor dust is getting the better of me any narrower than that).

What are you interested in seeing when shooting architecture? I hear many times that one should try to capture the reoccuring lines in any given setting, but frankly, this bores me. Lines are still a big part of my photos, but they are not necessarily straight or parallell. They´re all over the place! This reflects the way most houses and buildings in Tromsø are built - there is no such thing as taste or aesthetics involved - there are just lots of colors, and this part intrigues me. How do people paint their houses like that?? Thank you, Tromsøværinger, for having no taste what so ever!

I´ll be back with some photos, but in the mean time, please discuss what you think is an interesting architectural shot.

Study up.
http://hedrichblessing.com/

I have no other advice.

clean your sensor. Shoot on a tripod. Study a lot of work. Theres heaps of architecture photography out there.

get a tilt shift lens.

Unless there's a compelling reason never shoot Head-on - it's all about depth. Think about capturing 3 dimensions in a 2 dimensional medium.

Originally Posted by Tippster

Unless there's a compelling reason never shoot Head-on - it's all about depth. Think about capturing 3 dimensions in a 2 dimensional medium.

I really like close up detail shots that don't give a clue about the structure in its entirety, but show design detailing as subject matter itself. "God is in the details".

Originally Posted by single

clean your sensor. Shoot on a tripod. Study a lot of work. Theres heaps of architecture photography out there.

I know.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

get a tilt shift lens.

I want to. There are many temptations in this world!

Originally Posted by Tippster

Unless there's a compelling reason never shoot Head-on - it's all about depth. Think about capturing 3 dimensions in a 2 dimensional medium.

Thanks, I seem to forget this. This shot would probably be better if shot a bit more to camera left. I do like the shot, though, and think it could look nice on a small canvas. I know there still is some distortion there, tried to remove most of it. The fence really is crooked, by the way - not as distorted as it may look. Please offer your collective wisdom on ways to enhance this shot - not like I can´t just go there and try again!

Originally Posted by OSECS

I really like close up detail shots that don't give a clue about the structure in its entirety, but show design detailing as subject matter itself. "God is in the details".

I shall try more of this. For what I want to shoot, though, the houses in this town are ugly as fuck and need to be seen together. Heh.

I have a lot to learn, and it´s fun trying something different than environmental portraits..

Originally Posted by arild

I want to. There are many temptations in this world!

Is the fence really converging? because that's what a t+s would do.

sorry, personal beef that so many current architecture shots have converging lines, most of which distract from the image.

Another one, from the same neighborhood.



Again, critique is very welcome!

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

Is the fence really converging? because that's what a t+s would do.

sorry, personal beef that so many current architecture shots have converging lines, most of which distract from the image.

Sorry, had to look up "converging" on the interwebs, and didn´t get any further with mind-translating it, but the fence is really leaning inwards to the back yard of those apartment buildings. You can see it in the edges of the frame. This was shot with the 24-70 at 24mm/9, shutter at 1/250, I think.

Actually, one of the first things that came up when I googled "converging" was from some online photography forum, telling "how to use converging lines to make your photos look better", something like that. They are your culprits, HC!

Originally Posted by arild

Another one, from the same neighborhood.



Again, critique is very welcome!

Waaaay too much blown out sky. Not sure why you felt the need to include such a long strip of siding on the right. I'd focus on the shed & weeds in the background.

Originally Posted by arild

...Again, critique is very welcome!

In both images

1. looks flat, perspective is boring
- use your feet and move to a different location at the scene and try again to get more depth

2. horizon line interferes with a clear view of the roof lines
- crouch, or get higher to eliminate or enhance background elements

3. lack of focal point in the image
-what did you see that interested you in these scenes? work to draw the viewers eye to these details

4. flat sky
- cloud cover like this makes for boring pictures, flat/diffuse light with no shadows is great for macro photography and certain portraits, but makes landscapes look dead. eliminate as much sky as possible on a day like this or choose to work a different subject at these times

Originally Posted by Tippster

Waaaay too much blown out sky. Not sure why you felt the need to include such a long strip of siding on the right. I'd focus on the shed & weeds in the background.

Originally Posted by bklyn

In both images

1. looks flat, perspective is boring
- use your feet and move to a different location at the scene and try again to get more depth

2. horizon line interferes with a clear view of the roof lines
- crouch, or get higher to eliminate or enhance background elements

3. lack of focal point in the image
-what did you see that interested you in these scenes? work to draw the viewers eye to these details

4. flat sky
- cloud cover like this makes for boring pictures, flat/diffuse light with no shadows is great for macro photography and certain portraits, but makes landscapes look dead. eliminate as much sky as possible on a day like this or choose to work a different subject at these times

FKNA! Thanks for the constructive feedback, both of you. Really something I can work with, at the very least, and I´m taking the advice with me the next time I´m out.

Bklyn: on point 3, could be that this shooting things not people or dogs is so new to me I have a hard time actually finding a focal point. Does that make sense at all? Either way, I think I´m too much used to shooting people - buildings don´t move very much, and I will have to be more deliberate and take my time more than I´ve used to with these buildings. Single´s advice at the top is gold for me - shoot with a tripod - which would be part of taking my good time when shooting.

Tipp:
I actually ND'ed the sky some by -1 EV or so in post, but when seeing it on the web, it looks way blown out to me, too. I´ll work on this.

I do have a pretty rad idea for perspective and focal point for reshooting these, just have to get to higher ground! Thanks, both of you, for the comments.

Originally Posted by arild

Another one, from the same neighborhood.



Again, critique is very welcome!

Contrary to Bklyn and Tipp,

I liked this one. Yes, the sky is blown out, but I see a Destijl/mondrian composition going on. I like this type of shot. The long strip of the building to the right plays off the portrait arrangement of the frame.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Contrary to Bklyn and Tipp,

I liked this one. Yes, the sky is blown out, but I see a Destijl/mondrian composition going on. I like this type of shot. The long strip of the building to the right plays off the portrait arrangement of the frame.

Thanks man! I like the composition, too, but it needs some work, like the others have chimed in on. It´s actually the back alley from my girlfriend´s apartment, and she´s friends with the guy who has the top apartment. My plan is to get up on the roof to shoot the shed from there. So, there is some resemblance to a plan here.

For the first shot, I want to get past the fence and shoot the shit from the left,angling in. I also need to get lower, as bklyn said, because of the ridgelines in the background causing distraction.

Have a great weekend, all, I´m off southwest to shoot my parents´ 25th anniversary! May McNally be with me.

Originally Posted by bklyn

4. flat sky
- cloud cover like this makes for boring pictures, flat/diffuse light with no shadows is great for macro photography and certain portraits, but makes landscapes look dead. eliminate as much sky as possible on a day like this or choose to work a different subject at these times

Flat light can work, especially for black and white.


struth:



sugimoto:





me:





edit to add: not comparing myself to those guys, just saying.

Originally Posted by ml242

Flat light can work, especially for black and white.


struth:



sugimoto:





me:





edit to add: not comparing myself to those guys, just saying.

Yes you are.

The Struth shot has assloads of texture is due to high contrast and busy subject, despite the diffuse light of the sky.

The Sugimoto shot is neither architectural nor documentary - it is an abstract depicting the flow of water to sky without horizon. Not very apropos to the discussion.

Your first shot confuses me - why stack the poles and the building? On the second shot why ignore the rule of thirds for more blown out sky and no tracks? What's the motivation?

Originally Posted by Tippster

Yes you are.

The Struth shot has assloads of texture is due to high contrast and busy subject, despite the diffuse light of the sky.

The Sugimoto shot is neither architectural nor documentary - it is an abstract depicting the flow of water to sky without horizon. Not very apropos to the discussion.

Your first shot confuses me - why stack the poles and the building? On the second shot why ignore the rule of thirds for more blown out sky and no tracks? What's the motivation?

Hey Tippster, if my photos were so good why would I be giving them away for free along with my advice on some messageboard?

jk, but I included the Sugimoto landscape because BKLN lumped landscapes and architecture in the same category with a rule that said flat light = bad.

In the first shot, I deliberately stacked the poles in front of the building to suggest "nothing to see here". Maybe it didn't work for you. The building is in a bleak area in Poughkeepsie, and I thought that the shot in grey flat light summed up the way I felt. If I shot it at night, or in color, with a magical sunset someone might get the wrong idea about (my perception of) the place.

On the second, maybe I fell into the same trap that doesn't work much (for you, or at all)? Something about seeing those vacant lots in front of a train and the beach struck me then as surreal. I like the way the lamp post hangs in the sky and I thought it was enough.

The OP had no reason to shoot the above at those times, but he might find a situation where it could work.... especially with how rich the tones are in these buildings here:



But I've been wrong before.

Originally Posted by arild

I´m finding myself more and more fascinated with the ugly buildings in the town of Tromsø, Norway.

so which ones are the ugly buildings in your shots?

I'm glad Tippster commented, because arguments like this try my patience. You are free to take the critique or leave it, however in this instance you are finding fault and it seems you don't understand the fundamentals behind the advice.

Originally Posted by ml242

... I included the Sugimoto landscape because BKLN lumped landscapes and architecture in the same category with a rule that said flat light = bad. ...

Instead of advising "Why aren't you a genius for not nailing that shot under less than ideal conditions?" it is better to propose practice and work on composition and perspective (with basic technical hurdles out of the way).

There are no hard and fast rules in any art form.

For every axiom in visual art (rule of thirds, golden section, sunny 16, chiaroscuro, golden hour, etc.) you will find more than a few geniuses who break them and produce incredible and compelling imagery.

An artist starting out in photography and/or video will often not understand why the vibrancy of the scene did not translate to the final product. Our eyes (and brain) perceive more light and shadow than technology can reproduce.

When I review your images and that of the OP, I see that you "saw" the one or two things that caught your eye and not the rest of elements that filled the frame. The "problems" you both share is too much dead sky without tonal interest, elements that detract from a focal point in the image, and lack of depth.

Some 'back to basics' shooting rules will vastly improve your photos. Once you have nailed them you'll have a better base of skill - break rules as you will after that.

Originally Posted by bklyn

I'm glad Tippster commented, because arguments like this try my patience. You are free to take the critique or leave it, however in this instance you are finding fault and it seems you don't understand the fundamentals behind the advice.



Instead of advising "Why aren't you a genius for not nailing that shot under less than ideal conditions?" it is better to propose practice and work on composition and perspective (with basic technical hurdles out of the way).

There are no hard and fast rules in any art form.

For every axiom in visual art (rule of thirds, golden section, sunny 16, chiaroscuro, golden hour, etc.) you will find more than a few geniuses who break them and produce incredible and compelling imagery.

An artist starting out in photography and/or video will often not understand why the vibrancy of the scene did not translate to the final product. Our eyes (and brain) perceive more light and shadow than technology can reproduce.

When I review your images and that of the OP, I see that you "saw" the one or two things that caught your eye and not the rest of elements that filled the frame. The "problems" you both share is too much dead sky without tonal interest, elements that detract from a focal point in the image, and lack of depth.

Some 'back to basics' shooting rules will vastly improve your photos. Once you have nailed them you'll have a better base of skill - break rules as you will after that.

I love you.

The best work (in any field of art) often breaks the rules.

Originally Posted by OSECS

The best work (in any field of art) often breaks the rules.

Why don't you find the art of 3 year olds routinely displayed in museums? They break all the rules, right?

(Yes I know about that one kid, and the elephant - they don't count)

Your contributions to this thread imply that you know zip about helping Arild improve the work and that you're chiming in because you think Tippster and I am being meanies for offering criticism. Arild asked for assistance, not sycophantic cooing about how great the pics aren't. He can do better and he will.

Adam posted this on his blog yesterday. It was exactly what I needed to hear, from both the position of the critic and the critiqued....

http://www.adambarkerphotography.com...ive-by-nature/

Worth a read.

Originally Posted by OSECS

The best work (in any field of art) often breaks the rules.

Yes, usually created/performed by someone who 1. Knows the "rules" and 2. Is bending them for a specific reason/effect/outcome.

Man, haven't seen Chiaroscuro bandied about since school...