Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: fredjeang on July 15, 2010, 09:32:15 am
-
Dear all,
Today I was doing street shooting while I saw a team doing LF arquitecture photography.
What caught my attention again, and this is something I have always wanted to ask on this forum, was the incredible amount of hassle/m2:
graffitis, air conditionned devices, advertisings, undesired cars, scooters and motos, windows reflecting dirt, garbages tanks, cables, road signs, luminous signs,
shade from the trees and hugly urban trees, chineys and air conducts, city electric devices, parking toll machine, ungrowed grass in new buildings so the soil is visible,
constructions structures etc...
Many of those mentionned here where present on the spot. Without talking about narrow streets with limited distance allowed, impossible to park and really extreme contrasts between the
parts of the building in the shade and the ones exposed to harsh summer light.
How do you guys are dealing with this incredible amount of hassles?
Do you try to get rid-off some devices on field (like air devices) or all photoshop crusade?
You, arquitecture photographers, should all be decorated !
I imagine that you thank the digital age.
Cheers.
-
Fred
It is actually a nightmare. Apart from the stuff you have mentioned, which is mostly an urban problem, here in Cornwall overhead wires (telephone and electricity) are a huge issue. And the parked cars, as you say. I do a lot of churches and other public buildings like chapels and schools, and often I have to be patient and wait for weeks to get a clear shot. Let alone figuring out the precise time of year and hour of the day to get the light just right.
The clone tool is often my best friend for wires
[attachment=23178:D08_5_St...e_Church.jpg]
This one didn't have wires or parked cars, but the light is only like this during April and September, late afternoon. At that time it just catches the tower and picks out the detail nicely. But I managed to screw the shot up and clipped the cross off the front pinnacle of the tower, because I was trying to keep the headstones in the foreground in shot and my back was up against a dense laurel hedge so I couldn't get back further. So this final edit is a total fake, because I had to expand the top of the image, clone in a load of sky from lower down, and then clone the right-hand cross and copy it onto the front pinnacle. It all worked out in the end, but it taught me to check every part of the viewfinder more carefully in future.
PS - Yes, I should have also have run this one through perspective correction, but I knew I would lose even more of the top of the frame. And this was not a formal architecture shot, but just had to be pictorially attractive for a magazine illustration. So I called it quits.
John
-
Fred
It is actually a nightmare. Apart from the stuff you have mentioned, which is mostly an urban problem, here in Cornwall overhead wires (telephone and electricity) are a huge issue. And the parked cars, as you say. I do a lot of churches and other public buildings like chapels and schools, and often I have to be patient and wait for weeks to get a clear shot. Let alone figuring out the precise time of year and hour of the day to get the light just right.
The clone tool is often my best friend for wires
[attachment=23178:D08_5_St...e_Church.jpg]
This one didn't have wires or parked cars, but the light is only like this during April and September, late afternoon. At that time it just catches the tower and picks out the detail nicely. But I managed to screw the shot up and clipped the cross off the front pinnacle of the tower, because I was trying to keep the headstones in the foreground in shot and my back was up against a dense laurel hedge so I couldn't get back further. So this final edit is a total fake, because I had to expand the top of the image, clone in a load of sky from lower down, and then clone the left-hand cross and copy it onto the front pinnacle. It all worked out in the end, but it taught me to check every part of the viewfinder more carefully in future.
John
Yes! It's incredible the amount of details that escape to our attention when we just walk on the street. And arquitecture is not forgiving at all.
Funny, watching your pic, I just saw something I would have never seen I'm sure on the field: the bird's nut on the tree makes a kind of darken spot in the branchs...Even animals are teasing.
As you pointed: a nightmare.
Cheers.
-
Funny, watching your pic, I just saw something I would have never seen I'm sure on the field: the bird's nut on the tree makes a kind of darken spot in the branchs...Even animals are teasing.
Cheers.
Yes, Fred, that's a rook's nest - a kind of crow. You tend to get a lot of them around churchyards, for some reason. Something I notice about my MF back is that it picks up birds like crazy, compared with film - often so far a way that in the print they just look like dust spots, so I end up cloning them out, too.
John
-
Think the architectural photogs have it rough.
What about the landscapes guys who have had their forests, fields, and wetlands replaced by these lovely buildings :>))
Now that's a retouching challenge !
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
-
Architectural photography...
Dear all,
What caught my attention again, and this is something I have always wanted to ask on this forum, was the incredible amount of hassle/m2:
graffitis, air conditionned devices, advertisings, undesired cars, scooters and motos, windows reflecting dirt, garbages tanks, cables, road signs, luminous signs,
shade from the trees and hugly urban trees, chineys and air conducts, city electric devices, parking toll machine, ungrowed grass in new buildings so the soil is visible,
constructions structures etc...
I imagine that you thank the digital age.
Cheers.
Fortunately there are still jobs that a competent professional photographer can tackle... and which photographers with amateur equipment and knowledge cannot!
-
Also what about the problem of usually tight quarters when shooting indoors?
Are all you guys using tilt/shift lens or correcting everything in post?
I have shooting a lot of indoor stuff lately and find the usually tight camera angles only allow wide angles.
IS it a must to have a 24 or 17 TSE lens? Or is a 24mm fine with correction in post?
Thnaks for all the information, cannot find much on Architecture advice here.
S.
-
Also what about the problem of usually tight quarters when shooting indoors?
Are all you guys using tilt/shift lens or correcting everything in post?
I have shooting a lot of indoor stuff lately and find the usually tight camera angles only allow wide angles.
IS it a must to have a 24 or 17 TSE lens? Or is a 24mm fine with correction in post?
Thnaks for all the information, cannot find much on Architecture advice here.
S.
Ultra wide lenses on large format cameras with movements... no TS/small format. As little perspective correction as possible in post.
If I have time, access, and permission - I try to remove as many things in the field as I can. Exit signs can often be unscrewed, or at least the bulbs removed (easier to retouch, if it's not also a lightsource). I try to coordinate with landscaping, if it has been done, to get things mowed and cleaned up ahead of time.
But it's a hassle. Very time consuming.
-
Lets not forget about all of logistical aspects of the job. Looking at and trying to make sense of site plans & renderings & clients own photographs (which rarely accurately describe the space), scouting the location, determining the time you want every image to be shot, scheduling yourself, the client, and making sure the time is okay with the landowner, contacting the right landowner of not the just building you are shooting but any buildings you may want to shoot from, factoring in backup days in case it rains, travel, unpacking tons of lighting equipment and maybe props, ...
But I still would not do anything else and consider it all part of the fun/challenge.
-
Lets not forget about all of logistical aspects of the job. Looking at and trying to make sense of site plans & renderings & clients own photographs (which rarely accurately describe the space), scouting the location, determining the time you want every image to be shot, scheduling yourself, the client, and making sure the time is okay with the landowner, contacting the right landowner of not the just building you are shooting but any buildings you may want to shoot from, factoring in backup days in case it rains, travel, unpacking tons of lighting equipment and maybe props, ...
But I still would not do anything else and consider it all part of the fun/challenge.
I understand you. I find each time this genre more and more fascinating. And as you point, chalenging enough and fun.
-
The other thing is pre-shot "gardening". I very often have to spend some time removing low twigs, unruly brambles, and tall weeds that are getting into the foreground. It helps to carry a pair of garden secateurs with you. And then there is the light. We don't want a blank sky framing the shot, do we? But when we have plenty of those nice fluffy clouds, they also have a nasty habit of getting in front of the sun, too. So a large part of the time on-site is spent hanging around with the camera all set up, waiting for the sun to reappear from behind that cloud, yet again.
John
-
I am currently looking at a moon phase calendar to plan a night shoot; I want to make sure I get a full moon.
-
Dear all,
Today I was doing street shooting while I saw a team doing LF arquitecture photography.
What caught my attention again, and this is something I have always wanted to ask on this forum, was the incredible amount of hassle/m2:
graffitis, air conditionned devices, advertisings, undesired cars, scooters and motos, windows reflecting dirt, garbages tanks, cables, road signs, luminous signs,
shade from the trees and hugly urban trees, chineys and air conducts, city electric devices, parking toll machine, ungrowed grass in new buildings so the soil is visible,
constructions structures etc...
Many of those mentionned here where present on the spot. Without talking about narrow streets with limited distance allowed, impossible to park and really extreme contrasts between the
parts of the building in the shade and the ones exposed to harsh summer light.
How do you guys are dealing with this incredible amount of hassles?
Do you try to get rid-off some devices on field (like air devices) or all photoshop crusade?
You, arquitecture photographers, should all be decorated !
I imagine that you thank the digital age.
Cheers.
I will take all of it any day, over pissy brides, snooty models, no-nothing art directors or the boredom of a studio. And yes Photoshop is nice but we did fine before Photoshop with simply hard work, good planning, a truckload of Polaroid, a bevy of assistants and a little vision.
-
The other thing is pre-shot "gardening". I very often have to spend some time removing low twigs, unruly brambles, and tall weeds that are getting into the foreground. It helps to carry a pair of garden secateurs with you. And then there is the light. We don't want a blank sky framing the shot, do we? But when we have plenty of those nice fluffy clouds, they also have a nasty habit of getting in front of the sun, too. So a large part of the time on-site is spent hanging around with the camera all set up, waiting for the sun to reappear from behind that cloud, yet again.
John
A problem these days when shooting commercial buildings is smokers. They can't smoke inside so they congregate around the entrances to indulge their addiction. Tear gas or water canon would probably clear them out but that would involve more equipment to have to bring along. Another thing that invariably happens when shooting commercial plazas etc is that the worst looking clunker in the neighbourhood will pull up and park right in front of the camera just as you are about to make the exposure.
-
A problem these days when shooting commercial buildings is smokers. They can't smoke inside so they congregate around the entrances to indulge their addiction. Tear gas or water canon would probably clear them out but that would involve more equipment to have to bring along.
Surely water canon would be a no-no since it would make a mess of the front of the building that you'd have to clean up first before you shoot? Tear gas too, would need to be dispersed, bad luck if there's no wind... I think best way to disperse a bunch of smokers is to offer a free pack of ciggies if they'll stand elsewhere for the duration of the shoot, no?
-
I will take all of it any day, over pissy brides, snooty models, no-nothing art directors or the boredom of a studio. And yes Photoshop is nice but we did fine before Photoshop with simply hard work, good planning, a truckload of Polaroid, a bevy of assistants and a little vision.
Kirk
You have defined some of the main reasons - other than dying local market - why I moved over from fashion to calendars lo those many years ago: the skin models were relaxed and generally far from snooty; non-studio work took me to many place finer than that white Colorama roll in a miserable room. Wouldn't have swapped it for worlds. However, a little more money would have been a nice thing... and a lot more would have been even better.
Rob C
-
Think the architectural photogs have it rough.
What about the landscapes guys who have had their forests, fields, and wetlands replaced by these lovely buildings :>))
Now that's a retouching challenge !
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
Not any more - clone in a bit of grass in one coner, a tree in the other and a snippet of sunset at the top. Context aware fill does the rest, a glorious 'photograph' you can be proud of and hang on your wall for future generations...
-
I am currently looking at a moon phase calendar to plan a night shoot; I want to make sure I get a full moon.
This lets you make it look like the sun shines from anywhere you like ...very useful,
¿but do you have to do a manual light balance or do you have a standard WB setting for moonshine?
You can, of course, use a blueish setting to make sunlight look like moon light - ¿anybody done this?
...oh, the joys of digital photography!!!
-
This lets you make it look like the sun shines from anywhere you like ...very useful,
¿but do you have to do a manual light balance or do you have a standard WB setting for moonshine?
You can, of course, use a blueish setting to make sunlight look like moon light - ¿anybody done this?
...oh, the joys of digital photography!!!
Not sure how well it would work to try and convert an image shot with sun to make it look like it was shot with the moonlight. Moonlight is much less contrasty than direct sunlight and plus you would not get pick up from any room lights that may be on. If the client wants the shot down, then I plan on using not just moonlight, but back it up with gelled tungsten light. Lee makes a very nice dark muddy blue gel that simulates moonlight.
The longer I am in this profession, the more and more I prefer to do things with light and keep PS work at a minimum. I look at so many images today where it is obvious there was a lot of PS work done. And with advancements on the digital rendering technology, it can be hard to tell the difference between a rendering and the work of other photographers that I know of. I am going for images that are no question photographs, and the only way I feel you can do this is with light. I do not want to wake up one day and find out that someone can simulate my style in CAD.
As one of the better APs on this site once put it, "we make images, not CAD drawings."
-
Not sure how well it would work to try and convert an image shot with sun to make it look like it was shot with the moonlight. Moonlight is much less contrasty than direct sunlight
The hardness of a single source of light depends on the (angular) size of the light source, and, as the subtended angle of the moon (as observed from the earth ) is similar to that of the sun, (the sun and moon look the same size), the hardness should be similar.
-
The hardness of a single source of light depends on the (angular) size of the light source, and, as the subtended angle of the moon (as observed from the earth ) is similar to that of the sun, (the sun and moon look the same size), the hardness should be similar.
That's what I was thinking, along with the idea that being far less brilliant a source, there's likely to be less natural fill floating about either, perhaps rendering an even more contrasty image. But I just don't know - never even thought of shooting like that.
On the other hand, the old moon does tear across the heavens pretty rapidly, so long exposures may actually povide a sort of fill from the same light source as it shifts around static objects and illuminates from varying angles - a bit like the moving hand-lamp technique we used to use to paint with light...
Rob C
-
That's what I was thinking, along with the idea that being far less brilliant a source, there's likely to be less natural fill floating about either, perhaps rendering an even more contrasty image. But I just don't know - never even thought of shooting like that.
On the other hand, the old moon does tear across the heavens pretty rapidly, so long exposures may actually povide a sort of fill from the same light source as it shifts around static objects and illuminates from varying angles - a bit like the moving hand-lamp technique we used to use to paint with light...
Rob C
I carefully said "a single light source" ... and the daytime temperature means that you are more likely to get cloud fill in the day, making a typical (UK) day with white clouds give a softer light due to cloud fill... Central Australia, Spain and Vegas can be different.
P.S. When I was at Useless Loop, (Westernmost point of Australia) ...after a few week I saw something in the sky that I had not seen for a long time ... it was a cloud!