Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer  (Read 123952 times)

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #60 on: November 12, 2009, 04:17:36 am »

Quote from: Huib
I studied a lot of portfolios of some (great) architecture photographers of this forum. Just to bring mine skills on a higher level.
The big rule is that vertical lines are straight up and parallel. This can be done with the help of rise and fall  (or PS).
But the horizontal lines / parallels gets much less attention. Even when it could be correct with a little PS or shift / cross.

Why are the parallels of the horizontal lines less important? Is that looking more natural?

they are not less important, but need to be seen and treated different than verticals. sometimes i correct them, sometimes a bit, sometimes not.
this depends mainly on the received perspective, which is seen ( by humans ) different than verticals.
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

ThierryH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 409
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #61 on: November 12, 2009, 05:16:19 am »

Quote from: Huib
I studied a lot of portfolios of some (great) architecture photographers of this forum. Just to bring mine skills on a higher level.
The big rule is that vertical lines are straight up and parallel. This can be done with the help of rise and fall  (or PS).
But the horizontal lines / parallels gets much less attention. Even when it could be correct with a little PS or shift / cross.

Why are the parallels of the horizontal lines less important? Is that looking more natural?


Vertical lines not being vertical/parallel in an image do disturb our brain much more than horizontal lines not being horizontal/parallel. One reason being our eyes set horizontally on our face.

Best regards,
Thierry
« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 05:16:59 am by ThierryH »
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #62 on: November 12, 2009, 09:56:25 am »

Quote
...I haven't seen to many great architecture image, where the light and weather was sh** ;-) Or the timing wrong. To get great results one has to combine both elements. (And yes there are a lot more, to be successful. )

One of the great advantages to digital is the ability to explore uncertain light with no penalties like wasting film. When traveling on extended shoots, even with resources like quality overnight film shippers, one had to always be aware of film and Polaroid supplies and loaded holders and shoot accordingly. Sometimes at the end of a long day with film running short, we would tend to get conservative with film to make sure we got the scheduled shots finished. In the last couple of years of shooting film we went over to using roll film in our view camera on road trips because we could carry an almost endless supply and not have to load holders every night after a long shoot. With digital this is never an issue, even if cards fill up we can download them on the shoot. This is one of the reasons why I refer to digital as liberating. Liberating us to explore less than perfect light and as a result sometimes we come up with unexpected stunning images.
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

marc gerritsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
    • http://www.marcgerritsen.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #63 on: November 12, 2009, 05:24:36 pm »

Quote from: ThierryH
Vertical lines not being vertical/parallel in an image do disturb our brain much more than horizontal lines not being horizontal/parallel. One reason being our eyes set horizontally on our face.

Best regards,
Thierry


when photographing architecture or interior I would either go for a one point perspective 1PP (straight on), a two point perspective 2PP(from an angle) and very rarely little for the 3 point perspective 3PP (from an angle and pointing down or up)

I make sure when shooting one point perspective that horizontals and vertical are dead on, can not stand it if they are not. especially if either lines are near the edge of the photo

when shooting 2 point perspective I would point the camera at an angle no less then 25 degrees. If it is less then it goes too much for my liking to a one point
perspective. what I learned way back from an art teacher was that either you do it or you don't, in this case meaning you either shoot straight on or at a strong angle.
if you are not bold in those desicions the photo will weaken. of course this is a self imposed rule which can be broken in the right way.

I think a portfolio should have a good mix of these perspectives as they have different effects on the viewer. One point perspective being more quite, still and resting
and two point perspective being more dynamic.

At this point my preference goes to 65% of the time to a 1PP and 35% to a 2PP. I really love the graphical senses that gets more awakened
in a 1PP, it kind of looks more like an elevation drawing, 2PP are sometimes better to cut through interior spaces and show the dynamic of the space.  

 

Logged

rethmeier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
    • http://www.willemrethmeier.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #64 on: November 12, 2009, 05:33:23 pm »

Spot on Marc!
Logged
Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com

CBarrett

  • Guest
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #65 on: November 12, 2009, 05:35:45 pm »

Quote from: marc gerritsen
when photographing architecture or interior I would either go for a one point perspective 1PP (straight on), a two point perspective 2PP(from an angle) and very rarely little for the 3 point perspective 3PP (from an angle and pointing down or up)

I make sure when shooting one point perspective that horizontals and vertical are dead on, can not stand it if they are not. especially if either lines are near the edge of the photo

when shooting 2 point perspective I would point the camera at an angle no less then 25 degrees. If it is less then it goes too much for my liking to a one point
perspective. what I learned way back from an art teacher was that either you do it or you don't, in this case meaning you either shoot straight on or at a strong angle.
if you are not bold in those desicions the photo will weaken. of course this is a self imposed rule which can be broken in the right way.

I think a portfolio should have a good mix of these perspectives as they have different effects on the viewer. One point perspective being more quite, still and resting
and two point perspective being more dynamic.

At this point my preference goes to 65% of the time to a 1PP and 35% to a 2PP. I really love the graphical senses that gets more awakened
in a 1PP, it kind of looks more like an elevation drawing, 2PP are sometimes better to cut through interior spaces and show the dynamic of the space.


I couldn't have said it better, Marc.  Nothing bothers me more than a composition that is just slightly oblique.  If I have a shot that is a soft 2pp, I will rotate the camera even further, then shift back to get the composition.  This provides a strongly oblique perspective.

I'll do something similar if I have a circular element in the foreground of a 2pp shot and slightly off center... rotate the camera until that element is centered in the lens and then shift back for composition.  This minimizes the distortion of the circular element (like a coffee table for example).

The one thing that drives me nuts about the smaller groundglass is the difficulty in squaring up, compared to 4x5.

-c
Logged

marc gerritsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
    • http://www.marcgerritsen.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #66 on: November 12, 2009, 05:45:12 pm »

Quote from: CBarrett
I couldn't have said it better, Marc.  Nothing bothers me more than a composition that is just slightly oblique.  If I have a shot that is a soft 2pp, I will rotate the camera even further, then shift back to get the composition.  This provides a strongly oblique perspective.

I'll do something similar if I have a circular element in the foreground of a 2pp shot and slightly off center... rotate the camera until that element is centered in the lens and then shift back for composition.  This minimizes the distortion of the circular element (like a coffee table for example).

The one thing that drives me nuts about the smaller groundglass is the difficulty in squaring up, compared to 4x5.

-c

good to see we think alike!!
yeah right ! round things near the edge gives me the %^&*
sometimes work it out in post like here
the round light was totally crooked and looked horrible as shot
with some post it comes up trumps!
no 4 from my residential online portfolio
had to grab it myself as I am on the laptop!!
Logged

marc gerritsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
    • http://www.marcgerritsen.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #67 on: November 12, 2009, 05:46:30 pm »

here it is........... i think
« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 05:47:20 pm by marc gerritsen »
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 824
    • Shadows Dancing
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #68 on: November 12, 2009, 05:51:48 pm »

Mark,

Could you post a example of each of the perspectives for us; 1pp, 2pp, 3pp?

Jack

Quote from: marc gerritsen
here it is........... i think

marc gerritsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
    • http://www.marcgerritsen.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #69 on: November 12, 2009, 05:58:32 pm »

Quote from: Lust4Life
Mark,

Could you post a example of each of the perspectives for us; 1pp, 2pp, 3pp?

Jack


just go to my website
 
residential portfolio
no 1   1PP
no 2   2PP
no 3   2PP  this is an example where I have broken my own rule as going slightly oblique,  I allow it usually only in photos focusing in on details
no 4   1PP
no 5   1PP
no 6   1PP

etc etc

Logged

marc gerritsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
    • http://www.marcgerritsen.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #70 on: November 12, 2009, 06:01:05 pm »

3 PP
no 33  from architecture

but would show better if the building is square
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5027
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #71 on: November 12, 2009, 06:37:12 pm »

Quote from: marc gerritsen
here it is........... i think

great example of when it would be good to correct both perspectives, and a really nice shot!
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #72 on: November 12, 2009, 06:57:28 pm »

Quote from: marc gerritsen
here it is........... i think

Marc, I am not an architectural photographer, but am trying to learn, including from tips in these threads, and so I am wondering: wouldn't it possibly have been more pleasing if you had gotten the line on the floor which goes to the middle of the black square directly under the tripod, and had then shifted back to get the same composition? Everything geometric in the room feels calm and balanced, except that one line which gives me a similar feeling to a slightly angled shot.
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

marc gerritsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
    • http://www.marcgerritsen.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #73 on: November 12, 2009, 07:45:06 pm »

Quote from: carstenw
Marc, I am not an architectural photographer, but am trying to learn, including from tips in these threads, and so I am wondering: wouldn't it possibly have been more pleasing if you had gotten the line on the floor which goes to the middle of the black square directly under the tripod, and had then shifted back to get the same composition? Everything geometric in the room feels calm and balanced, except that one line which gives me a similar feeling to a slightly angled shot.


yes i guess i could have cropped the bottom of a bit.
well seen! and according to my own stringent estetics, maybe should do

but sometimes an imperfection creates a more human element into it
like a dissonant in music or a flaw in a handwoven carpet

frankly speaking I am not perfect and I consider this metier a craft.
as will all crafts things are never totally perfect.

perfection can only be found in death!! haha!!
Logged

CBarrett

  • Guest
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #74 on: November 12, 2009, 08:13:22 pm »

Quote from: marc gerritsen
yes i guess i could have cropped the bottom of a bit.
well seen! and according to my own stringent estetics, maybe should do

but sometimes an imperfection creates a more human element into it
like a dissonant in music or a flaw in a handwoven carpet

frankly speaking I am not perfect and I consider this metier a craft.
as will all crafts things are never totally perfect.

perfection can only be found in death!! haha!!

I line up on architectural elements like that all the time... floor patterns, soffits, desks, what have you.  I feel like it imparts a nearly subconscious sense of perfection to the composition.  Lately, though, I've grown a bit bored with it and am more likely to line up perfectly in the space between... in Marc's I probably would have been dead middle between the lines, that floor is so busy, that I think lining up on one of the white lines would of overpowered the composition and held your gaze in the foreground rather than leading the eye into the depths of the shot as one might expect it to do.

Or.... I'm full of sh*t.  

I'll upload a pile of shots "On the line" when I go upstairs and fire up the raid.
Logged

CBarrett

  • Guest
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #75 on: November 12, 2009, 09:13:28 pm »

Quote from: CBarrett
I line up on architectural elements like that all the time... floor patterns, soffits, desks, what have you.  I feel like it imparts a nearly subconscious sense of perfection to the composition.  Lately, though, I've grown a bit bored with it and am more likely to line up perfectly in the space between... in Marc's I probably would have been dead middle between the lines, that floor is so busy, that I think lining up on one of the white lines would of overpowered the composition and held your gaze in the foreground rather than leading the eye into the depths of the shot as one might expect it to do.

Or.... I'm full of sh*t.  

I'll upload a pile of shots "On the line" when I go upstairs and fire up the raid.


As promised/threatened... no wonder I'm bored with walkin the line!
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5027
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #76 on: November 12, 2009, 09:48:25 pm »

Quote from: CBarrett
As promised/threatened... no wonder I'm bored with walkin the line!
Great concept for a portfolio.  I enjoyed looking at the images where the center line was part of the architecture.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 10:20:47 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #77 on: November 12, 2009, 10:43:11 pm »

Superb Christopher as always. I have admired your work for years. The "studio" you spent 17 years at was none other than Hedrich Blessing right? The AP class that I teach at SAIC has done a field trip over to Hedrich Blessing many times over the last 8-9 years. Visiting HB for an AP is like a pilgrimage to Mecca. I can't remember if we ever met. I'm glad to see you doing so well on your own.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 11:05:12 pm by Kirk Gittings »
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

marc gerritsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
    • http://www.marcgerritsen.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #78 on: November 13, 2009, 04:48:16 am »

Quote from: CBarrett
As promised/threatened... no wonder I'm bored with walkin the line!


cropping, lines, color, light, design and overall composition is very strong
you do walk the line!
well done
great edit too!
Logged

thom

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
    • my website
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #79 on: November 13, 2009, 07:15:21 am »

Quote from: JoeKitchen
... where the center line was part of the architecture.

Is the line really a part of the architecture? Or more a part of the way the photographer looks at the architecture?
This is not  to critisize the work of Christopher, it's more a fundamental question of who's in a picture: the architect or the photographer (respectively the architect's work or the photographer's work).
This is a question I ask myself daily (or every hour...) photographing architecture. Or where is the right balance between the two possible answers? Between documentation and interpretation? How much of each is necessary or desired?

There are no simple answers, I think.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12   Go Up