The pleasure of commenting on architecture

07/23/2005 10:36:25 PM · #1

I'm an architect by profession and enjoy taking photographs of buildings, bridges, etc. (as evident in my portfolio). Every now and then I have time to spare and would enjoy to comment on architectural photographs. Anyone else in my position? Let me know. Thanks.

07/23/2005 11:01:50 PM · #2

I have a collection of architecture photos I would love for you to look at and comment on...my architecture shots

Message edited by author 2005-07-23 23:05:49.

07/23/2005 11:04:13 PM · #3

Originally posted by bobdaveant:

I have a collection of architecture photos I would love for you to look at and comment on...my architecture shots

I click on the link and it says it's invalid.

07/23/2005 11:06:15 PM · #4

I fixed the link, sorry...

07/23/2005 11:23:42 PM · #5

Since you like to photograph architecture and you're in Cleveland, you might want to see a building that I helped design. It's the WKYC building just atop the bluff. you know which one I'm talking about right? I worked on that for two years and I'm incredibly satisfied with the way the building turned out... especially at night when the dopplar radar is on.

07/23/2005 11:25:39 PM · #6

Originally posted by rikki11:

I'm not familiar with it, but I will make a point to find it and capture some photos of it in return for all of your time to comment on my work, thank you again.

Message edited by author 2005-07-23 23:32:45.

07/23/2005 11:48:49 PM · #7

Originally posted by bobdaveant:

Originally posted by rikki11:
Since you like to photograph architecture and you're in Cleveland, you might want to see a building that I helped design. It's the WKYC building just atop the bluff. you know which one I'm talking about right? I worked on that for two years and I'm incredibly satisfied with the way the building turned out... especially at night when the dopplar radar is on.

I'm not familiar with it, but I will make a point to find it and capture some photos of it in return for all of your time to comment on my work, thank you again.

The building overlooks Lake Eerie on the Davenport bluffs. See here.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/23/2005 11:54:13 PM · #8

I'll walk by early next week and grab some photos. Thank you for letting me know where it is.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/24/2005 12:04:10 AM · #9

This brings up an interesting point: as many of you know, I was a professional architectural photographer for 25 years or so. Ihave deliberately refrained from commenting upon architectural shots in DPC, for the most part, because I sense that my "standards" are very different from those of the community. Not that I think I'm "better", mind you, just that I have, shall we say, a stricter approach to what makes a good srchitectural shot. An approach colored by my years of doing this kind of work for publication.

I have scanned 3 of the few shots from those days I still have in my possession and posted them in my portfolio, if anyone is interested:

So, my question, I guess, is whether anyone's interested in having their architectural shots critiqued from this perspective, of "shooting for publication" basically.

Robt.

Mulder

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/24/2005 12:11:14 AM · #10

I just notice on Robt's photo of the restaurant that it was a 30 minute exposure....Why is such a long exposure required?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/24/2005 12:25:40 AM · #11

I agree Robert. I am often involved with photographers when it's time for the 'shoot". Typically after looking over the polaroids I can tell which images tell the story. It's not just about taking a good image but it's also about knowing what story you would like to convey to your viewers. In my case, my approach is that of balance, interest, DOF, and color. As my portfolio shows, most of my images are driven by my background in architecture. The most prominent images are these:

I would appreciate your thoughts and insights Robert. You have the experience and the eye for detail that I am looking for. Thanks.

By the way, from architecture to skiffs? I new that fisherman was yours the minute I saw it. Not too many people photograph skiffs and channels as you have :)

One of my favorite images was DQed unfortunately but if you look at my profile you'll see. Thanks.

Message edited by author 2005-07-24 00:29:53.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/24/2005 12:31:57 AM · #12

Originally posted by rikki11:

By the way, from architecture to skiffs? I new that fisherman was yours the minute I saw it. Not too many people photograph skiffs and channels as you have :)

One of my favorite images was DQed unfortunately but if you look at my profile you'll see. Thanks.

That was a HORRIBLE mistake, entering that one. Last-minute entry with brand new lens, hideous post-processing after a well-lubricated dinner with guests, never again...

I'm well familiar with your DQ'd bridge shot. It's a lovely image.

I'll look at your other shots soon.

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/24/2005 02:51:19 AM · #13

Originally posted by bear_music:

So, my question, I guess, is whether anyone's interested in having their architectural shots critiqued from this perspective, of "shooting for publication" basically.

This brings up an interesting thought. I for one would like an in-depth critique. I am willing to give out my two cents as well as far as architectural related photos are concerned. My view however, isn't artistry but practicality for portfolio and qualification packages.

Rikki

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/24/2005 03:07:10 AM · #14

Originally posted by Mulder:

I just notice on Robt's photo of the restaurant that it was a 30 minute exposure....Why is such a long exposure required?

We were shooting large-format, a 4x5 Sinar-p camera. ON 4x5 film, 90 mm is a wide angle lens. This one was shot with a 70mm, about equivalent to a 24mm on a 35mm film camera. Since our subject requires sharpness both low and high & front to back, we could not use the camera movements to align a plane of sharpness, and had to stop WAY down, like f:32, to get adequate depth of field.

Since the shapes here are very complex and the architect had sophisticated "designed" lighting, bringing in our own strobes to increase light was not an option. We were required by job parameters to use available light. This frequently happened when we were shooting restaurants, which tend to be designed for mood.

Therefore, with a film speed of ISO 64 and an f/stop of 32, the "nominal" exposure was perhaps (I don't recall precisely) 8-10 minutes. This does not take into account "reciprocity failure"; while the indicated, metered exposure was perhaps f:8 at 30 seconds, leading us to f:32 at 8 minutes, reciprocity failure tells us that 8 minutes of exposure on this film actually only produces perhaps twice the exposure as 30 seconds; the longer you expose, the more the response of the film slows down.

Based on our experience with similar shots, we did this one at 30minutes. Of course, we also had an "over" and an "under" (this was 4x5 transparency film, Ektachrome Professional Tungsten I believe) and the under would have been probably 4 minutes and the over was more like an hour and a half. Total exposure time for the shot, maybe 3 hours counting the polaroid for composition.

While this shot was being exposed, we'd be elsewhere in the restaurant, our of camera range, setting up another shot.

Robt.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/24/2005 03:09:24 AM · #15

I have several shots in my portfolio of the Michigan State Capital (can never remember if it's spelled with an a or an o)Building and some other buildings in my portfolio. They're probably not so appealing to an architect because of the bending of the images, but feel free to comment away! I love this part of photography and would welcome any input!