Thoughts, Please?

Got some film developed recently, so I thought I'd submit something for everyone to critique.

 

I've driven past this plaza/building many times and it always intrigued me, with its shapes and lines. So one late night (or was it early morning?) I stopped and shot a few pics with my Hasselblad. This one doesn't capture so well the fact of the darkness, but I feel it captures the shapes and shadows and aspects of the place best, of the 3 images I shot. I admit it's sort of a weird architectural image... which is what appealed to me. What do you all think?

 

Thanks in advance.

Tom

 

There's something a bit distracting about the OOF top, I've cropped it, but am not happy about that either.

This one is using 'cutout' but is not satisfactory to me either.

Maybe you need to go back and rephotograph with smaller aperture? :|

I like the cropped very much. Removing the out of focus areas increases the overall perception of sharpness quite a bit. Going and reshooting might accomplish the same trick.

The photo appears to me as a relatively static capture of a dynamic scene. We’re observers but something seems to be asking for participation. In your intro, you name the shapes and lines and vaguely refer to the "aspect" of the place. That description is represented in your photo. What's not present in either your description or the photo are adjectives for the shapes, lines, and aspect of the place or the relationships among them. So, for instance, the round umbrellas seem kind of lackadaisically to intrude on the courtyard space and building. Might there be a perspective from which that dynamic could be increased or given energy?

 

I actually think you showed a GOOD INSTINCT in wanting to use the curve of one of the umbrellas as a device as you did at the top of the frame, but it's a little half-hearted and doesn't have the kind of impact it might. Would there have been other gestures or maneuvers that might have added some dynamics to the photo? What if the curve of that umbrella hadn't completely filled the top of the frame, for example, and had been in focus?

 

I'm not suggesting this as a crop to the current photo, but take a look at the uppermost more complete umbrella on the left. What if that were to frame part of the top portion of the photo, with the rim of the curve actually coming out of the top edge of the frame. To me, that curved line gets a lot more energetic that way.

 

Here's a section of the photo, cropped, that shows the kind of dynamics I'm talking about. Notice how the top umbrella and the bench on the ground now relate to each other. This could be enhanced with a bit of burning to the bench, I think. Again, I'm not suggesting this as a cropped photo in itself, just illustrating how some relationships among shapes can be established and focused on through framing and perspective.

 

Thanks everyone, and Sam, here's another one from the series that closely matches your crop. There was a bit of negative space at top right, which I cropped that down to exclude that triangle of sky while keeping the square format of the 6X6. Looking at this, tho, I guess there's s one negative space now at the bottom.

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Ricochetrider

Not everything fits in a square . . . Man, did I learn that the hard way . . . I like this image a lot but crop this one from the bottom and you have something really interesting in my book.

I don't think that you intended for the benches in the foreground to be OOF, but they are, and they're annoying me. I like the concept here, but I think that you should go back an try again and, as someone already suggested, use a smaller aperture. I too, don't like the umbrella at the top of the image, in the near field..

 

Do you own an ultra wide angle lens? If so, I think that it might be fun to go extremely wide from up close. That's just a thought for further exploration.

Ricochet, in the last photo you posted, I think you've got better dynamics among the shapes. The design of the floor enters into the photo in a good way and adds something but also makes things a little bottom- and empty-foreground heavy, as you seem to note. The building itself gets a more secondary role but I think that's only in comparison to your original posted photo. I wonder if there might have been a way to anchor the foreground a little more, to be able to include some of the floor design? Anyway, I do think this last one is the one I prefer, still with reservations.

I like the last cropped photo ricocherider posted, it emphasizes the other world space age-ness of the patio. I'd like to see one from directly above the patio area. Great place, one could spend days there.

Thank you everyone for your critiques! I try to stay within the square format of the Hassy if possible, but certainly am not always up to the challenges that presents in terms of composition.

 

With that said, here's a 4:3 crop, my last shot of this awesome plaza.

I had actually gone back thinking I'd come away with some shots that were so bright they didn't really capture the essence of the night too well... although there was a fair amount of light with all these canopies all lit up. This one, with a much shorter exposure time, downplays the presence of building quite a lot comparatively, while better emphasizing the canopies and ground features. I believe it becomes even more other worldly, to borrow Eric's description of the site, with these "pods" now glowing, and the building looming in more brooding fashion.

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Ricochetrider

Very nice, in my eye. Not necessarily "in stead of" but in its own right.

I don't think that you intended for the benches in the foreground to be OOF, but they are, and they're annoying me. I like the concept here, but I think that you should go back an try again and, as someone already suggested, use a smaller aperture. I too, don't like the umbrella at the top of the image, in the near field..

 

Do you own an ultra wide angle lens? If so, I think that it might be fun to go extremely wide from up close. That's just a thought for further exploration.

 

The widest lens I have for the Hasselblad is 50mm- wouldn't call that ultra wide. Wider than the 80 tho. I have a 20mm lens for my M4/3 Olympus tho. Next time I got down to DC for work, I'll be sure to take the cameras along. I typically arrive around 4AM- and get off work around 2-3AM the following morning. it's very easy to stop and spend time shooting, but I am always surprised at how many people are moving about the city's monuments etc at that hour of the day....

The last one seems muddy and, as presented, is not working for me. I do think that this more "noirish" or "nighttime" approach has potential, especially given the feel of the scene, but a lot more refinement would have to go into it. Especially noteworthy is that the strongest glow in this version is the unknown triangular shape in the background behind one of the umbrella posts, whereas the glows of the umbrellas aren't nearly as effective or contrasted. The light in the windows also feels kind of anemic. You might consider a bit longer exposure and then some post work to deepen the darks or perhaps the raw file of this version could be worked with to achieve a better look of contrast and shadow and light.

I like it. I prefer the higher contrast version.

The crop of the last shot is pretty much what I was talking about . . . But, I do like the lighter prints better.

Here's the 4:3 crop of the lighter one

 

Thank you everyone for your critiques! I try to stay within the square format of the Hassy if possible, but certainly am not always up to the challenges that presents in terms of composition.

 

With that said, here's a 4:3 crop, my last shot of this awesome plaza.

I had actually gone back thinking I'd come away with some shots that were so bright they didn't really capture the essence of the night too well... although there was a fair amount of light with all these canopies all lit up. This one, with a much shorter exposure time, downplays the presence of building quite a lot comparatively, while better emphasizing the canopies and ground features. I believe it becomes even more other worldly, to borrow Eric's description of the site, with these "pods" now glowing, and the building looming in more brooding fashion.

 

 

 

[ATTACH=full]1307713[/ATTACH]

 

This one does it for me. And it pays homage to the architect who dreamed up this mad assembly. Great work!

Tom, initially I liked the OOF area because of some interesting reflections. But having seen your 4/3 crop, I decided that they didn't really contribute to the image's overall quality. To me, it's strictly your call regarding the choice between the darker and lighter versions. To me, the lighter one displays a greater tonal range, but its darker counterpart is more dramatic and atmospheric.

That's what I was looking for! The dark version seems to be trying to add a mood that is not there. This one shows off what I suspect the architect intended!

That's what I was looking for! The dark version seems to be trying to add a mood that is not there. This one shows off what I suspect the architect intended!

 

Ed, with all due respect, I don't think that what the architect was looking for is overly material. Rather, it's a matter of what the photographer was looking for.

I don't think that what the architect was looking for is overly material. Rather, it's a matter of what the photographer was looking for.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Some of the best architectural photography takes into account the architect's vision even while supplementing that with the photographer's. The photographer may ignore the architectural intention, try to emphasize it, may feel like his photo is a collaboration of sorts, or may try to stay out of the way completely and let the architect speak as much as possible through the picture. Many choices and possibilities, Ed's being one among many.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Some of the best architectural photography takes into account the architect's vision even while supplementing that with the photographer's. The photographer may ignore the architectural intention, try to emphasize it, may feel like his photo is a collaboration of sorts, or may try to stay out of the way completely and let the architect speak as much as possible through the picture. Many choices and possibilities, Ed's being one among many.

 

Since none of the images Ricochet has posted to this thread involve even a hint of the architect's vision, it seems to me that the point is moot. And I never stated that it excludes Ricochet's.

Since none of the images Ricochet has posted to this thread involve even a hint of the architect's vision

I don’t share that opinion. It’s actually hard for me to look at this photo and imagine seeing no hint of the architect’s vision, since it’s a photo of a fairly distinct architectural plaza. It may be that I don’t fully understand what you’re saying.

And I never stated that it excludes Ricochet's.

What you said, in response to Ed’s comment, is that the architect’s intention is not overly material. I’m saying two things in response to you. The architect’s vision seems material to me when looking at Ricochet’s photo and the architect’s vision seemed to me to matter to Ed.

 

Now, being “true” to the architect’s vision wouldn’t necessarily influence whether or not I liked a photo centering on architecture. All kinds of creative liberties might be taken in interpreting a building photographically or simply using a building as raw material for a creative vision. But, yes, Ricochet’s photo does seem to me to communicate some of the architect’s vision and that seems a perfectly material element to take into account in responding to the photo.

I don’t share that opinion. It’s actually hard for me to look at this photo and imagine seeing no hint of the architect’s vision, since it’s a photo of a fairly distinct architectural plaza. It may be that I don’t fully understand what you’re saying.

 

What you said, in response to Ed’s comment, is that the architect’s intention is not overly material. I’m saying two things in response to you. The architect’s vision seems material to me when looking at Ricochet’s photo and the architect’s vision seemed to me to matter to Ed.

 

Now, being “true” to the architect’s vision wouldn’t necessarily influence whether or not I liked a photo centering on architecture. All kinds of creative liberties might be taken in interpreting a building photographically or simply using a building as raw material for a creative vision. But, yes, Ricochet’s photo does seem to me to communicate some of the architect’s vision and that seems a perfectly material element to take into account in responding to the photo.

 

Another instance of agreeing to disagree, Sam.

Another instance of agreeing to disagree, Sam.

That’s disappointing. Instead of dismissing the discussion, I was hoping we could learn from each other. I tried to open that door by saying I may be misunderstanding you. So let me be more explicit in inviting you to walk through the door and explain to me what you mean when you say “...none of the images Ricochet has posted to this thread involve even a hint of the architect’s vision.” Are you not looking at an architectural subject in this photo? If not, can you describe what you see. I am not trying to put you on the spot or be disagreeable. This is one I’d really like to understand.