Together

I wonder if the author has taken other photographs from the same view point at different instants; I believe that also with more people this would make for great compositions-- Michele Ciofalo

Yes, you'll find three more of this series in the same folder (at the time I'm writting this). Some of them are with more people.

¿Es el Monumento a la Bandera?-- Marcos Roeschlin

Así es, it is the Flag Memorial, Rosario, Argentina.

Simple but beautiful..well done!

I'm not sure how this qualifies as architectural photography let alone good architectural photography. Not to say it's a bad picture I actually think it's quite interesting and creative but I wouldn't call it architectural photography.

In architectural photography, the main subject should be the architecture. In this photo the architecture is more of a backdrop. I'm assuming it's a shot of stairs but that's mainly because it was labeled as an architectural photo.

The purpose of architectural photography is to make people want to visit the structure after seeing the photo. This doesn't do that in my opinion. Except that some photographers may want to go and try to recreate this picture but they're not going for the structure they're going for the picture.

Also, you're calling this an architectural photo. The distortion in the photo is very bad. Photographers may understand barrel distortion but regular viewers may just think they stairs have been built poorly. I'm not sure the planners/builders would be too happy about that.

I like this composition and I see many possibilities to take it father. This looks like sheet music to me. I would love to see the people arranged like musical notes and photographed.

 

Regarding this image: I agree that it is not architecture, it belongs in the category of people.

 

It certainly is a good choice, since it is ripe for commentary.

The large image link wasn't working for me. This is the kind of image that draws attention from a distance (or via a small jpeg) but that needs to hold up to close inspection. Do the details on the figures hold up? I hope so, because the image works very well at this "distance".

With regard to the comments above.

"I'm not sure how this qualifies as architectural photography let alone good architectural photography". I am not clear how this picture can be considered anything else but architectural in content. Surely the majority of the picture is taken up by the stairs, a purely man designed and built construction. The assumed belief that only buildings with doors and windows can be considered 'architectural', rather than looking more widely for a defintion which includes other structures is one that must be questioned.

As for the statement "In architectural photography, the main subject should be the architecture." must be challenged. Who says this? Where is this written? Why must it be so? Why cannot architectural pictures show their subject in relation to its users and the environment around it, in whatever ratio suits the subject and the photographer? Anyway, in this picture the main subject is a man-made object and so surely this point is invalid.

Further, "The purpose of architectural photography is to make people want to visit the structure after seeing the photo." Again, where is this rule? Personally i like to look at architectural pictures for a variety of reasons; to wonder at the building/structure and how it was made, to see how it interacts with its surroundings, to examine the effect of light on different surfaces and so on. Rarely, if ever, has an architectural picture alone actually made me want to visit a building and in some instances a absolutely brilliant picture has made me want to avoid the place with a passion!. Other people may look at pictures and think straight away of how and when they are going to visit the building, but the "purpose??

Finally, "....you're calling this an architectural photo. The distortion in the photo is very bad..... I'm not sure the planners/builders would be too happy about that." Well, bugger the planners! The photographer has already commented on his picture and pointed out the evident distortion. He was not commisioned to provide a perfect two dimensional facsimile of the stairs for 'Building Weekly', 'Architectural Digest' or whatever august journals exist for the architectural trade. He went out with the intention of showing (i think) mans relationship with his man-made surroundings and to create an interesting picture at the same time. Something i think he succeeds in doing with aplomb.

Congratulations to you Mr Botta on a job well done (cheap zoom or not!).

Regards

I would just like to make a note that the POW was taken with a Nikon F 65. From which the elves (Philip Greenspun) started his review with: "The Nikon N65 does not merit a full photo.net review ...". Seems like a darn good photo from a camera that is too low of a camera to have a review on this site.

Nothng new here. Crop 25% off the bottom and it might keep your eye from falling off the screen. A tighter shot and maybe a tilted horizon might have been more interesting, but what the Hell do I know?

Good luck with all your photographic endeavors.

:)

Prefiero "Upward Sight" y otras pero ésta es excelente también. Sin embargo, tengo una pregunta: ¿es para Ud. una fota de la arquitectura o no?

 

I prefer "Upward Sight" and others but this one is excellent, also. Nonetheless, I have a question: is it for you a photo of architecture or not?

Brief experimentation with the 'large' version posted here yielded an approximation to straight lines with:

- Resize canvas by 150%

- Select all

- Apply Photoshop's "spherize" filter, at about 17%

- Trim off the bottom edge

- Crop the excess canvas area off again as desired

Further playing around could probably improve on that, but the key is to enlarge the canvas before applying the filter.

However, I am also doubtful about whether it's really necessary. The image is very good as is.

This photo makes me think of two notes on a blank sheet of music. Cool photo...thanks for sharing it with us.

I'm sure the lines can be straighten in PS. Do that and I think you can sell it. Very good pic.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

Fantástica. Muy minimalista. Sencillez y fuerza. Enhorabuena.

Photography can be an art and can be a tool for recording images.

What you have contributed here is a perfect example of the differenece between art and the record of an image. And you have achieved it in a most simple manner.

As a Spanish 16th. C. writer (Baltasar Gracián) said "Lo Bueno, Si Breve, Dos Veces Bueno"

I'm attaching the corrected version. Here is how it was done (no plugins, just plain PhotoShop):

1. Rotate canvas 0.33 degrees CCW (correct for the fact that the camera was not perfectly leveled).
2. Free transform. Move the bottom-right corner up by 4px, top-right corner down by 2 px (correct for the fact that the lens axis was not perpendicular to the stairs). These pixel measurements refer to the large image posted on photo.net. For the original multi-megapixel version you'll have to move corners by a couple of dozens pixels.
3. Increase canvas size by 150% (otherwise the Spherize filter we will apply will afect image margins).
4. Filter > Distort Spherize 19%
5. Crop by a few pixels, add borders.

Hope that helps.

Prior to post it, I tried some corrections in PS, mainly with the Spheric correction filter, but every try (at least the good ones...) resulted in a image that still had some reminiscences of the original distortion. As I get kind of frustrated with the task, decided no to post any corrected version if it wasn't *absolutely* right. That was the reason I posted this, this straight version.

 

Maybe I will retry to correct it in the future (I don't have the original Megapixel image by me now), at least as a PS exercise.

 

Your version, Alex, looks much better, but I can still see there some of the distortion, i.e. the last line on the bottom is not really straight and on the upper corners there's still some curvature on the lines. A good attempt anyway. :-)

 

Ben Goosens suggestions seems to be an interesting one too.

Darrell,

 

I think you're confusing a photograph of architecture with architectural photography.

 

Architectural photography is a lot like product photography. Product photography is supposed to make the viewer want to buy the product. A photograph of a guy on a horse with a hemlet that has a broom sticking out of the top or a picture of underwear on the floor may help sell condoms but you wouldn't call it product photography. Architectural photography is commissioned by people that want to sell homes, office space, book rooms in their hotel, have people visit their historical site or architects or builders that want to have a good record of their work. For the reasons I stated previously I think this photo fails in the category of "architectural photography". Just like you can take a picture of a painting, change the saturation, add digital effects, etc to make it look different, and still have a nice photo but you wouldn't call it copy work.

 

I don't think it's clearly evident that these are stairs. This could be some strange playing field with black ilines or a parking lot for all we know without reading any further descriptions.

 

I also see it more as a portrait than an architectural photo. Someone else had mentioned this but it seems to have been deleted. Based on the potographer's own title it seems that he considers it more of a portrait himself.

If any classification is needed (if someone feels that necessary), I would agree with Tom statement:

"Photographers may understand barrel distortion but regular viewers may just think they stairs have been built poorly. I'm not sure the planners/builders would be too happy about that."

If that's what we accept as a definition of "architectural photography", some kind of documentary image of the real subject, that tries to "sell" it to normal viewers, to represent it at its best, I should say that no, I was not trying to get an "architectural image".

In fact, I was pursuing a more conceptual photography, to show (among other ideas) the way we relate to architecture; then in this case the architecture becomes more a stage than the main component of the image.

Anyway, would be good to hear others opinions. Are Tom's statements the right ones?

BTW: I don't think it's clearly evident that these are stairs. I think that's more evident in the larger format, where the shadows of the steps can be clearer appreciated. Anyway, the small size that we all have to post images, makes it loose some details like those ones.

it hardly ever matters if it's evident that those are stairs or not. I can't remember the last time I saw the meaning of the word "together" expressed so simply and beautifully.

It's a rhythm shot with a bullet if you're thinkingof the composition

in terms of visual design. I would call it an environmental portrait

if we had categories since the two figures are the subjects.

 

I think the barrel distortion must be dealt with if you intend to

display or sell it, but for your own use or just to show us the idea,

it's fine. The detailed technical correction listed above is an

excellent example of how uploading images here can be a

benefit to everyone who wants to improve their technical skills,

be they in camera, printing, digital, whatever.

To me this is a good image once I figured out what was happening IMHO what would make it outstanding is to see it blown up to say 6ft. by 4ft.then again thats only how I choose to see this work!!!!!!

Congrats, Néstor!

Good works pay off, finally.

Hello Nestor.

Nice and interesting shot. For enhancing the graphical impact I would correct the barrel distorsion too. It is easy to do. You can check out a simple and free procedure here:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Image_Techniques/Barrel_Distortion_Correction_01.htm

 

I have corrected your photo with this plugin and left it uncropped.

I feel the photo left as is is more powerful than with the distortion corrected. The "distortion" is what leads your eyes up the photo to the children. Well done!