Conference Center

I took this for a school project once. It is the Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City, UT. Any feedback would be appreciated. It has not been cropped.

Jessica Weight said:

I took this for a school project once. It is the Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City, UT. Any feedback would be appreciated. It has not been cropped.

Click to expand...

Hi Jessica,

There are caveats *** but still, here goes:

This is a modern structure which seems to reflect and older form of archirtecture which may be present nearby that the city was trying to thematically include. In any case, the series of progessively small recatangular and ocatangonal forms overlap and rise to a striking tower.

Unfortunately the camera was not elevated to see all the this form optimally. This image might be better taken for a higher level. This would display the building form to advantage and also bring in the trees and landscape which is part of the impressiveness. When one is there, you "get" this all by simply moving round the area. In a flat picture, one has to plan and secure a good vantage point.
I do not claim to be an architectural photographer but I do like to photograph buildings. I would use some available vantage point that is higher, say a parking garage nearby or else a ladder, scaffolding or "cherry picker".

Now the use of a lens pointing up, of course gives the lines going together with the building falling away. Of course this might have been your intention and part of your artistic vision, which is fine and if that is so, forget about my comments as they don't apply.

Otherwsie, I'd use rise in a tilt/shift lens like the 24, 45 or 90 mm Canon tilt/shift lenses, the latter two are stellar. Just raising the lens will keep verticals orthogonal to the ground.

The alternate approach is to correct by selecting that layer and in "Edit" in photoshop, can be use to correct perspective.



One might further correct the image using other transform tools. Better, if you can, revisit as this is worthy of more. Also, try to use a tripod with spirit levels to check the camera is not sloping one way or another that is going to give geometrical distortions. Also, the leaves should have now filled out the trees so it would be worth new pictures anyway.

Thanks for sharing.

Asher


*** Caveats,

1. You've not stated what the purpose of the picture!
   
2. There is still much to comment on. It's always difficult to coment with little context, so answer as if I was taking the picture for myself. Otherwise, I trespass on your artistic choices.
   
3. To say "This is great!" or "Wonderful!" does you no good. That we should avoid, but I'm guilty of that too.
   
4. Anyway, opinions you get on the web, including mine must be filtered according to your own values and common sense.

This picture was taken as part of a project for my photography class. We were supposed to choose a topic to take pictures of. I chose buildings.

Where I work is just down the street from this building, so I think I'll take your advice and get some more shots at different angles. The structure of this building is fascinating to me.

Hi Jessica

you might shoot at different light conditions, and different angles of the sun.
This would make it more 3-dimensional.

Michael Fontana said:

Hi Jessica

you might shoot at different light conditions, and different angles of the sun.
This would make it more 3-dimensional.

Click to expand...

AH! enfin!

Thank you Michael, this is the best advice that a pro could give on this kind of image
There is not enough room to correct perspective, too tight framing if one wish to keep square or rectangular final framing…

-IMHO-)

Michael Fontana said:

Hi Jessica, you might shoot at different light conditions, and different angles of the sun. This would make it more 3-dimensional.

Click to expand...

This advice is always good. This is especially true in dealing with natural matters such as trees, shrubs, staw, water, stone and of course sky. This is also very creative when trees put shadows on man-made structures, for example.

Nicolas Claris said:

AH! enfin!

Thank you Michael, this is the best advice that a pro could give on this kind of image
There is not enough room to correct perspective, too tight framing if one wish to keep square or rectangular final framing…

-IMHO-)

Click to expand...

Nicolas,

While it is romantic to use twighlight for this building, first one needs to frame it to the best of one's ability. So the lighting in this case, is not the first and foremost issue, since as Jessica has clearly shown, full sunlight adequately brings out what architecture the camera can observe. Here the issue is what the camera sees and misses.

The issues with the picture so far:

1. 75% framing perspective
   
2. 5% light
   
3. 20% creative which can include lighting too

Why do I take this view that lighting is secondary for Jessica's picture of this modern building?

Well for structures like this, it's the formation of the architectural volumes, directions, lines, contrasting or rpeated elelments, assymetry, harmony and the challenges and abutments that are the keys to the impressions we make. Is it like a mountain with triangular roofs? Are their cubes like staked boxes or perhaps towers like church steepls, or castles and so forth? Each building speaks in a language familiar shapes or which challenges what we thought we knew!

Then it's the textures, reflectivity and how the mass and shape of the structure fits in with, reflects, recapitualtes nearby or other strcutures we know about or the surounding landscape.

However, shape and form dominate in most all buildings.

So in this case, for example, we see the form very well, each surace is wonderfully demonstrated and can be modifed fuurther in post processing.

However, the essence of a building, it's structure needs to be demonstrated as best as the photographer's eye can capture.

Just as you, Nicolas, my enetrprising friend, goes to the risk, expense and effort to hang out a helicopter above a yacht in the ocean to get the essence you visualize in your mind's eye, so the photographer of great buildings must push themselves to get to the best vantage point they can manage.

Here, it may be as easy as Jessica going across the road and renting a Canon tilt shift lens, 45mm and with the lens shifted upwards, likey the convention Center will be framed perfectly.

Or else one might photograph from a nearby building, the steps or balcony or from a parking garage rooftop. Then the angle by which the camera sees the building reveals the architecture fully!

And now, back to the light. Once the position has been discovered, the work can start and exploration of light is worthwhile. I would wager that the very first picture taken from the right position will be 100% more effective than the one taken from ground level, looking up and cutting off view of the trees and a good part of the essence of the architecture.

I'm so happy, on this rare occaison to disagree with my respected friend, since it provides an opportunity to address the important paradox of what is most important in photographing different subjects. Here I have stated my current view and am, of course am open to being persuaded otherwise.

Asher

My preferences for demonstration of city architecture do not apply to landscapes or people or even advanced artistic interpetation of buildings.

Asher,

I don't agree; I dunno know about the specific situation of that building, beeing aware, that sometimes the help of a ladder might be important, still: architecture talks about space, it's how to organise space - is reflected /translated/sublimed in photography with lights and shadows.

Sometimes, one can't get arround the situation; example: getting a higher p. o v. Making the vertical lines all straight vertical isn't alwith a good advise; see:

if you crop "The alternate approach is to correct by selecting that layer and in "Edit"..." to a rectangle, the tower at the right plus the main one are problematically distorted. Human perception doesn't follows alwith the theoretical rules; therefore to get the good shots done, light might be your friend.

As a reference, Alexander Rodtchenko might be a good example.

Michael Fontana said:

Asher,

I don't agree; I dunno know about the specific situation of that building, beeing aware, that sometimes the help of a ladder might be important, still: architecture talks about space, it's how to organise space - is reflected /translated/sublimed in photography with lights and shadows.

Click to expand...

That would be Photography Wisdom 101, like the riules of 2/3, not putting one's subject in the center and so forth that we all learn are essential. However, these general guides are merely general and guides, that's all.

Of course, saying light is not the most important factor in a picture is tantamount to heresy, ignorance and foolishness in ones the first impulsive reaction. However, on further consideration, the form sometimes is so stunniing and clear, that no subtleties are required to execute the transfer of the 3-D concept from real life to a 2-D photograph. Jessica's picture, for example is not substantially at a disadvantage and does not suffer because she didn't choose the golden light of sunset. So light is not limiting her picture, compositon and positon are!

Of course light is a wonderful tool for painting feeelings and emotions. We know that! Yes, inside a Cathedral, it's light which defines the atmospherics. modern building, like the one Jessica has photographed disclose their form in good light and no romaticism is required to get it. That's the whole point. Modernity does not have to have those nuances and mysteries.

The proof is look at Jessica's picture of the building. It works. One needs no special light to paint the clearcut modern form. That means the light is O.K. Could you add atmosepherics? Yes, for sure!

However, the nature of modern form is open and disclosed. The light of the sun at any time of day ot the moon at night does the building justice. We can see all the form.

However we do not see sufficiently the form in Jessica's case because of position. That is one of the keys to great photography. It is most often a simple matter. I think it will be so in this situation. Otherwise, of course, one does ones best, one manages!

Michael Fontana said:

Sometimes, one can't get arround the situation; example: getting a higher p. o v. Making the vertical lines all straight vertical isn't alwith a good advise

Click to expand...

For sure, except, one should have a choice. Without choice, one is not making decisions. Vertical lines in architectural photography is not some foreign concept. Many times, that is what the job calls for.

Othertimes collapsed perspective lines might be dramatic. Still one needs to be able to select. In this case vertical lines would please me more, that's all. There's no law about it!

Jessica,

Can you get back to the place and is there room to go higher and get more of the building and the landscape?

Asher

I can definitely go back. I was there today during my lunch break, but didn't have enough time to get any good shots. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get higher. I might be able to on the back side of the building, and I'll try some shots from across the street as well. I'll do them by the end of this week, if I can.

Choosing the right light is part of all good photographs, portraits, buildings, boats, animals, whatever.

It is a cliché to say that the light (and the shadows!) does sculpt the material. But sometimes clichés are good to remind.

There is no rule (for me at least!) of what light to choose, it depends of the subject, and of the photographer's view.

When the light is in accordance to the photographer's view, then he can go for the right framing! light and shadows are part of how/what you want to show/hide in a picture!

I understand that Asher is much more a shoot and post process what you get, in other word, Asher's vision is mainly built on his computer's screen.

It seems that Michael and I, do post process a lot but we knew BEFORE framing and shooting, how and why and what we'll post process.

The decisions are made-up with the camera in hand (and sometimes before). To make it simple we built our view in the viewfinder. No good? No shoot!
Wait for the light (or built it), move for another angle, change of lens etc.

Nicolas: >It seems that Michael and I, do post process a lot but we knew BEFORE framing and shooting, how and why and what we'll post process.<

You name it!

A quick and dirt - attemp:


The right tower is sort of a problem; as well as the roof's edge at the left. My try was to make the image more "calme" by interpretating the base wall as well, and adding a bit of shadows.

The best workarround would be stitching - if you can't get higher.

Hi,

I think if the aim is to be able to _easily_ correct for perspective distortion, it can't be done. Certainly not for this type of image.

imnsho, it is more realistic to leave it as the camera takes it, if the lens focal length gives the same field of view as your eye - 50mm or so. This perspective issue is also very noticeable in some of the stitched interior shots, which I've seen on the web, indeed on this forum, where I think folk have used wide angle lenses.

The viewing of a photo, particularly a small one, is not the same as viewing the full size object. If you want to make it similar, then you have to understand and study stuff like optical illusions.

It is easy to test your perspective correction procedures, just take some photos of some known objects - boxes/whatever, will do. See what else you have to adjust.

Best wishes,

Ray

>modern building, like the one Jessica has photographed disclose their form in good light and no romaticism is required to get it. That's the whole point. Modernity does not have to have those nuances and mysteries.<

Huhhh, mysteries??
add atmospherics??

Giving a modern building a appropriate light - we can, off course talk for hours what "appropriate light" means - hasn't to do anything at all with romaticism. But showing the building's qualities, and for sure beeing a interpretation.

>However, the nature of modern form is open and disclosed. The light of the sun at any time of day ot the moon at night does the building justice. We can see all the form.<

Seeing all the form is not a goal, IMO. I rather like to speak and emphasise the interesting parths of a building, (the ones I'v been touched) and if some unimportant details are lost, I'm rather happy, as it emphasizes the important parths. Sort of avoiding redundancy.

Maybe we should talk about the interpretation factor of architecture photographie: The architects build a threedimensional work, a photographer comes and makes a "translation": oszillating between interpretation and documentation he brings it into the 2dimensional world. Off course, this can be closer or more fare away from the architect's intentions.

Hi Michael,

That is the problem - why do we want the image, why do we want to look at it? Do we need to be able to accurately measure distances, for example? Hundreds of other reasons could come into play. People should play more, try things out for themselves. I think the original gives an idea to me of what that building is like, I'm not interested in anything more about it, it is no interest to me. However, someone more familiar with the history of the area, or a builder, may want more.

Is it an image that Alaskan Dave can psychedelicerise?

Best wishes,

Ray

Off topic, but for a Saturday I hope that I shall not be hung on the tree outside nor flooded in the too salty ocean!

This is just to illustrate that, once the light is OK, you better be ready…



500mm - ƒ 4.5 - 1/2000th - ISO 200

O.K., just for you, we'll send a good wind to raise your flag and fill the sails.

Asher

Nicolas Claris said:

.........When the light is in accordance to the photographer's view, then he can go for the right framing! light and shadows are part of how/what you want to show/hide in a picture!

Click to expand...

Perfect! Except I don't think the light really is so critical for the purpose of delivering the image as the position of the camera. In most any light, a modern building has to work. Architects design building that way.

Nicolas Claris said:

I understand that Asher is much more a shoot and post process what you get, in other word, Asher's vision is mainly built on his computer's screen.

Click to expand...

That's ceretainly true for my composite pictures and artistic derivations.

However, most street and indoor non-flash portraits are not cropped or adjusted or manipulated, just BP, WP, an S curve, maybe converted to B&W, (cleaned up rarely) and sharpened. However, not as elegantly sharpened as you Nicolas seem to do.

Nicolas Claris said:

It seems that Michael and I, do post process a lot but we knew BEFORE framing and shooting, how and why and what we'll post process.

The decisions are made-up with the camera in hand (and sometimes before). To make it simple we built our view in the viewfinder. No good? No shoot!
Wait for the light (or built it), move for another angle, change of lens etc.

Click to expand...

Photography for my art almost always starts with a scouting the place or test shooting the model and then making a drawing. The position of the camera and distance to the subject and angles are defined before the actual shot. The position of the camera is fixed withing inches and the model may move within a limited box so all my persoectives are as I have planned.

Now when I'm just walking along the street, it's different. My camera is held by my side or in front of my chest and aimed at subjects with only momentarily or no stopping and framing by guestimating. These images often need to be worked on more.

So that's how I make pictures.

Back to shapes of buildings v. natural things. Building are designed to look impressive all day. The survival of architects and the market for buildings depend on that. Trees, AFAIK, are not designed to be looked at by man! Why they are so beautiful especially at dusk, I don't know. However, the stupendous rewards in photographing a tree in the right light aren't often achievedwith buildings already optimized for impact to the human eye.
Still, to go from good to excellent photographing modern buildings, for the very last percentages, light cannot be ignored of course. It's light that finally allows the photographer to satisfy not only the requiremnts of the job, but to go much further and get the emotions working as if the building was made by a god.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

O.K., just for you, we'll send a good wind to raise your flag and fill the sails.

Asher

Click to expand...

The boat is anchored... If you fill the sails they will be in trouble and the guy which dives into the water will have get into a small problem;-)!

Asher Kelman said:

........So that's how I make pictures.

Back to shapes of buildings v. natural things. Building are designed to look impressive all day. The survival of architects and the market for buildings depend on that. Trees, AFAIK, are not designed to be looked at by man!
Asher

Click to expand...

coming back:

>Building are designed to look impressive all day.<

Sorry Asher,
in reality, some might be designed to have a "photogenic" look, sort of postcard: just some star architects can do that. And even: A white Richard Meier or glossy Gehry-building requires different light than a black monolith.


- but most are build for the users purpose, with some decorativ aspects, like greek columns ;-) if its not to expensiv. 99% of the buildings aren't made for artists, but for John Doe.
Bigger buildings are done by general contractors, they do architecture by a Excelsheet, and aren't interested in arty (aka "nonfunctional", in their terms) buildings at all.