• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

A fun building from Prague...

J

Jack_Flesher

New member
Up for critique, what do you think of this image?

Obviously, the subject is unique enough in itself to be worthy of photographing. However I'm not sure my capture qualifies as anything more than a postcard snapshot. IOW, I don't think it tells enough of a story on its own.

So help me out, is this one wall-worthy or just another snap?

fred_and_ginger_web.jpg


Cheers,
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Jack

Beautiful PS effect, or maybe you should change your UW angle lens?

Sorry, I feel joking today…

A punchy building, do you know who is the architect?

Re your question, I'm not sure that the light -or lack of it- helps you, there's an interesting light beam on the street ground on the left, but to poor to bring an effect. Hence, despite their very original volume, the 2 buildings look flat to me…

Could you come back there another day when there are some light and shadow to sculp the front of buildings?
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Wow!

Jack, when I first took a picture of the building from a moving car, Ilooked at the picture on the LCD as I was passing it to go over the bridgel and said to myself, no problem, I'l straighten it out in photoshop!

I haven't see a picture of the whole corner and now I see it all!

This is a dynamic architectural struggle of a building. To me it represents the post 1968 Alexander Dubcec struggle for the nation. Classic architecture being assaulted perhaps by 1960's modernism.

I wonder what the building is called and what it's history might be?

Nicolas,

You might be relieved that I would see no purpose in going for a "draining of the color" here to "improve" the picture. It's the color that makes the dimensionality really come alive in a startling way.

Jack,

I minor point, the picture can be slightly corrected to make the true verticals on the classic parts of the building orthogonal. An impulsive eye, BTW, might have removed the many telephone, power and trolley wire. However, these are part of the spider web that emanates from the building.

(In fact, I might try to bring out these and other oblique lines on the modern building and see how it m ight or might not help the composition.)

This is not a postacard shot. It should be wider and include part of the bridge :)

This is an image to work on. I wonder how much more there is to the sky and whether or not one can find shadows on the street to bring out. There is a lot of patina on the grey modern tower, especially at the top that can be shown out and the colors of the various buildings on either side of the picture will appear remarkably improved, I'd guess, after the verticals are made true and the lines are sharpened more than I would otherwise think of doing.

In fact, precision in rendering the perfect parallel behavior of the older buildings with adjacent stripes of delicate color would make the distorted center's modern structure stand out even more.

Thanks for sharing this picture! Brings back memories.

Asher
 
D

Diane Fields

New member
Its not a postcardsnapshot pic IMO----but, if one of the signs of an intriguing/good photo is pulling the viewer in, this one does. I'm not sure what your goal was, but it does have a certain storytelling ability on its own for me--one of the things that really intrigues me. I wondered about a different viewpoint but then thought yours was probably the one that tells the story best---the beautiful old classic architecture totally overwhelmed by the very strange modern structure appended to it--and the history that created the odd juxtaposition of the two. Then--I wondered just what the new structure had replaced--and how. Lots there to ponder plus being really interesting to look at. The spidery dome on top of the center section intrigues me--wonder what its use. I agree with Nicholas that it would have been nice with a bit more shadowing, but in travel photography, that's not always possible. The skies are fairly interesting and could be pulled up a bit more perhaps--that's your call. I like that there is enough shadowing to be able to tell from your viewpoint that the windows are canted from the bottom and oddly arranged. The other thing that intrigues me are the obviously only 'decorative' lines on both the glass structure (though more subtle) and the central tower. I'd love to know the architect---and I also wonder if there was any resistance to this type of 'infill' in that period.

I had to look at the EXIF--and found that you shot at f/5.6--I was sort of amazed considering it was the 28 f/1.8 (I assume) and how sharp the details along the right side extending clear back to the furthest corner. I realize the 28 is pretty wide on a 5D and one would expect a deeper DOF, but was surprised at f/5.6.

Thanks for sharing. I hope you will share more from the Prague trip--I enjoyed the bridge panos earlier.

Addendum: Not to detract from the image, but it so intriqued me I researched more. The building is by Frank Gehry and a Czech architect, Vlado Mulinic--or maybe vice versa. Didn't surprise me. Interesting history too---and after looking at other photos of this, Jack's really captures it better than any other I've seen. Called originally the Rasin Bldg, then nicknamed the Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers Bldg--or the Dancing House. It was an infill too- http://lava.ds.arch.tue.nl/gallery/praha/tgehry.html and http://lava.ds.arch.tue.nl/gallery/praha/tgehry.html I found this a really interesting essay on the postmodern architecture--and in particular this building. http://lava.ds.arch.tue.nl/gallery/praha/tgehryen.html
 
Last edited:
J

Jack_Flesher

New member
Nicolas Claris said:
Hi Jack

Beautiful PS effect, or maybe you should change your UW angle lens?

Sorry, I feel joking today…

A punchy building, do you know who is the architect?

Re your question, I'm not sure that the light -or lack of it- helps you, there's an interesting light beam on the street ground on the left, but to poor to bring an effect. Hence, despite their very original volume, the 2 buildings look flat to me…

Could you come back there another day when there are some light and shadow to sculp the front of buildings?
Click to expand...

Hi Nicolas:

Yes, it was flat light, and the sun behind the building. Unfortunately the building is in Prague and I reside in California, so not so easy to re-visit.

The architect was I think Frank Gehry -- and yes, my wideangle got some help from PS to fix the keystoning!

Cheers,
 
J

Jack_Flesher

New member
Asher Kelman said:
I wonder what the building is called and what it's history might be?

In fact, precision in rendering the perfect parallel behavior of the older buildings with adjacent stripes of delicate color would make the distorted center's modern structure stand out even more.
Click to expand...

Hi Asher:

The building currently houses the Prague Dance Studio and the locals refer to it as the "Fred and Ginger" building. (true!)

Believe it or not, I did correct the verticals pretty closely, though I do leave in a tad of keystone for perceptual clarity. The buildings on the right side may seem a touch off, but that is because this coner is not 90 degrees, but more acute. Also, the pink building down on the right actually angles a bit where it meets the new structure. The modern structure is as accurately portrayed as I can get it.

Cheers,
 
J

Jack_Flesher

New member
Diane Fields said:
I had to look at the EXIF--and found that you shot at f/5.6--I was sort of amazed considering it was the 28 f/1.8 (I assume) and how sharp the details along the right side extending clear back to the furthest corner. I realize the 28 is pretty wide on a 5D and one would expect a deeper DOF, but was surprised at f/5.6.
Click to expand...


Hi Diane:

Yes, it is the 28/1.8 and I used it at f5.6 on my 5D. As it turns out, f5.6 is the sweet-spot with that particular lens, being generally sharper across the field than at f8, so why I used it here. This is a relatively recent copy of that particular lens, and I find it quite good optically -- I suspect Canon made a silent upgrade to that lens as an earlier copy I tested was not very impressive.

Thank you for the kind words on the composition. I think you may be correct, the image is kind of compelling as-is, even though ideally there would have been more dramatic lighting. But as you pointed out, that's not always possible when traveling and that was the case here. Obviously, I shot it from several different positions, but found this perspective the most interesting, as it does show the building relative to its older surroundings -- and maybe that's enough of a story for it to be print-worthy :) Also, thank you for the fill-in on the history! I read your post after I had responded to Asher.

Cheers,
 
M

Martin Kuivenhoven

Member
Jack_Flesher said:
Up for critique, what do you think of this image?

..
IOW, I don't think it tells enough of a story on its own.
..
To me it does. I have been to Prague a number of times in recent years. And to Budapest. Functional visits with little time to explore. What strikes me in Prague is the extreme contrast in buildings old against new. Sometimes, to me often, it seems out of place and it leaves me wondering about the motives of the architect/owner or why this was allowed to be build in the first place. I associate this with "extremes" - in wealth, individualism, expression, succes, appreciation of- or objection against tradtion, people etc. Completly different from the development of Budapest, so - at least to me - specific for Prague.

Now to your picture, it has the old and new. But also the shiny mercedes and the rusty old van. The older building was also a bit on its own in its surrounding. Where is the surrounding grandeur that creates a need for this building to be special, draw attention? It seems like a nice but normal building ripped out of it context. Why .. to me it does not make sense. So for me it reflects today's Prague and I guess it would fit nicely on the wall in today's office environment where people from western europe are trained in cultural differences. To understand and appreciate their new collegues from eastern Europe.

I like it. Because it is so typical for normal life including the grey wheather (with a bit of light - reflecting hope for the future ..)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
J

Jack_Flesher

New member
Martin Kuivenhoven said:
Now to your picture, it has the old and new. But also the shiny mercedes and the rusty old van. The older building was also a bit on its own in its surrounding. Where is the surrounding grandeur that creates a need for this building to be special, draw attention? It seems like a nice but normal building ripped out of it context. Why .. to me it does not make sense. So for me it reflects today's Prague and I guess it would fit nicely on the wall in today's office environment where people from western europe are trained in cultural differences. To understand and appreciate their new collegues from eastern Europe.

I like it. Because it is so typical for normal life including the grey wheather (with a bit of light - reflecting hope for the future ..)
Click to expand...

Wow Martin -- Thank you for such an eloquent critique! I never made the direct connection myself between the building, its surroundings and the new Mercedes and old van... I think you have summed up far better than I could what I was actually "seeing" when I pressed the shutter.

I will now spend the time working it up to print quality status.

Thank you again,
 
E

Eric Hiss

Member
Hi Jack,
I was just in Prague earlier in the month and I'd say that this looks like a good shot of that building. I avoided taking a picture of it actually because I figured everyone else was taking pictures of it. Now I wish I had. But i've got hundreds of detail photos from many of the older buildings to be happy with. That city is pretty amazing, huh? Your image is certainly postcard worthy as it stands but if it were me, I'd tilt up the buildings on the right side to vertical and maybe remove the lines or maybe not.
Ciao,
Eric
 
J

Jack_Flesher

New member
Okay, I did a slight re-work.

I had the grid up during straightening, and ALL these buildings are true. I usually leave a slight amount of convergence in my architectural photos, because they look too manipulated to me if sides are perfectly parallel. In this case, each side angles in toward the top by 0.33 degrees, and center is dead-true vertical.

I added some slight lighting effects and selectively bumped saturation up a bit to help the overall look. Finally, I gave it a more generous crop which I think may balance it better.

fred_and_ginger_web2.jpg


Any better?
 
N

Nill Toulme

New member
Jack I think it's very good, very intriguing. I think I would like to see perhaps the sky brought out a bit more, and maybe a little more contrast. But mostly I would be interested to see a B&W treatment of the image.

EDIT: That was posted as you were putting up the second version, which I do like better on all counts. Would still like to see what it does in B&W.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
 
D

Diane Fields

New member
I do like the new crop better--it gives it a little bit of breathing room I think. I prefer the second version a bit more overall.

Diane
 
Will Thompson

Will Thompson

Well Known Member
Hey jack, Just joking but do you think view camera movements could straighten out the center building?

Or maybe an alternative lens similar to a lens baby but using a gelatin like lens substance that can be distorted at will?
 
E

Eric Hiss

Member
The crop showing more on the right is definitely better IMHO. I do have to say that the other work dulled the image some and it looks flat. Before the lightening, the building had more emphasis, more 3d and commanded the image. I don't think it was the crop that changed that.
 
E

Eric Hiss

Member
One thing I might do if it were my image would be to use a layer for saturation and possibly any contrast sharpness you are using and then apply a gradient to the mask such that the further away a spot is in the image from the viewer the less saturation it gets. I might possibly try this with lighting too but only very subtly. Arial perspective or whatever you want to call it.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Eric and everyone else,

The image requires printing in the size it is meant to be and then observing it to see how it behaves on a particluar paper before further changes like gradient desaturation (great idea perhaps) are considered.

Jack,

This would be a fun project to see executed by you when I return to S.F. again!

Asher
 
Last edited:
J

Jack_Flesher

New member
thanks guys! FTR, both images above have brightness gradients appplied already, the second one more so. Also for the second, I did add a saturation gradient, but they're subtle so as not to be too obvious. Asher, for sure I'll have a print when you're next in SF.

Jack
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top