The human figure

[Michael Fontana]

On some recent architecture shots, I used the human figure, not all architects like it, though.

I'ts not to easy, to have the person at the right position:




I think, there's a big difference within the two images, in terms of "feeled" scale; the size of the ceiling.
The 2nd image leads to a different lecture with its movement, making it a public space.

I thought, I share it with you.

[Nicolas Claris]

Hi Michael
Thanks for sharing, I do prefer the 1st one, I find it less disturbing…

I some time used moving/blurred people to add some humanisation…

For some architecture shots (yes I do some too!) I used a man in the very first pic of a serie for a follow-up of a reconstruction of a loft in Bordeaux, that was 1 1/2 year ago, the house is almost finished now and I'm waiting to finalize it soon (I did 9 different sessions at different stages of the construction), here is this shot:

[Michael Fontana]

Bonjours Nicolas

I hadn't made my mind up, which one I like more; IMO both have good points.
I agree though, that the first fits better into a language of °architecture photography° but I don't mind sometimes pushing its border. BTW: the people werent blured, the shots were taken arround sunset, for showing the interior, which has been remoulded. I had forgotten to say, that this is the reason for that shot.

I didn't knew, you were doing archi also; yeah, its interesting to follow up the different construction stages.
Your first one is my prefered, as it shows more - in the image itself - the staircase, therefore it says something about the organisation of the building.

Was it easy to integrate the man?
I find that sometimes really difficult.

[Nicolas Claris]

Bonjour Michael
Yes I also do archi (but not my main business income!) and, industrial, landscape, "nature morte" as well.
I don't speak/show a lot about as the latter are more personnal work… but still photography!

Back to your images, yes I understand by not blurred characters, should we say "motion blurred' as I guess it was slow shutter speed… I like this it creates movement and life into what some calls "cold" archi shots. Hence your samples are really succesfull. I do to like to push the limits/borders, but I find it easier if I know the rules before. On the contrary I should say that some spontaneity is healthy too!

[Nicolas Claris]

I found some 2 years old shots done for Bénéteau, the bright/sunny atmosphere were the strong point of the brief, it even can be fun with kids, but be carefull with the mother(s) watching just behind you;-)



she's not the mother!

[Nicolas Claris]

Originally Posted by Michael Fontana

Was it easy to integrate the man?
I find that sometimes really difficult.

Well, not really as he's not moving and I was just looking for the scale and perspective…

In a boat it is quite unusual to have persons inside, it oftenly looks false…

With the kids, I was fortunate as they were listening to their mother, the more difficult was the girl, anyway a shoot with kids cannot take ling because they quickly get tired, don't even think to have them doing exactly what you want and pose (below 6 years old), you better adapt yourself and catch what you can!
Lastly, the young woman in the last pic were the more difficult, not her but the speed of her movement / slow shutter speed. She had to move fast (for the intented motion blur), the distance for her move was short… I missed some!

[Michael Fontana]

Sometimes, like your contrasty yacht-shots, I bracket for HDR without people, and take multiple shots of the people later. Okay, layermasks are another box-stop in the workflow, but it can help.

The posted images are done with that tecnique.

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Michael Fontana

On some recent architecture shots, I used the human figure, not all architects like it, though.

I'ts not to easy, to have the person at the right position:




I think, there's a big difference within the two images, in terms of "feeled" scale; the size of the ceiling.
The 2nd image leads to a different lecture with its movement, making it a public space.

I thought, I share it with you.

Hi Michael,

What is the purpose of the image?

I say these without pretense of expertise, just my sense of the matter.

If it's about life in the new building, the second image might be perfect as there is a sense of vibrancy that is already infused. OTOH, for a more classic window on architectural capability of a company or the spaciousness of the new building, no. Here we need some insertion of a more subtle human touch. So in the first image, the diminished scale and importance of the figures, makes the emphasis of the open space and the huge potential for any kind of social or corporate venture. New buildings seem to need this.

Asher

[Michael Fontana]

Hi Asher

I took that shot, amongst others for the architects documentation; he redid that hall at the left for the icehockey stadium: changed completly the lights, redid the windows, etc.

So, one purpose of the photo is to show the new hall, often these places are rather spoiled and dirt; by adding light, the people will feel more comfortable.

As this is a public space, I wanted to have people in the image, and made a little study out of it.
I like your comment about the difference of the two pictures, and agree about the open space vs the human "vibrance"

[Asher Kelman]

Michael,

There is always these two polar forces pulling at the photographer. It depends on how the PR art department has been instructed to present the topic and the whole company image.

At least you are presenting them choices and this will show how you have versatility for other projects. Now just as a matter of interest, what lens and camera did you use and did you need to correct to get the lines straight?

Asher