[vladimiroltean]

Hi, these are actually my second attempts at photographing anything related to architecture (you can see the first attempt in another topic here, called "Escher").
The subject is becoming increasingly appealing to me, now that I have the proper equipment for long exposures too.
I will attach 3 pictures taken on my latest roll of film (yep, I'm weird like that), and I'd like to hear suggestions as to what I should improve in order to get more interesting photos in the future.
Best regards!

[jford]

Nicely crisp and excellent saturation, IMO. I particularly like the spooky effect in the first.
However, I feel a little distracted by the slight perspective distortions caused by the film plane not being square to the subject. I seem to recall that Pentax made a perspective-correcting lens, but this really is the domain of real view cameras.
But very nice work - thanks for sharing.

[Dave Wiedemer]

Good job for your first architectural shots. Verticals are vertical ands the horizontals are horzontal. Work with PS makes life easier. Color and white balance are big issues, but once again post editing works. As far as composition #s 1 and 2 show good interest and meet the rules.

Keep up the practice. One good point is that the buildins do not move..... and they don't talk back.

later,

Dave Wiedemer, architect, and I do phoograph my own work

[vladimiroltean]

Thank you very much for the feedback. I see that perspective can become a problem, as I have tried to straighten the first photo a little, but I don't do a lot of postprocessing on film.
Dave, you weren't quite clear regarding the white balance issue, if it were a general problem, or particularly in my 3 pictures. That is because I didn't find the greenish lights too disturbing (but don't add to the picture nonetheless). Would a B/W treatment suit the pictures better?
In relation to the subject of the pictures, I'm not very familiar to architecture shots, so I'm not very sure: is it OK like that, just the stairs and columns and lines, or would they need some kind of other subject that's walking through there, like in my first example?
Thanks.

[smf]

My comments are extremely subjective. Please do not be offended. I understand that you and others might rightfully completely disagree with me.

The photographs are technically good but busy. If you were trying to capture broad scope, fine. Otherwise, I recommend isolating the most interesting aspects or features, such as the curving staircase in the first photo. You might do that by cropping down from the top, in from the left and possibly also in from the right.

In the bottom photo, unless you want all of the stairs in, try cropping up from the bottom. That would eliminate the chipped areas. And although the resulting image would be very shallow, you might also want to crop down from the top of that photo, eliminating the overhead lights.

The instructor of an architectural photography course I took at an arts center used two L-shaped pieces of mat board as cropping tools when looking at prints. You might find it helpful to do that on your computer screen. It helps find the picture within a picture and suggests possibilities you might not otherwise have considered.

Best wishes.

[Gregory_51]

Hello
Each kind of photography has it's own technical aspects and challenges. That is to say taking portraits is different from nature shots or in this case architecture. With buildings the color temp mismatches can be difficult at times. I can be corrected but can be difficult at times. B&W eliminates that problem but obviously it's a different result. People in the photo add a sense of scale and interest and can be an asset but a distraction at other times. It depends on the number and placement among other things. In the first the slow shutter speed blur adds interest but at the same time it changes the overall feel of the photo. The first thing you notice are the people on the stairs so it's perhaps less of a image of the building and more about people in a building. The figures in the second one are incidental and add some rounded shapes to contrast with all the verticals and horizontals. The third would probably be enhanced with figure walking down the hall. A building shot really needs to be interesting to stand on it's own. An exploration of shapes and patterns and light and color etc. Like the photos of the Walt Disney concert hall, a very interesting building. As for the verticals and horizontals I know some say it doesn't bother them if they aren't. I'm not one of them, it bugs the heck out of me. It's the first thing I notice. When you look at a building with your eye things look OK but when the lens distorts things it looks unnatural. It's also like a photo of the ocean that some people post and the horizon slopes to the left or right. It doesn't, it's flat and if it isn't it takes you out of the photo. These things are easy to fix in pp. I did a quick edit to correct some of the distortion and posted them here. 2012-11-30_163350 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! 2012-11-30_163758 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! The nice thing about buildings are they don't go anywhere and can be reshot if need be.
Cheers
Greg

[vladimiroltean]

Ok, thanks again for the very detailed answers. I will try and revisit the place and correct the mistakes I have made, and also try different framings of what I find.