|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Tedd
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 3
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:56 pm Post subject: Architectural Photography |
    |
|
In this age of digital imagery, it is quite easy to remove the convergence in photos made with the camera not level--the distortion which makes buildings look somewhat pyramidal when the camera is pointed upward, and the opposite when the camera is pointed downward.
Especially in buildings designed by Frank Ghery, one doesn't know whether the tapering buildings in the photos are due to camera distortion or Ghery's design sense.
Again, since it is quite easy to remove that distortion in PhotoShop, why not do so before submitting them, to Architecture Week or Great Buildings Online, for a more accurate representation of the building's form?
_________________
Ted
Toronto, Ontario |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CorpID/Sophisticated SIgn
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 8
Location: Westchester County, New York
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:37 am Post subject: Photography |
|
|
| Try to get a LENS for you camera that is called a "paralex lens." I know that there was one made by the Mimiya company that fit their 645 camera |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | buildings designed by Frank Ghery, one doesn't know |
Yes you are correct Tedd...maybe he can eduacte those youngerlings how it all works as according to our AIA new flash, he is to star on PBS' Arthur cartoon series as he is making a special guest appearance on the PBS KIDS series show Arthur, as the series attempts to get kids interested in architecture.
Arthur the 8-year-old aardvark and his gang of animal pals are devastated when their tree house collapses under the weight of snow. Gehry guest stars as the guy (er, aardvark?) who saves the day by helping them learn about team cooperation, incorporating client needs, budgets, and spatial considerations as they design and rebuild their perfect space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedd
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 3
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:13 pm Post subject: Re: Photography |
|
|
| CorpID/Sophisticated SIgn wrote: | | Try to get a LENS for you camera that is called a "paralex lens." I know that there was one made by the Mimiya company that fit their 645 camera |
Perhaps you mean a perspective-correction lens. That kind of lens can allow your camera to "look slightly upward" (or downward, or to the side) without moving the camera from a level position. By turning a control screw, the front element of the lens moves upward, so the camera's view is toward the top of a building while the camera remains level--pointed straight ahead. Tedd
_________________
Ted
Toronto, Ontario |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 556
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: Architectural Photography |
|
|
| Tedd wrote: | Especially in buildings designed by Frank Ghery, one doesn't know whether the tapering buildings in the photos are due to camera distortion or Ghery's design sense.
Again, since it is quite easy to remove that distortion in PhotoShop, why not do so before submitting them, to Architecture Week or Great Buildings Online, for a more accurate representation of the building's form? |
Or maybe the photographer, being considered an artist as well, is making a statement of his own.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the camera has since its inception been considered the capturor of truth to some extent... where as photoshop is very much seen as something of a deception in that you are changing a photograph [truth]
now if the photo accurately demonstrates how the naked eye will understand the object then nothing should be changed...to do so would seem a bit unethical...
then of course there is the entire art of architectural photography... there is many famous photographers who have captured the essence of a building even though the photographs may somewhat skew how the viewer would see the same scene with the naked eye |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Start collecting your perspective correct photo images now for your early submission into the St. Louis Chapter AIA - Photo Contest, starting in January 2005. The winning photos will be displayed at next years AIA Convention and entered into the AIA Appointment Calander for the year 2007? If the pattern holds true from this year, the photos will be due March 2005.
http://www.aia-stlouis.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LindaP
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 29
Location: down south
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh I'm glad you posted - I have a friend I need to remind about this. Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, and maybe KM can set up a post page in here that we could all submit our own photos and judge which ones should go to the FINALS in ST. Louis! What a concept....kind of like American "Photo" Idol 
...of course, KM would have to figure out how to allow me to post photos again in here, as I believe he has mistakenly  found a way to prevent me from doing so..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The camera professionals use to photograph architecture is called a "view camera." It's peculiarity is that its lens can be moved independently of the film plane. Other bellows cameras move the lens toward or away from the film (to control the size of the image "seen" by the film); the view camera's bellows is more flexible, and adjustable brackets allow the photographer to fix the lens eccentrically to the central axis of the film plane, and to tilt it. These manipulations distort the image as recorded on the film, making the vertical edges of a building appear parallel, when in actuality the laws of perspective dictate that those edges will converge toward a "vanishing point" at the zenith.
In effect, the photographer intentionally distorts the image, to conform to what the viewer's mind thinks the image should look like: as we know that the vertical edges of the building are parallel, the photograph "looks right" when the image presented conforms to that expectation. Looking up at a tall building, the edges converge, and we at first have no real way of confirming the actual shape we are looking at, but, because of other clues -- vertical rows of windows that remain equidistant to the building edges, vertical joints in building material units that converge in conformance with the overall shape, and the like -- we correctly conclude that the building is, in fact, a vertical rectangular solid. Because we "want" those cues to conform to the reality -- we know they are, in fact, parallel to one another -- the modified image is more "recognizable" than the raw image seen by the naked eye and the normal camera.
So, we see the real world in one way, but our minds, and our store of previous experience, combine to make a distortion of that visual record seem more real, or at least more satisfying, than the more natural, unmodified image that the casual snapshot provides.
The question then arises: what is the best way to photograph a Frank Gehry building, or any other non-orthogonal structure? Part of the answer will come from the realization that we have little if any way of knowing what the building, or its images, SHOULD look like; our store of previous experiences likely includes no previous encounters with this new shape. A useful exercise would be to encounter the actual object, and compare that visual exerience with a variety of photographs of it, made with the two alternative techniques described above, and select the ones which most accurately reflect the actual viewing experience, or are the most "satisfying" representatives of the building.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JWmHarmon
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 112
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:28 pm Post subject: Architectural Photography Primer - View camera - 35 mm |
|
|
The site linked here will give you some interesting information about architectural photography.
It compares the use of 35mm cameras with view cameras, what lens to use, and some considerations for photographing architectural subject matter. It includes a discussion of how to correct for convergence so that the photograph shows parallel lines as parallel rather than converging towards a focal point in the distance.
The discussion focuses on historic documentation of our architectural heritage.
http://archive.epreservation.net/resources/documentation/photo/ames.html[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1121
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for postting the link. Well-worth reading if you're interested in the subject. It's a little dated (for instance, camera types discussion), a little heavy toward the sub-specialty of historic documentation (for instance, the heavy orientation toward B&W photography, when the vast majority of work these days is done in color) but taken with a little salt (as always) there is a lot of very good info in there. Well-worth reading if you're interested in the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even better than architectural photography....take a look at these incredible hi-res photographs of snowflakes. Can someone tell me why these things are so symmetrical? Hey, they're only frozen water! Ice cubes aren't symmetrical, nor are hailstones 
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/photos.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fieldhouse
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tedd, are the tedd that used to teach at ryerson???
If so, you will be happy to know that I Norman K. fieldhouse did indeed graduate the program. I now have my own consulting firm.
hope things are well with you and your family...norman k. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
