|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Avalon
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: The Rules of Architectural Photography |
    |
|
Hi, I'm new to this forum. I consider myself an experimental photographer and one of my loves as a subject is architecture. The lines and patterns really are what draw my eye in. Not to mention old buildings versus new, love them all.
Recently, I was told by another photographer that the floor is extremely important when shooting Architectural shots. And while I would agree depending on the shot, sometimes I feel that the interest is in the whole building or in pieces of it, regardless of whether or not there is a floor.
For example, here is a link to a shot I took recently, that I call Vertigo. It was taken of this really fantastic building in Milwaukee WI. The glass partition in the back is the building, whereas the white part in front is the parking structure for the building. I shot it this way on purpose, how the lines and patterns of the buildings framed in my mind for the shot.
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/30256453/
Now would this be considered bad architectural photography or good?
Most importantly, I would love to hear from you all on what you think makes a good architectural shot versus a bad one. What are the "Rules" of Architectural Photography? 
Thanks again!
Abby 
_________________
When I discover who I am, I'll be free ~ Ralph Ellison |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kiler Photo
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 5
Location: Los Angeles Area
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings!
Experimental photography is good, especially when you are looking for great compositions, or making art from the Art-itecture.
Whether or not your image looking up at the building makes a good architectural photograph depends substantially on the purpose and need of the image.
Your image seems to fit more into the category of finding a great composition inside of another work of art, than it does telling the story of that piece of art.
However, if you combined that image with other more site oriented and also more wholly of the building, then you would be building a composite and story telling representation of the building, the site, and it's environment, with how they all interrelate.
Yes, seeing the ground, or the floor, as you call it, is important for a portion of the narrative of photographs, and is important in telling the whole story, if that is the need and desire, it is not necessary for portions of that narrative, or if your task and intentions are of a different sort.
Secondly, you also have to determine who the audience will be, what is the purpose of the photograph, and how many photograph(s) you are able to use to tell the story that you need to tell.. If you have to tell the story of the building in one photograph, and the intent and audience will be a pedestrian or utilitarian usage and viewpoint, then your image doesn't work so well, because you've gotten caught in your vision and interpretation of the structure, and your response to materials and light.
But if the need or purpose was a personal response, or a portion of a story of a building, then you have success.
Maybe I've answered some of your query, but maybe I've not. 
Sincerely,
Paul Kiler
www.kilerphoto.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
