Hello,

I took this shoot in Baku in rather unfavorable lighting conditions (high clouds, flat and diffused lighting); unfortunately the travel schedule did not allow to wait until the weather conditions changed. While working on the picture in post, I decided not to "over process" by trying to add drama that was simply not there in the original scene, and concentrated on the geometry and the balance of lighter and darker areas.

I received feedback from some users, the general perception being that of a "dull" image due to the lack of

- strong highlights and deep shadows

- details in the foreground structure (which is actually made of a very smooth material)

Since this was in effect the result of a deliberate choice, I had considered these aspects more as features than bugs, but the comments I collected made me think that there can be a different approach to the processing of this urban landscape, though I do not find it obvious.

So I would like to understand how other photographers would treat this image and what potential (if any) they see in it that could be brought to fruition.

In case it helps, the image has been acquired with a GFX100S + 30mm f/5.6 TS @ f/16, ISO100; the raw file was processed in Capture One and (very gently) sharpened in Topaz Photo AI.

Kind regards,

Flavio

Yes! I remember giving you feedback on this image. I was unable to upload an edit when I did so. Let me do that now. Is my version better? Maybe. Maybe not. You can decide for yourself.

I understand your limitations due to scheduling. You did the right thing. It is always better to take a photograph than not to take it. I am not sure if you took many versions of the scene with different camera settings. This is always a good thing to do. 

Hello Flavio

Welcome to the forum, and thank you for sharing your Baku - The Rhythm of Geometry with us. I have actually given you some feedback in the member critique section where I commented that the architectural details are impressive but that the greenery was distracting my eyes from the buildings, especially in the bottom left corner. My suggestion was to crop the lower frame and perhaps also the right side since I wasn't entirely convinced of the half crop of the building on the right. That would be quite a large step I realise, so I am posting two possible edits of your photo. In the first I have converted to monochrome to avoid the distraction of the greenery; I then cropped the right side and the sky in the second edit, giving more prominence to the main building. I like the smoothness of the foreground structure, and I think black-and-white suits the composition and its various architectural elements.

Good light, Elizabeth

Hi Flavio,

There are things I like about this image right away. The light is soft and honest, and the tones are quiet and controlled. I appreciate that you didn’t over push contrast or drama where it didn’t naturally exist. There’s a clinical stillness here that suits the subject, and your processing feels intentional and respectful of the architecture.

But as much as I appreciate the restraint, I think the main issue is composition/balance. The buildings are interesting, but they feel isolated from one another. The large white building in the foreground takes up a lot of space, but it doesn’t direct the eye. The building on the left and the glass towers on the right each have presence, but they don’t interact. There’s no clear connection between the elements. It ends up feeling more like a catalog of shapes than a unified moment.

I tried a 3:2 crop to see if a better composition would help. It did improve the balance slightly, but the fundamental issue is still there for me. I also increased the shadows in Camera RAW to add a bit more contrast and presence to the midtones, similar to what David suggested in his example. That helped bring out a little more structure, but the image still needs a stronger visual relationship between the forms. Even a small shift in position or angle could have made a difference, just something to pull the geometry into a conversation.

You clearly have the technical control. This one just needed more clarity in how it was framed.

Best,
Tammy - Senior Critic

*Edited to add I just saw Elizabeth's version and her composition changes everythig.  In her cropped version there is a tighter story or relationship between the structures.  

Many thanks to you all!

I had actually missed the compositional issue regarding the rightmost building: I saw it as "closing" the composition on the right, but I understand the remark regarding the relationship among the various elements of the image.

Kind regards and all the best!

Flavio

Hello, Flavio

Welcome to our forum and thank you for sharing your image with us. There might not be much of a new review coming fromme as you already received some quite fine comments from my friends. The images commented on in curation have some aspects in common. There are various views and comments about them. Every person views an image with their own perspective. I look at it as a nice minimalistic image and I find the leading lines in the geometries quite various and successful. Personally with a punch to he black point and some more definition they might most probably enhance their effect. Here the minimalist effect resulted from the qualityof light. A dynamic improvenent can be achieved through adding vibrance to the blues in the buildings on the right. I did this with the glacier filter in PS Camera Raw. I wish you good light...Cicek

Dear Flavio Simeone 

You seem to be new on 1x, thanks for visiting our forum. To be frank - I'm afraid I always will be - I don't understand the goal of your framing. What was it actually you were after? I might be a more abstract or minimalistic photographer, but in my opinion your shot is confusing.

The left element is an architectural pearl. I'd love to shoot it myself. The other towers are fancy, but no pearls. They may benefit form a wild sky's reflection, or vivid colors, but as they are, they're boring. Your title implies you see a pattern, repetitive elements. Well, that does not work for me, too. 

Viewer's attention in photographs is led by many factors. If I leave out a few, non applicable, like eyes and hands, it's leading lines (the wall starting at the portal could have been one), light (which is too flat as you say yourself), contrasts (alle side elements have more than the real subject, merging into the bright sky), the composition (everything substantial in this frame missed the hot spots). So for me, it misses all criteria for a good photograph, most of all not being clear about what you photographed. The title may support your intention, the visual does not.

I don't even believe this shot can be fixed in Photoshop, none of the edits above really improved the frame largely. Liz reduced the elements at least, but it would need a hell lot more to fix the flat light. The thing about shooting architecture is highlighting and showing shapes. Light is of course needed, but it's the shadows that support shapes. Overcast skies have little shadows. 

I of course noted you said you had no choice, but it does not change the fact you could not achieve an optimal result. And 1x is about sublime photography. So you have to invest your time, or investigate to arrive at the right time, or be very lucky to get ideal conditions nevertheless. I often shoot in either very bright sun, if I need hard shadows to suppport rounded shapes, or in the blue hour, where reflections are stronger than the subjects behind windows. That's another disadvantage with overcast days, you see window blinds and furniture behind the windows - since all elements are quite balanced in brightness.

I hope you don't mind I did not find a positive aspect in this shot, only commented on the opposite. Please don't take it personal, we all were not born as masters of photography. My first architectural takes may have been on a similar level. It was 1x, my knwledgeable girlfriend and this forum helping me grow in that genre. And it may be unfair to apply my preferences to your work, but I can only speak for myself. Take it for what it is, just an opinion.

Best regards,

Mike

Hello Mike Kreiten, clarity and rationalization of one's ideas and motives are no pitfall, and if I knew I'd take negative remarks personally I wouldn't ask for comments in the first place. I have taken note of your feedback and will duly think it through, Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post, all the best,

Flavio

Flavio,

Seems like everyone on the team has offered suggestions.  My turn now?   

I see the image as being more 'abstract' than 'architectural'.  There is an expectation for architectural photographs - strong contrast black and white with full tonal range, dramatic skies with motion-blurred clouds, stark big-city buildings, and so on.  "Baku - The Rhythm of Geometry" seems more impressionistic with its soft tones and bright sky.  A different theme for a cityscape photograph.  

My suggestion is to keep the soft look and change the colour to a shades-of-blue theme.  For the sample edit the buildings were 'stretched' taller with Photoshop's 'Edit>Transform>Scale', the top was cropped, and the colour changed with an experimental method - 'Image>Adjustments>Invert', then 'Filter>Neural Filter>Colorize', and then 'Image>Adjustments>Invert' again to normalize the tones.  Some local colours were changed by  selecting the areas and using 'Image>Adjustments>Colour Balance'.  

Just ideas.   

. . . . Steven, senior critic

Flavio,

Thanks for submitting this image.  I have to say that basically I agree with Mike Kreiten 

For future reference in situations like this instead of taking the photo for the conditions that you wished for I'd suggest taking a photo that the conditions are conducive for.

In this case I'd set a side the concept you wished you could get and go for what can make a great photo. Specifically, I suggest getting much closer and going for detail and/or abstract shots.  The vertical layers may make for great shadow patterns shots. Likewise, you lower portion would be great for line and texture shots.

I know it's difficult to give up on a shot you planned on but when time is short and the conditions aren't right go to Plan B and take shots the conditions are right for.

Hope this helps,

Mike S. (the other Mike) - Senior Critic

Hi Flavio Simeone,

Now trying to be more positive and constructive than before, I have another recommendation. I use to carry two bodies, one mostly with a long lens mounted. If the wide angle shot does not work out, I fall into a "play with shapes" mode. Everything allowed, up-side-down, any angle... Single out an element or two, here for example the curved wall and the straight lines of the portal behind it in f/16. Go to the essence of a building, what is its characteristic feature? Abstract by leaving out the most of it and still give the viewer an idea of what the construction is about. Also here, shadows may support the efforts, but you're less depending on it.

Best regards,

Mike