Hi everybody,

 

I am talking about artistic architectural shots, not for professional architecture books or magazines. And I don't own a tilt-shift lens and not going to. I am not experienced in architectural photography, so I would like to collect pointers on what makes an architectural shot good and what makes it not so good.

 

From what I can deduce myself, composition of major picture elements is King, more than in many other photography genres. Modern structures are preferred for shots depicting parts of the building. An idealized wall surface is prevalent, at least here on 1X: not too much texture if at all; sharp block outlines together with full DOF; often almost solid wall color. The overall impression is "clean cut" (unless we are talking about the Abandoned sub-genre). All these features beg the question how to achieve it, I assume in post-processing. If something is suppose to be centered and symmetrical, which is good unlike in other photography genres, it better be dead symmetrical and centered.

 

Do you agree? If you disagree then why you disagree? There are no rules but there are many helpful guidelines and right now I am interested in these guidelines.

 

Anna

 

P.S. Going to Prague in a month, better put it to good use :-)

Anyone to help with architectural guidelines or pointers? I think this topic is extremely useful for architectural photography beginners so any advice from seasoned architectural pros is highly appreciated.

A great topic. I hope there will be a lot of answers.

Good is always subjective, I can only tell you my approach Anna.

I guess you mean modern architecture, although in Prague you will be focussing on ancient architecture and there might be many tourists in your way. My first recommendation will be if you like to shoot architecture in Prague that you take an early rise to avoid all the tourists.

Although including people in your compositions will in many occasions add to the capture e.g. because of emphasing dimensions.

Normally when I shoot architecture (modern) I try to do it on a weekend day (also because of time constraints) but mainly because you have the time and it will be quit. I never just start shooting straight away but first get myself an impression of the building ad walk around the building looking for angles to shoot, I will also look for elements which I can include in my composition. Look for reflections and the "natural"line of the buildings, especially curves are always attractive. Try to have a good balance between sky and building, symmetry can be essential, try to make use of lines which will "pull" you into the composition shadows can be very attractive and adding to the composition as well as low pov. Looking up is also very important and wil provide you with very surprising compositions. Try to organize your lines, e.g a vertical line parallel to the frame is always nice, lines departing from the corners are always attractive, a diagonal is always attractive.

 

If I can think of more I will let you know, I hope it helps, if you have any questions just let me know, always willing to help and explain. You can find many examples of architectural shots on my website www.jgravekamp.exto.nl

 

Kind regards

Jan

Hi Jan,

 

Very, very helpful, both in terms of pre-shooting work and composition. Thanks!

 

Now I have a question about processing and this picture, http://www.jgravekamp.exto.nl/kunstwerk/15250051_Royal+Library+The+Hague.html#.UZREzcoSrUc , is a good example. The building looks very clean and textureless, just white with shadows, almost like an architectural drawing. Such processing is very common in modern architectural shots. How is it done? I can think of curves or Nik Silver Efex, which is partially about curves as well but I might be wrong.

 

Anna

 

You could certainly get there with Nik if you had shot this on a cloudless day with a perfectly cloudless sky at a different sun angle than the one show. Because of the sun angle on the buildings and because of trends in these kinds of shot, I am going to speculate that the sky was dropped out with a matte. It's a skillfully good matte if that was the technique. The reason I mention the sun angle is that with the sun low in the sky the blues in the sky would be noticeably graduated and a pure black sky with no graduation at all would be difficult to achieve, even with software red filter applies in Nik.

 

The tones of the buildings are very nice but totally achievable with a properly exposed negative or raw file. The total absence of reflections in most of the windows also speaks of probable matte work to drop those windows out as well.

 

Any answer other than Jan's would, of course just be speculation.

Great topic and discussion.

 

Additionally to what Jan wrote another aspect:

 

For me the "image idea" is very important. Instead of "image idea" I could say "image statement". If the "idea" is clear and not common, it makes (for me) a picture good. Even if I do not like the statement or idea (because it is not my taste), but the idea / the statement is clear and not common, I would classify the image as "good".

 

In other words: A photo with a common idea and an unclear statement I would rarely feel as "good".

 

Harry

Clyde,

 

Even if Jan did it differently, I am still curious about "matte work to drop those windows". Could you explain this whole thing in more details and perhaps a link to how this matte could look like? Yes, I googled first :-) .

 

Anna

Harry,

 

What could be a statement of an architectural shot? Are simply harmonious lines a statement enough?

 

Anna

 

The matte would be a trapezoid for each window and the fill or the "delete to" color would be black in the case of this image. The phrase "drop out" in my biz means replace content with black or something very neutral or abstract. We do it a lot with signage in shots where we don't want to show company logos or ads.

 

Anna,

 

let me say it in other words: a "simply" statement of an architecture photo like you mentioned would be (in my opinion) not "lines" but "aesthetics". That's why I could answer your question with "yes, it could be".

Two Examples:

http://1x.com/photo/32161

http://1x.com/photo/88834

In my opinion both pictures show "lines" but the main idea is "aesthetics".

 

A great number of Architecture photos have this idea / this statement : aesthetics.

 

The statement "aesthetics" is transported by means of lines,.

 

Harry

 

Aesthetics is good and your shots show that :-) .

 

Gone to bed meditating on aesthetics and harmony and will try to imagine a disharmonious aesthetic picture, or harmonious unaesthetic one. Might be an interesting exercise, not kidding...

Anna,

if the outcome of your meaditation will be a photo wtih "disharmonious aesthetic" in conjunction with architecture: Show it to us (not kidding).

Harry

As I realized yesterday, not a single photo but a whole sub-genre. In my perception, the Abandoned Buildings sub-genre primary effect is based on disharmony between the original harmonious architectural lines and the current pitiful dilapidated state. So harmony is not totally absent here but some of its very essential component is missing and missing on purpose. The result is aesthetic for many (not everybody considers dilapidation as an aesthetic component in general). So, yes, that would be disharmonious aesthetics

Hey, I find this topic very interesting (it's my way of saying I will probably not be of any help, but I would like to read from more experienced photographers :) ).

 

I like modern architecture photography a lot (actually, my only playlist -aside from the default favorites- is about Calatrava) but I'm almost never happy with my own results.

 

I've found that it's a genre that requires a lot of "perfectionism". Symmetry, lines and everything regarding composition needs to be quite perfect. You can't allow yourself to have lines coming "roughly" from the corners, or placing yourself "roughly" in the middle of a symmetrical scene... etc (OK, you can allow yourself whatever you want, art is art and everyone is free... I'm just saying, to get the kind of results that I want to achieve). Of course, post-processing can help a bit recovering some "mistakes" in framing and perspective, but it can't recover that much...

 

And, as you pointed out, Anna, one thing that seems a "must" is "cleanliness", no texture. It seems you can't afford to have noise (or grain, if anyone out there is shooting film; Clyde, that's for you ;)).

I guess many architecture photographers shooting indoors use noise reduction in PP, or maybe a tripod and low ISO. I don't like carrying a tripod so I often end up with quite some noise and removing it while preserving fine details in the image is not always easy...

 

I'm working (processing) on some architecture photographs that I took on a recent trip to Porto. Will see if I can make anything good out of them and maybe upload them here. In the mean time, I'm all ears for any kind of tip :)

 

Cheers,

paco.

 

 

Hi Anna,

 

that was an easy one in terms of processing, the building is quite clean and white, it was a bright sunny day with shadows, therefore the processing was pretty easy by applying red filter, playing with contrast and some dodge and burning. I often make use of Silver Efex pro for local adjustments and working with the structure, a good example is this one http://www.1x.com/photo/52786/all:user:43279 in which I decreased the structure in SEP a few times locally and worked also separately on the car to obtain the high key effect wth a strong contrasting car in the centre.

 

Cheers Jan

 

Hi Paco although a clean picture seems to be contributing to architectural shots it can help by emphasizing structure ( Which I do making use of Silver Efex Pro) some examples http://www.1x.com/photo/53388/all:user:43279 http://www.1x.com/photo/56758/all:user:43279 http://www.1x.com/photo/44263/all:user:43279

http://www.1x.com/photo/51600/all:user:7271

http://www.1x.com/photo/50267/all:user:7271

 

All depending on the mood you like to put into the capture. Hope it helps

 

Regards

Jan

 

Now with one follower :)

 

 

Looking forward to you outcome!

 

Harry

 

Thinking about all those tourists, like you:-), and my thoughts went to strong Neutral Density filter so that you can make long exposures and the tourists buzzing around will disappear to leave the stationary building .... never tried it but it is mentioned from time to time.

.

 

Has anybody experience with this and could post here a description how to work?

I tried this in a church, I'll try and find the photo with the exif, I remember it worked but I didn't use a long enough exposure.

This is one of the rare times I used a tripod inside a building !

 

If haven't gotten rid of the photo I'll post it.

 

MC

 

Hi all,

 

similar to Jan I have found that it helps enormously that I explore the building first from all sides and perspectives before I start taking images.

 

My main motivation when taking architectural images is to give the building my own interpretation - when buildings are 'worth' taking pictures it is often that the architect already created something special - e.g. think of the works of Calatrava, Gehry, Sir Norman Foster to just mention a few.

Often these buildings are already special by themselves - so the challlenge for me as a photographer (and artist - huh!) is to give the architect's idea my own interpretation or point of view. I feel I need to add something of my own creativity otherwise I am just capturing the architect's vision/idea. This can be often very challenging.

In order to somewhat achieve this challenge I have found two things very useful and there are part of my 'architectural workflow':

 

1. Using a right-angle viewfinder attached to the camera helps me to 'find' a more unique view since it allows to rotate the camera frame in arbitrary directions and angles. It also greatly helps with preventing a stiff and sore neck after an architectural shoot.

 

2. If I have time and it is really a spectular building, I use my time and go around the building several times using several lenses. I may start with a wide-angle lens (in my case 16-35mm) and search for compostions along all places of the building. I might then use a standard zoom (in my case 24-105mm or 24-70mm) and repeat the whole exercise with this lens and then with a telephoto lens (70-200mm). It is quite amazing how you get different ideas using the different magnifications.

 

Lastly it's like for many genres in photography all about simplification and having a clear 'message'/theme/idea in your image - I think then the images have the greatest impact.

 

Guido

A while ago, an architect/photographer called Thomas Holtkotter wrote some tips for making good architectural images - both practical and aesthetic advice. Most of it is common sense, but it's worth repeating here for anyone starting architectural photography from scratch:

 

1. Preparation

First, check the opening times of the building/structure you wish to shoot and if any permits are necessary.

 

Before heading off to your destination, make sure you know the weather forecast in advance. Nothing is more frustrating than to start your trip in sunshine and arrive to your photo shoot hours later in a rain storm.

 

Plan your trip for early morning or late afternoon if possible as this is normally the best lighting condition.

 

2. Gear

A wide angle or ultra-wide angle lens helps to get dramatic compositions and is probably the most important lens type for architectural shots. Also, a slight telephoto lens is always good for isolating particular elements of a building/structure.

 

A tripod for long exposure or night shots is a must. UV and Polarizing filters are often helpful as well.

 

3. Time

Take your time to explore the building/structure. Stroll around to study the subject and the lighting conditions to find the best and most unusual point of view.

 

4. Composition

Keep the composition as clean as possible and try to avoid distracting elements. Less elements are often a guarantee for more impact. Include repetitive elements like lines, pattern, and forms. When composing images with many lines direct them into the corners.

 

Try to find an eyecatching point of view. A diagonal or tilted composition often adds an interesting dynamic to the picture. If you are going for a strong symmetrical composition with dominating horizontal and vertical lines make sure that all lines are well balanced while trying to eliminate all tilted lines.

 

5. Light

Light plays a huge role in architectural photography. It interacts with the building/structure, creates plasticity, and gives the building/structure depth. Shadows can provide contrast and can highlight the repeating elements of the building/structure.

 

Compare different lighting conditions. The morning sun will be different to the evening sun. Also rainy and cloudy days can provide a certain mood to an architectural photo.

Well told Linda!

Thanks a lot Linda for this "checklist" i'll make use of it ;-)

 

 

Ok, here are two tries of mine... One attempting cleanliness in a sort of "milky" way that I have often seen here and another on the contrary, enhancing "texture" (although somewhat decreased in the uploaded/rescaled version):

 

http://1x.com/photo/157683/all:user:155242

http://1x.com/photo/157687/all:user:155242

 

You might not exactly consider them "architecture" but I think some of the issues discussed (geometry and texture) are important in these shots.

 

I'd be glad to have your thoughts on those two images.

The first one shouldn't be blownout normally, although depending on the monitor it can seem so...

The second one has a big chunk of wall "missing" for symmetry and I think that's a pity. I might even try to "clone" it, but doubt I can do that with acceptable results :s

 

Anyway, cheers,

paco.

 

Please understand, that I (we) can not discuss your pictures in detail. If you want detailed critique, please use the "critiqiue" forum.

In my opinion:

- both pictures are architectural photos (no doubt) - because the main content and the main topic of the photos are about architecture

- both pictures are "good" (no doubt) - because framing, post processing and use of human presence are typically for architectural photos and are well done.

-> I like both photos :)

Whether the pictures are "good enough" for the 1x curators -> send them to screening and you will see it a few days later.

Cheers, Harry

 

Thanks. I totally understand what you say and I know more or less how 1x works now and I would never ask "do you think this is good enough to get accepted". Sorry if it sounded like that, it was not my intention at all.

It's just that this thread came by at the time I was asking myself some of these questions and processing these pictures, so it felt natural to add the links.

 

Anyway, I'm glad you like them and if anyone wants to use them to point "what makes an architectural shot good or bad", feel free.

 

cheers,

paco.

 

No, Paco, it has not sound like "do you think this is good enough to get accepted". Everything was okay. If other users of the architecture forum want to write a more detailed comment, it's okay for me.

 

btw: I added both photos to my playlist "stairs"

 

Harry (admin)

 

 

Why not?

 

Clyde, I wrote it: "If you want detailed critique, please use the "critique" forum."

-> In my opinion, in the critique-forum you get 1st class critique. No doubt.

 

And I also wrote this: "If other users of the architecture forum want to write a more detailed comment, it's okay for me."

 

-> So, feel free to write a detailed comment (= critique). No problem.

 

Harry (admin)

 

In my opinion this is a very important hint. A "clean" composition is a must.

Examples (all pictures submitted to the Architecture group!):

 

- “Day & Night” by Eduardo Martín: http://1x.com/photo/175105/group:9:admin:37876

 

- “Dichotomy” by Deepak Ghosh: http://1x.com/photo/166572/group:9:admin:37876

 

- “Portalis” by Dennis Ramos: http://1x.com/photo/168153/group:9:admin:37876

 

- “orange” by Karl-Heinz Bitter: http://1x.com/photo/163249/group:9:admin:37876

 

Harry

Another possibility to improve an architectural photos is the use of an angle for the subject. Examples:

 

“like a harp's strings III - rising” by Julia Anna Gospodarou -> http://1x.com/photo/51639/popular-ever:architecture

 

“Orange passage” by Gerard Jonkman -> http://1x.com/photo/40112/popular-ever:architecture

 

“Blade with Rays” by Klaus-Peter Kubik | KPK -> http://1x.com/photo/41075/popular-ever:architecture

 

“Underneath the lamp” ny Jan Gravekamo -> http://1x.com/photo/57060/popular-ever:architecture

 

“The steel butterfly” by Corrado Chiozzi -> http://1x.com/photo/37937/popular-ever:architecture

 

Harry

Harry, I'm not sure what you mean by "good architectural shot", I'm not even sure what Anna meant by it in her OP.

 

I don't consider myself much of an "architectural photographer" but I would avoid many of the cliches that seem to fill the pages here.

 

A good composition is not necessarily a "clean" composition.

 

I would offer this as an example:

http://1x.com/photo/81823/playlist:257854

 

To me this is a great example of both good/interesting composition and clever, subtle use of angles and POV. It's not forced or cliche imo.

 

As for parts vs. the whole that Anna spoke of:

http://1x.com/photo/48854/playlist:257854

 

This uses the architecture to help tell a story in a far more interesting way that just showing perfect lines and clean scenes to me.

 

Two shots of the same scene, but VERY different:

http://1x.com/photo/53562/playlist:257854

http://1x.com/photo/48533/playlist:257854

 

Which one is "better"?? Of course, a ridiculous question. I know which I prefer but I'll leave the answer to you guys.

 

And then there's the times when nature imitates art:

http://1x.com/photo/46223/playlist:257854

 

Or when the two blend:

http://www.clydebeamer.com/2007/08/sedona-chapel-outside/

 

 

I can not answer this questions, Clyde. That's why I wrote this: "Another possibility to improve an architectural photos is ...".

 

We discuss here about art. And, in my opinion, there is no absolute "good" or "bad". Anyway we try to give advice on how you could improve architecture photos. I find your approach quite good, though not all images match my taste.

 

Harry

 

Which of these two do you prefer:

 

Two shots of the same scene, but VERY different:

http://1x.com/photo/53562/playlist:257854

http://1x.com/photo/48533/playlist:257854

 

In this particular case by a good architectural shot I meant a picture which has good chances to be liked by many people specializing in architectural shots. Not in rule or ground breaking images.

 

I like both pictures. Both are "good" in my opinion.

I prefer: http://1x.com/photo/53562/playlist:257854

It is a question of taste.

 

Harry

I find the Abandoned sub-genre one which has become too much copywork. There do not seem to be enough new elements but mostly over and over again the same kind of photo but each time of a different subject. In the beginning it was fun, but the genre really needs new creative input now. Therefore I believe the bounderies between the different genres should be overcome. In some cases clean cuts are definitly the best if not the only solution but it should not be a rule, and aslike in the abandoned genre new perceptions should been tried out. I am not against post-processing, but I believe it should rather be used in a creative sense rather than just removing flaws. Even sometimes some flaws are required for keeping a picture powerfull, I find over-post-processed photographs annoying and boring. Regarding symmetry: it can work in very rare cases, but normally the weakest composition is a symmetric one. If you don't agree on that, than have a look at the 20th century modern painters, a genre were composition (aswell in lines, squares as colours) is the key-element. You will almost never find a work of a great artist which is symmetric. Take Piet Mondrian for instance: one might expect he would have a lot of them, but if you look better you'll see they actually never are.

 

 

A quick consideration 10 minutes before boarding a plane :-)

 

I think that liking or disliking symmetrical compositions is purely a matter of either personal taste, or a fashion trend, or both. Still, for some genres it is often perceived like a strong guideline, if not even a rule (please refer to my opening post in the Rule for Breaking Rules discussion in Photography Philosophy). And the related guidelines can be either pro or against symmetry. Then guidelines differ per genre and it's not really possible to directly compare 20 century paintings with 21 century architectural photography.

 

Clearly guidelines differ, though composition by itself is abstract, it is not determined by a subject but by patterns in colours and lines spread over the entire picture. Also the older non-abstract painters also abstracted their canvas when building up their plans for a painting, only in modern abstract painting it is much easier to see, therefore I did suggest that as tool. The guidelines on composition only differ under different circumstances, those circumstances are not determined by the subject but by the dimensions. For instance two-dimensional and three dimensional art, painting or photography versus sculpturing, within the contrast of those indeed the guidelines for composition do differ, but not in two different genres of 2-dimensional art.

 

A question to everybody: do you routinely clone out electrical wires from architectural shots? If so, what is your favorite method of doing it?

 

it's like painting for me. I can't remember to have removed any electrical wires before, but I have done so with different things. For example, I like to make urban photographs, however these days our towns are filled with annoying streetsigns, cars etc. I prefer them not included in my photos 'cause without them you get a whole different story, a much more surreal one. It's like some of the hyperrealistic painters who painted streetview but also avoided such things, the result was amazing, a seemly very realistic view, however with a very strange atmosphere. An example of one of much shots which I edited likewise is this one: http://1x.com/photo/212307/all:user:261783 in which I removed parked cars, there were several, and you never find this street without them, I also removed street signs and some other disturbing things. I also had to reset one of the roofs in their original state, as it was renewed into something that really didn't match with the architecture. I left the bikes, thought they were a nice touch that could stay.

But to do so it wasn't just clooning, I had to repaint several parts.

 

But I like such editing of photos to have an actual purpose, rather than just hiding flaws. I try to avoid the flaws before taking a shot not afterwards.

 

The purpose of my editing is on one hand, restoring an architectual construction into its orginal state as intended by the architect. Many building have been badly changed so often their beauty is not always visible anymore. Sometimes you have some real pearls hidden in what seems to be ugly places.

 

But on the otherhand I edit my photos also as a statement. I often take streetviews which are commonly disturbed by annoying streetsigns or trafficlights, the worst are the parked cars, etc. The statement I wish to make is by showing how our citycenters would look like if we would ban these cars. How peacefull and beautiful some of these streets can become. The most unpleasant ones can really turn out completely differently. The photo linked to above is one of those examples.

 

About the cloning:

I never clone entire parts, as this mostly gives not a satisfying result. I use very little parts of different placves on the photograph and mix them, like if I was painting. To get the best result you have to create a new part rather than just copy one, by copying you risk to get an unnatural effect (mostly due lighting problems, but when dealing with larger parts also the perspective can give you problems).

So I prefer to paint using a clone-program.

I don't use PS, I don't like it. I use a much cheaper program which forces me maybe a little more to do the creative part myself, but that's how I prefer it. I believe software can never be creative, it's but a tool like a brush, but you still require a painter.

 

If it is (in my opinion) necessary, I do. Example:

At this tower:

http://1x.com/photo/55510/all:user:37876

on the right side there was a white cable, approx 5m long. I cloned it away and thus improved the picture. Nobody will miss it.

 

Harry

 

 

I mostly will do it (unless it would have an added value to the image)

In the past I used always the standard clone tool for that.

Since Photoshop CS 5, I mostly will go for the 'content aware fill' feature

 

Best regards

 

Jef

 

A fascinating, informative forum topic to read through. I need to re-read it again to help absorb everything. I'm heading to Chicago in a month; probably my favorite American city for architecture... I will enjoy thinking about this topic's ideas while I'm out there searching for images to capture.

 

This is great. Looking forward to your architectural photos from Chicago.

 

Harry

For me, a good architectural shot starts with an emotion. With modern architecture it is usually about bringing a lot of dynamics( by using curved lines and wide angle) or imposing discipline and power through a symmetrical, careful and balanced composition.

If you dont feel "this looks powerful", "i want to ride that funky curve" or "wow, this looks like a tunnel to the future" - how are you going to make an inspired photo?

Once you get the basic idea you look for ways to emphasize it.

Light, point of view and technique are essential