Architecture photography - Where to start?

swag72

swag72

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,969
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
This may sound like a silly one. I went to Oxford today and took the 17-55 and was looking forward to trying some architecure and buildings. Well, don't know if it was because it was beautiful building heaven, but I just didn't know where to start.

As I looked around, loads of great buildings, but I just couldn't see a shot in them. Almost as though there was sooooo much there I just couldn't grasp it all.

I came home with 2 shots :lol:

I would welcome some comments and ideas on how you even get going on buildings, especially when there's so many. Wondered if I needed to start small first off? Go somewhere a little less awe inspiring?

:help:
 
How about this

I'd just browse some sample pics... flickr should provide plenty of inspiration?
 
If you want to do it properly then you'll be wanting to get in to perspective correction in Photoshop i.e making the verticals vertical and correcting the lean which you will inevitably acquire. This process involves cropping the picture after, so make sure you have some space above and to the sides in the picture to crop back to a square/rectangular format. But not everything has to have perspective correction anyway, so don't get too bogged down with this aspect until you've got in to the swing of things. I'm sure the Perspective Police will be along to nick you if and when you post any infringements here.

Meanwhile, you don't have to encompass whole buildings. I take many of just parts of a building, abstract shapes, or looking up which totally confounds the Perspective Police. Or reflections on big glassy buildings.
 
If you really want to do it properly you will be looking at tilt shift lenses and large format cameras :)

The best way to approach it is to put the camera away. Walk around each building you want to photograph until you can see the shots you want. Then shoot them. Yes you can correct perspectives in photoshop but when you shoot the buildings (as mentioned already) you need to leave plenty of room round them for the inevitable cropping you will have to do.

Just take your time, pick one building and try to see it in a glossy magazine. That's what you need to shoot. :)
 
Thanks Lee, Micheal and Ali - Certainly some food for thought there. I should have looked on Flickr before I left, but Oxford was a last minute decision! Some great pics in the link Lee.

Have got CS3, so no problems with sorting the perspective with any luck.

I do like the last suggestion about concentrating on one building :thumbs:
 
MisterE said:
If you want to do it properly then you'll be wanting to get in to perspective correction in Photoshop .
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with your statement.
Being someone who photographs buildings, getting the verticals vertical and the horizontals horizontal is important to me. I use a field camera on a tripod equipped with a head that incorporates spirit levels. It may take five minutes to set the camera up but I believe in doing things properly.
To use photoshop for this is an option I could never ever consider.



Each to their own I suppose.......?
 
sprint95m said:
I have to disagree with your statement.
Being someone who photographs buildings, getting the verticals vertical and the horizontals horizontal is important to me. I use a field camera on a tripod equipped with a head that incorporates spirit levels. It may take five minutes to set the camera up but I believe in doing things properly.
To use photoshop for this is an option I could never ever consider.



Each to their own I suppose.......?
Click to expand...

That is a very purist attitude.
I was brought up on large format from the late forties, and agree that it is one way to go, and the original one. Today I am still photographing buildings, but now digitally.


However since those times... the subject has been effectively covered by photographers with medium format and 35mm cameras.

It is not therefore surprising that some excellent work is done today using Digital cameras, and using software corrections, for both lens aberrations and perspective aberrations.

The writer of the op like me uses a 17-55 f2.8 ... This lens does add some problems when photographing buildings especially as regards Barrel and pincushion lens distortions... these can be corrected automatically using PTLens which has this lens in its data base.

Photoshop quickly corrects for perspective distortion using Edit-Transform-distort. This is better than using the more basic Transform-perspective.

It is important to note that using this transformation using either the top or bottom points will stretch the image, width wise and it needs to be closed up again by pulling in the middle points to the side lines then cropping.

For many subjects this is not actually necessary as the expansion will not be noticeable. Large format work using movements can also stretch the image, but is rarely remarked on, nor is there an easy way to compensate with out the use of software.
 
When MisterE says "properly", I think he means as properly as you can without camera movements.
Such is the way things are, I call any kind of acceptance that buildings are meant to be straight, and that wonky is fun but not ideal....a result.
 
I was in Oxford today too, but photographing the last remains of the long gone Rewley road railway station, the decaying rail swing bridge. Unless you were there early it wasn't a good day, the light was too bright and harsh.

I use mainly digital now, and try to position the camera to make any post processing perspective adjustments easier. I find a tripod helps you compose accurately, and is useful to setup a shot, then wait until the area is people free before operating the remote. Even if you don't photograph anything that inspires you, still take practice shots that you can experiment with.

I use my Toyo 45A 4x5 less and less now, but even its movements and lens coverage often isn't sufficient to correct converging verticals and the scan has to be processing in Photoshop, nothing is perfect and suits all. Good luck with your architectural photography.
 
joxby said:
When MisterE says "properly", I think he means as properly as you can without camera movements.
Such is the way things are, I call any kind of acceptance that buildings are meant to be straight, and that wonky is fun but not ideal....a result.
Click to expand...

Thank you Joxby. I think we can all safely assume that Sara doesn't have a field camera or any tilt/shift capability, nor intends to acquire one in the immediate future.

I've got an all-singing-all-dancing 5x4 camera, yet I don't think twice about using my dslr and Photoshop for perspective correction on my digital photos because it's quick, simple and gives more than satisfactory results for non-professional purposes.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
...The writer of the op like me uses a 17-55 f2.8 ... This lens does add some problems when photographing buildings especially as regards Barrel and pincushion lens distortions... these can be corrected automatically using PTLens which has this lens in its data base...
Click to expand...

There is a higher degree of correction available in Canon's free software, DPP, for all Canon lenses. It does distortion, CA and vignetting. But it currently only works with Raw files.

Have you tried it Terry? How does it compare to PT Lens?
 
Thanks for all this guys - Interesting reading and opinions. I will look into using DPP for correcting the verticals, and thanks for the help with correcting the width - I had often wondered how to get around that - I am sure I will need more help on THAT one!!

Unfortunately there will no no tilt and shift some time soon, so will have to work on what I've got!
 
swag72 said:
Thanks for all this guys - Interesting reading and opinions. I will look into using DPP for correcting the verticals, and thanks for the help with correcting the width - I had often wondered how to get around that - I am sure I will need more help on THAT one!!

Unfortunately there will no no tilt and shift some time soon, so will have to work on what I've got!
Click to expand...

Sara, DPP only corrects distortion, barrel etc (plus CA and vignetting) not converging verticals. But it's very good at it - even complex moustache distortion which is very hard with most any other software. If you're picky that is, but wavy walls are horrible in architecture.

Converging verticals are easy enough to correct manually.
 
I don't think it is always necessary to adjust converging verticals.

No Adjustment

but on occasion I do.

Adjusted in PS.

Put in links so as not to highjack your thread.

I think it just depends on the type of impact and style you want to make with your photo.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top