Modern Industrial buildings

A few shots of mine from a recent Architectural shoot.

I work at the Architects which designed and built these buildings (that doesn't mean I like the architecture ) but I've paid them a visit regardless

I'd love to hear what you think to them or any means to which they could be improved upon. I'd like to do more of this sort of thing in the future so anything to help would be great

1.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …pgdesignscouk/8​096857785/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …pgdesignscouk/8​096857893/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …pgdesignscouk/8​116108866/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …pgdesignscouk/8​116108980/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …pgdesignscouk/8​097284626/

Don't be shy now

Pictures look fine to me, I really like the last one
Buildings look like they would be very noisy, wood concrete steel & glass is very loud, nothing to absorb the noise.
All that glass and natural light and only two potted plants that may be silk?
I'm glad I don't work there.

They look fine to me, if I were to suggest anything it would be to try out a TS&E lens to keep buildings vertical. They are cost prohibitive for me but if you work in architecture might be worth the investment.

What processing did you use? Lens and camera? How many exposures?

The shots really pop in the bright daylight, I am interested.

Fester wrote in post #15159869
Buildings look like they would be very noisy, wood concrete steel & glass is very loud, nothing to absorb the noise.
All that glass and natural light and only two potted plants that may be silk?
I'm glad I don't work there.

lol - the acoustic treatment is there for that reason. It wasn't noisy in either building at all

Joe Ravenstein wrote in post #15160228
They look fine to me, if I were to suggest anything it would be to try out a TS&E lens to keep buildings vertical. They are cost prohibitive for me but if you work in architecture might be worth the investment.

They are shot with the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L

cccc wrote in post #15163875
What processing did you use? Lens and camera? How many exposures?

The shots really pop in the bright daylight, I am interested.

The internal shots are made up of 3-4 exposures. Here I used the shift function to get all of the space into one shot, looking up a little further for each exposure until I was at maximum reach.. then the exposures were merged like a pano.

Camera 5D MK2

I think they are terrific....well done!

very nice, really like 1-4 best - they should pay you to take photos of their work

"Residual Perspective" : you need to compensate for this and back off the shift, IMHO.....

I've not heard of that term before, what does it mean?

PGD wrote in post #15178093
I've not heard of that term before, what does it mean?

I totally agree with dopaminer's comment, though I had not seen that word used in that context before.

From the first time I used a Linhof 4x5 with it's raising front for photographing buildings it became obvious that the human eye and the camera are not always in agreement with what is "visually correct".

If we create the verticals with absolute perfection our eyes tell us that the building is leaning out at the top. To overcome this we need to "under correct" a little.

The Greek architects in the era that the great temples were being created had to deal with a similar phenomenon. If they created a facade with multiple columns, all vertical and parallel sided, the whole lot looked as if the columns were mis-shapen and the whole lot seemed to be toppling outwards. So they tapered the columns and angled them in a little, which restored the visual balance.

I still like PGD's shots, but a slight alteration would make them even better!


Edit: I should have made the point that these comments only really apply when you are using very wide angle lenses, up close to the buildings. Shots taken from distances where "normal" lenses can be used tend not to be affected, or rather, our eyes make it okay. And of course, telephoto shots of large buildings tend to show the verticals as true verticals anyway.

What Ricardo said !

Here is a link to the Schneider manual on perspective control lenses; the last pages of the pdf talk about the issue:

http://www.schneiderop​tics.com/pdfs/...01-12%20en.PDF

I can summarize "residual perspective" : simply making the verticals parallel is not ideal, as the brain overcompensates for the lack of a natural vanishing point by perceiving the structures as actually growing wider near the top. The manual recommends a range of 70-80% correction, achieved by simply correcting 100% and then using the millimeter markings on the shift control to back off by 20-30%.

Well I've never heard of this in architectural photography before, all I've heard is folk banging on about how they 'Must' be spot on straight!

What are the 'pro's' doing - straight or backed off?

PGD wrote in post #15185873
Well I've never heard of this in architectural photography before, all I've heard is folk banging on about how they 'Must' be spot on straight!

What are the 'pro's' doing - straight or backed off?

What the pros are doing is making it "look" correct! And if that requires, under the particular circumstances mentioned above, that the verticals converge "just enough" then that's what most of them will do.

It's a delicate balance and one that it's hard to get pedantic about, but you can safely say that if it looks right, it is and if it don't, then it ain't!.

For me, in your first pic that left wall has that slightly top heavy look about it, although I don't doubt that those verticals are parallel. The amount of correction required would be very small, but the result should be worth it as in every other way I like it a lot.

Very nice photographs!

It's not just photographers who have to make allowances for the human eye, the architects have been at it for years!

Have a read about "Entasis and optical illusions" if your interested.