Skip navigation

Architectural Photography - Camera Suggestion / Lenses

Apr 20, 2008 5:33 PM

  Latest reply: Olympus35, Aug 27, 2010 12:33 AM
Replies 1 2 3 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2008 4:47 PM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)
    maybe E.Adams knew the real story
    (not the one about the children)
    [they should never be the subject of violence, whatever the "story']
    the other one
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2008 5:03 PM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)
    On Nguyen Ngoc Loan and his famous photograph, Adams wrote in Time :

    The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths.

    What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?' [3]

    Adams later apologized in person to General Nguyen and his family for the irreparable damage it did to Loan's honor while he was alive. When Nguyen died, Adams praised him as a "hero" of a "just cause".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Adams_(photographer)

    Also This:

    http://www.life.com/Life/lifebooks/100photos/excerpt.html
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2008 5:18 PM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)
    > Manhattan Beach Wine Auction poster

    Peter,

    If you could start a new thread for your poster, that might be nice.

    Thanks!
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2008 6:38 PM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)
    >Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world.

    No, they are not. If they were, they could kill war. Or the politicians who conjure it up.

    Sorry, that's another subject for another time. But, for anyone interested in the Viet Nam war, I highly recommend "Dispatches", by Michael Herr. I did a tour in Nam, as an air traffic controller, not infantry, but his prose rings true.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2008 7:49 PM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)
    "In a historic shift in 1986, the Communist Party of Vietnam implemented free-market reforms"
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    85. ,
    Apr 26, 2008 9:16 PM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)
    >shep, to me (from a photographic point of view) the pictures you posted are not better than puppy shots.

    >I feel the same way. they were taken under extraordinary circumstances, which certainly makes for some dramatic images, but i would not say its amazing photography.

    I only have a moment for a brief response here right now---perhaps I can expound tomorrow.

    I understand both of your points, LT and Donald. But my (perhaps knee-jerk) response was to Wade's assertion:

    >And then select from their work one photograph that actually is jaw dropping,.

    Those *are* photographs and they made my jaw drop. We can of course get into the minutiae of what actually constitutes the meaning of "jaw-dropping"---different things to different people.

    Many of you have probably seen Lawrence's photo of Mt. St. Helens; I find that quite jaw-dropping, both for the event itself and how well he captured it. I guess I'm more subject or story oriented than I am wowed by technique. More interested in how the camera is used a social documentary tool than one for recording pretty pictures.

    Not that I think there's anything wrong with pretty pictures. I'm not that close-minded; in fact the two can co-exist within the same frame. But I find myself much happier with "The Americans", by Robert Frank in my lap than any of Ansel Adams landscape books. I know I'm in the minority, at least here, but it's not a matter of right and wrong or good and bad thing. Rather what interests an individual.

    Some people like the Beatles, some like Beethoven. I like both.

    Some folks love and find themselves moved by nice pics of flowers and such---again don't get me wrong---I can certainly enjoy them too. On the flip side, while some have said she was exploitive of her subjects, I can see the beauty in and find myself deeply moved by many of the photographs of Diane Arbus. Much of her work was the anti-thesis of "high technique"---being hard-edged, direct flash on camera.

    The same can be said for the (non-fashion) portrait work of Richard Avedon. For the most part, it cannot be considered "flattering, classic" portraiture. In fact some of it is down right disturbing and can be difficult to view but to me, I don't think the power of it can be denied. Although, it is well done technically as well---he was a pro, he knew what he was doing.

    It's all a journey and we all take our own paths in our own way and hopefully learn something along the way.

    So much for my "brief" response. Gotta go. More later, perhaps.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2008 1:32 AM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)
    or less? : )
    (if you do, consider the picture taking vs. making angle)
    [I make pictures, I'm a creator; and while some takers are fun, others are thieves : ]
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2008 6:14 PM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)
    Peter,

    Just so there's no misunderstanding, the reason I mentioned another thread is so that when you post your images, I don't want to see them get lost in this or another thread. With some images, yours in particular, I often like to come back and find them again. Also, I think your images will provide a level of discussion that will deserve it's own thread.

    After I last posted I thought it could be misunderstood, so I debated on whether to post again to explain. Hope this makes sense.

    Linda
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2008 8:25 PM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)
    Don't worry. I was going to make a new thread. I just want to pull the elements together. Hopefully tomorrow.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2010 6:12 PM   in reply to Fred Nirque

    The same can be said for the (non-fashion) portrait work of Richard Avedon. For the most part, it cannot be considered "flattering, classic" portraiture. In fact some of it is down right disturbing and can be difficult to view but to me, I don't think the power of it can be denied. Although, it is well done technically as well---he was a pro, he knew what he was doing. Bucks County Real Estate
    It's all a journey and we all take our own paths in our own way and hopefully learn something along the way.
    So much for my "brief" response. Gotta go. More later, perhaps.

    Thanks,

    Janice

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2010 5:43 AM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)

    here are some Photo related articles. May also help.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 27, 2010 12:33 AM   in reply to (Daniel_W._Patrick)

    I think I have information for you. hope this usefull


    Architectural photography at its best will convey the experience of being in and around a built environment.In general, the older the structure, the more environmental context is required. Using your hands or your mind, crop the preceding images to include just the structures and see if they would still work.  Also, compare them to a few modern buildings where hardly any context is required.If you're not capturing an entire village or farm, it still makes sense to think about the space around your subject.  Even a little bit of context helps anchor the image.  For example, the image at right, from the sunset district of San Francisco, presents a straightforward view of a house.  We could use it as a real estate advertisement.  The fragment of the house to the left, however, isn't wasted space.  It tells us how tightly packed the neighborhood is.

    It is a contrived and hackneyed idea, but it does work to use natural frames.  If you're working without a tripod, you probably won't be able to stop down the aperture enough to get everything into focus.  But it is okay to have a soft frame and a sharp subject.

     

    More Information About Camera Guide Check This here

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)