This content has been marked as final.
Show 70 replies
-
1. Re: Web Gallery
Ramón G Castañeda Feb 16, 2009 11:08 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Thanks for sharing this, Wade. Very nicely done. I've always appreciated and loved your work. -
2. Re: Web Gallery
Ozpeter Feb 16, 2009 11:45 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)No.12 caught my eye in particular.
I guess the problem with architectural photography is that it's not necessarily about the photograph(er) - the reaction is perhaps supposed to be "what a great building", not "what a great photograph". But if it's not a great photo, the building will suffer. Interesting paradox. You have to take great photos, but not so that anyone would notice. -
3. Re: Web Gallery
Ann Shelbourne Feb 16, 2009 11:48 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Outstanding work, covering a very wide range of complex structures and environments many of which would have presented major challenges to the photographer. -
4. Re: Web Gallery
(Silkrooster) Feb 17, 2009 12:01 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Well, to me I thought some of them were good enough to be on a magazine cover. Not all but quite a few.
The one that really caught my eye and was the one picture that I felt was memorable was the picture of the Volkswagen. Its hard to explain, but it had to do with the mix of the old and the new in a single picture.
I haven't figured out why so many architects try to do away with square buildings. I know they may be dull to an artist, but I can't tell if they are trying to create a sculpture or a building. LOL.
Very nice Wade, I enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing. -
5. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 17, 2009 1:28 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)>but not so that anyone would notice.
Are you sure of that? -
6. Re: Web Gallery
Ozpeter Feb 17, 2009 3:40 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)> Are you sure of that?
Well, put another way, the building has to be star, served (very well served ideally) by the photograph. Partly depends on the context of the presentation of the photo - in this thread we're being asked to focus more on the photo than would normally be the case, and that makes me at least realise that there's some fine photos in there as well as fine buildings! And No.12 in particular (of those I've looked at so far) seemed to say something as much as a photographic composition as it said about the building. Maybe in that respect it wouldn't be the first choice of the building architect to represent his building, but it would be my first choice to hang on the wall at home. -
7. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 17, 2009 4:36 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Thank you and the others for your compliments.
One thing trying to judge photography by a standard is in IMO a bad idea.
Getting rid of the standard opens up more possibilities, some of you might agree. -
8. Re: Web Gallery
Allen Wicks Feb 17, 2009 7:55 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Nice, Wade.
FYI on my MBP although the slideshow works, commands for selecting forward/back among individual pix are broken. -
9. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 17, 2009 9:06 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)That might be the case everywhere but you can select the individual images.
It is a slide show created by the Bridge.
I am not worry about they way it works that is not my field of interest. -
10. Re: Web Gallery
Ann Shelbourne Feb 17, 2009 10:32 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Works for me on Mac OSX 10.4.11.
Both the Back and Forward and the Slide Show buttons in the right hand panel work for me and will play the whole show automatically in both the panel and in full screen mode..
I think that the buttons in the left panel are only meant to switch between pages 1 and 2 anyway? -
11. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 17, 2009 5:09 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Oh, that yes Ann is correct.
When I put my website up if I have request to see other or for new stuff I might make another page. -
12. Re: Web Gallery
Ramona Dear Feb 17, 2009 5:44 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)I like it!! You did this with Bridge? -
13. Re: Web Gallery
Ann Shelbourne Feb 17, 2009 6:21 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Bridge CS4!
You just collect aliases to the images that you want to use in a Collection; arrange the thumbnails in the order in which you want them to appear in your Gallery; and use the Output Panel to generate the gallery. Bingo!
:)
I actually edited the code in one of the provided Flash Galleries to make a slightly customised version which i have used in this Gallery:
http://shelbourne-america.net/Seattle_Aquarium/index.html
and in some of the other galleries that you can view by clicking on the links here:
http://shelbourne-america.net/
[Sometime, I eventually do intend to get round to designing a decent-looking Home page but this purely utilitarian one will have to suffice for the moment!] -
14. Re: Web Gallery
<shep> Feb 17, 2009 7:40 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Good job, young man! ;)
Wasn't able to see them all, but viewed some very nice shots. What/where is #40? Interesting juxtaposition of structures. I'm guessing it's some sort of museum complex. -
15. Re: Web Gallery
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 17, 2009 9:21 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Oz,
One of my clients, a former Dean of Architecture, MIT had this to say about architectural photography
"People are coming to see photographs. If they want to see the building, they will go to the building."
Maybe another way of saying the same thing is to paraphrase Magritte:
"This is not a building".
Definitely challenging, Wade. Some made it well. :-)
As to judging:
Judge. "To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration".
-The Free Dictionary.
Leaving out standards is to judge at your peril. OTOH, slavishly following standards invites the same result. One cannot think outside a non-existent box! -
16. Re: Web Gallery
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 17, 2009 9:25 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Oh and the one photo that grabbed my attention is the interior with the piano. I tried to imagine playing that instrument in that setting. Sonically, it appears the architect flew a "cloud" over the piano to direct the sound. I probably would be distracted by the setting, but then, I am not a professional pianist!
Visually, very striking. -
17. Re: Web Gallery
Ozpeter Feb 17, 2009 10:57 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)> "People are coming to see photographs. If they want to see the building, they will go to the building."
Interesting way of looking at it, thanks! -
18. Re: Web Gallery
Ramón G Castañeda Feb 17, 2009 11:26 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)>a former Dean of Architecture, MIT had this to say about architectural photography
>
>"People are coming to see photographs. If they want to see the building, they will go to the building."
That could be said about just any kind of photographic subject.
How that statement acquires relevance escapes me. -
19. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 18, 2009 12:04 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Do you think all people are visual enough to see and appreciate what is in front of them without the inspiration of an artist?
Do you think they are imaginative enough to see the possibilities?
Do you agree with that statement? And most important how would people know that they want to see a building? -
20. Re: Web Gallery
Ramón G Castañeda Feb 18, 2009 12:42 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)>most important how would people know that they want to see a building?
:) -
21. Re: Web Gallery
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 18, 2009 6:51 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Ah, yes. People without imagination wouldn't get it. Good point.
The curator got it. But then, she was curator emeritus of the Art Museum. -
22. Re: Web Gallery
shoot me now-d3u3se Feb 18, 2009 5:54 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)<Ho enters, turns toward the master, takes off his hat and bows deeply... then turns and leaves without saying a word.><br /><br />Must have been awestruck. :) -
23. Re: Web Gallery
Ramón G Castañeda Feb 18, 2009 11:34 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Seems to me that neither Lawrence nor his curator of reference got the point. :D
The photographs will make many people aware of the existence and magnitude of the buildings in the first place.
Not being a clairvoyant myself, I have never in my entire life found myself in the position of wanting to see a specific building the existence of which I had not been aware of. (Dangled preposition and all. ;)) -
24. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 18, 2009 11:59 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)of which I were aware!
Ok ok I will not correct you!
I must admit I am a little disappointed, where are the "nay sayers?"
It would be so much more fun, they are ruining everything! -
25. Re: Web Gallery
shoot me now-d3u3se Feb 19, 2009 1:21 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)NAY NAY NAY NAY!
There. How's that?
:) -
26. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 19, 2009 2:00 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)It's a good start but I need more.
NickPhilwere are youcome out come out -
27. Re: Web Gallery
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 19, 2009 7:39 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Negative! You don't get the point. It is a photograph, not a building. Obviously, not every one will want to or be able to, travel to see the structure. But without realizing what it is you are looking at, fundamentally what you are looking at...what's the expression about a sucker being born.... Advertising uses this mistake every day.
An architectural photograph is exactly that, among other qualities. an ad for the building. Because you have placed a frame around the scene, you have to choose what to leave out.
Apropos my comment about playing in that space, I would hardly make a decision without going there to look and to listen. From the photograph, the space is quite distracting, but maybe not so from the keyboard. IOW, the "ad" for the playing space leaves me uncomfortable. Of course, this is one person's opinion, there are probably many, many performers that would love to play there, and the ad successful.
Even architectural awards committees have gotten caught. When it happened here, they committee generated a special award for the photographer who presented a bad building (in their estimation) who photographed it in such a way that they were quite excited by it. Needless to say, I would not want to get such an award.
These committees are generally loathe to give any recognition to buildings to which they cannot travel.
But then, I guess they are in the same class with the curator, the architectural dean, myself, and those artists that have come to me making similar observations. We don't know of what we speak.
What is missing from those images except for the one with the VW, is context. Where is the building located with respect to it's neighbors? Notice how that photo got the attention of others here.
Have your fun now. :-) -
28. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 19, 2009 11:34 AM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Lawrence you have a very old fashion way at looking at the word we have progressed beyond it. Thinking in terms of advertising, capturing images in ways that have nothing to do with the subject, thinking in terms of the box, setting rules and standards, it is all quite reactionary.
How about this Lawrence just doing a really good job of it without all the crap.
Many people are not visual they rely on the artist to show them what to look at.
I never make something out of the building then what it is and I seldom crop my images even in the camera and I always show the context, I don't know how many ties I have stated this but it is clear that you do not get anything about photography except the fantasy you are trying to live,it was out of date when it was in fashion and it still is.
If you have little confidence that you can take a valuable photograph that properly depicts the subject then that is your problem, I have no problem doing so.
If you feel you have to lie about your subject then I think you fail to understand what you are photographing.
As I always have pointed out Inver make more of the subject then what it is and if you judge other people by your shortcomings you are only compounding the error you make. -
29. Re: Web Gallery
Nick Decker Feb 19, 2009 12:50 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)The magnitude of the crap that you put out never fails to amaze me, Wade. Is that enough nay-saying for you? -
30. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 19, 2009 1:24 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Not enough but a good startbravo!
So how did you like the web gallery what do you think of the photographs? Huh? -
31. Re: Web Gallery
(-macman) Feb 19, 2009 1:44 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Ill readily admit that architecture isnt my cup of tea (Im more into portraiture, primarily and landscapes, etc) so take this appraisal with this in mind:
Out of the 52 pix, I found that only about a dozen or so held my interest for more than a second. I really liked the VW one, already referred to, as possibly my favorite of the lot. A fair number of them, however, leave me puzzled as to the cropping employed... IMO, it distracts from an otherwise pleasing composition.
Additionally, the lightening (or lack thereof) in others is not that terribly flattering to my eye, given the subject matter. Perhaps, thats as intended, but it doesnt especially woe me from this end.
Thanks for a glimpse of your works, Wade. Good Luck at future endeavors. -
32. Re: Web Gallery
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 19, 2009 2:58 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Define a "really good Job" Wade, without any reference to what went before.
Start here: Where does quality reside, in the object or the perception of the observer? -
33. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 19, 2009 3:18 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)You see now here is an honest appraisal from someone who has a different perspective.
Of course portrait photography is as repetitious as it gets but once you are committed you start to see everything from that perspective and I would think it would be hard to relate to anything different.
Which makes his criticism both valuable and somewhat distant at the same time.
But of course trying to judge a photograph of a large structure to that of a subject the size of a human skull suggest that perhaps macman might consider stepping back from his subject he might see more opportunities then he thought were there.
On the other hand it might overwhelm you so maybe you are better off as you are now.
It is a valid expression I think of someone with a very different outlook.
Have a great day and thank you for your opinions. -
34. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 19, 2009 3:23 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)LH
if you need a definition then you are lost.
By they way what do you think of the web gallery I posted? -
35. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 19, 2009 3:26 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)BTW macman I also think you are correct no one will hire me to do a portrait after looking at the gallery. Clearly not representative of a portrait photographer. -
36. Re: Web Gallery
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 19, 2009 4:02 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)I don't need a definition for my use of good job. You used it and i ask you for your definition.
Well, that's so old world.
T.S.
As to the gallery, see my first post. Consider it a new way of responding to such a request.
Maybe you can't see what you think you can see. -
37. Re: Web Gallery
Ann Shelbourne Feb 19, 2009 4:49 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)>Do you think all people are visual enough to see and appreciate what is in front of them without the inspiration of an artist?
Unfortunately, those that are, are rather rare in the general populace.
That also means that the most compelling photograph, or stunning painting or sculpture, will also fall on blind eyes and excite no response in the average passer-by.
Only a very few people have the capacity to appreciate form, color and proportion at all or even notice it.
How else would you account for the multitude of man-made atrocities which surround us? -
38. Re: Web Gallery
LRK 2 Feb 19, 2009 6:04 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Glad to see you posting your gallery Wade. This is a collection to be proud of. -
39. Re: Web Gallery
Wade S Zimmerman Feb 19, 2009 10:32 PM (in response to Wade S Zimmerman)Thank you Linda.
LH
Oh yes I guess I did not quite understand your post with the statement that your teacher made. Which seemed a strange approach.
The space with the piano is really and excellent recital hall, the acoustics are outstanding as is the Main concert space. It is one of the outstanding concert halls in the world, we should have been so lucky here in New York but instead we got Avery Fisher Hall and the renovated Carnegie Hall. Now that Alice Tully Hall has been redone lets hope what is now known as the Starr Theater has been finally fix.



