Wow! I'm not an architecture photography fan, but that is cool Donald! The little sunburst is exquisite - not in your face, just a nice little touch. Geometry, clouds - I like it all.
Wow! I'm not an architecture photography fan, but that is cool Donald! The little sunburst is exquisite - not in your face, just a nice little touch. Geometry, clouds - I like it all.
Thanks H2oman
Shots from Fort Ord (being demolished)
4x5 Ebony, Betterlight, 6"HBH (still trying to figure the lens out)
Thanks Jim
Donald, beautiful shot, love that "suntouch" - very discrete, yet you cannot miss it. But that shot also makes me think: this seems to be one of the cases where perfect perspective compensation is a bit "too much". It conveys the impression that those skyscrapers get wider at the top. Would it have looked better if you did not completely compensate? (this is a genuine question, I don't have experience with architectural photography)
Jim, lovely shots - I prefer the monochrome ones. Love your style.
The Hotel View from the ghost town of Ashcroft near Aspen, CO. Taken last fall.
Wehman 8x10, Nikkor 150mm SW f/8, Fuji Acros Neopan 100.
Jeff Deaton
Turku Castle, Pro 160S, 4x5
Jukka Vuokko
Flickr
I spent quite a bit of time (in complete admiration) looking at the image, and didn't get the sense that the vertical perspective seemed overbearing. As a former architecture student, though, the precision of a well-corrected image has always resonated with me. In this case, the vertical lines on the building to the right will create a jarring acute angle if one is allowed to cross the image border. Looking at those lines, I can see that the image is, in fact, not absolutely fully corrected. There is still a tiny bit of convergence. But those lines don't cross the image border.
And it shows that even static subjects have a decisive moment.
Rick "who loves the formality of that image" Denney
Shot a couple of weeks ago in Toronto. f22@1/60 hp5.
Bookmarks