Large Format Magazine Shoot - Critique?

[spkennedy3000]

Some shots from an editorial shoot, featuring designers James Plumb.
I thought I would put these together rather than spread them across the relevant threads...
Would love some critique.
All shots with Fuji 160, pushed one stop.

1. At work in the studio, with Zeiss Planar 135mm f3.5:





2. With 72mm Super-Angulon:





3. At home with 72mm Super-Angulon:





4. Again with 72mm Super-Angulon:

[spkennedy3000]

5. Interior, all the rest with 72mm SA.





6.






7.





8.

[Pat Hilander]

I think they turned out great!

[Frank Petronio]

What sort of criticism are you looking for?

They are fine photos and I see you already inserted them into your portfolio, so what are your doubts?

There are only a handful of experienced architectural shooters here, and having looked at your portfolio, you're one of the more proficient ones. So isn't asking for a critique here sort of like a professional athlete asking for help from some school children?

Given the tight quarters, I don't know what else you could have done other than to use the 72mm, albeit with its distortion. You carefully posed the people so they didn't look grotesque... the first shot, in the larger room, done with the 135mm, is most appealing to me. The overall cottage series looks a bit claustrophobic, but my wife would love it and this is why husbands must remain vigilant to holding back the tide of Martha Stewart, Laura Ashley, and Beatrice Potter.

You shot chromes? Why? Seems crazy to me.

Did you do anything like "paint with color only" in Photoshop to even out the color of the walls? I find the areas where the sources mix and transition from green to magenta disturbing... I would paint them over with a neutral warm color, or at least get rid of the green cast and desaturate... you have to leave a little dirtiness in the color or it will look faked.

[spkennedy3000]

Pat, thanks glad you liked them.

What sort of criticism are you looking for?

Actually exactly what you have said is what is the type of thing I was looking for. In fact I have not been going too long, although I am formerly an architect which helps, but thanks anyway.

I put them in the portfolio and some will stay but I change it fairly frequently.

Chromes is slide film I think? These were Fuji Pro 160 NS negative film, yes slide film would have been tough with the contrast I imagine.

Interesting what you say about the colours, I did not do much except curves adjustments. The light and colours were quite unusual. Aside from changing the light bulbs not sure what else could have been done.

Thanks for your comment.

Simon

[Thom Bennett]

Very nice work. Are you exclusively shooting film or mixing it with digital? Just glad to see an architectural shooter still shooting film at all. An architect I know recently showed me a shoot that he had commissioned and was raving about how fast the guy worked; "He was all digital!" He was contrasting that shoot with one that was done a few years ago by someone shooting film; "He was so slow." I asked to see the images from that shoot and we compared them. Night and day! The "slow" guy using film had much nicer, more refined, better composed images and the quality just sang. The architect even admitted it. "But the digital guy was cheaper." Yes, and it showed. Not that I have anything against digital. My point is that it seems view cameras are nicely mated to shooting architecture.

[Ken Lee]

Are you looking for criticism as documentary ? fine art ? architecture ? lighting ? color ? technical ? aesthetic ? commercial ?

[spkennedy3000]

Whatever you like really, or nothing if you prefer.

[rdenney]

...The architect even admitted it. "But the digital guy was cheaper." Yes, and it showed. Not that I have anything against digital. My point is that it seems view cameras are nicely mated to shooting architecture.

It is so tempting when shooting digital to work too fast. I am extremely guilty of it too often. But it is not the digital camera imposing that on us, it is lack of discipline on our part. To take the above images as an example, they could certainly have been done using a Canon 5DII and a 17mm and 24mm tilt/shift lens. At anything reproduced magazine size, the results could have been as excellent as what we see here. If the result from the digital camera looks hurried, it's because the photographer didn't take the time to avoid that mistake. As I said, it's a tempting mistake, but then professionals should have the discipline.

To the OP, I'm not sure you absolutely needed the 72 for every shot you used it for--some show a lot of room when the subject seems to be the people in the room. Maybe one or two could have been done with a 90. You could experiment with cropping to see. I'm a confirmed wide-a-holic, so it's also the direction I usually go. But sometimes I have to reel myself in a bit. On the other hand, in comparing your work overall to mine, I think I'm the schoolkid that Frank refers to.

Rick "not sure whether the subject is the house or the people" Denney

[spkennedy3000]

Thom,

Thanks a lot for your comment. I am using film completely at the moment, as the image quality is so much better. The high contrast scenes are handled better, colours tonality etc...

I actually got my first job from an architect because I was using film, they had a great building and wanted someone to use a format that could do it justice.

Using film gives my stuff a different feel to others and helps it to stand out a bit (I hope!)

Cheers,

Simon