Weekly Competition No 26: Buildings


hefty1

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 00:06
Mannesty wrote:
I agree, this is a .co.uk website and should be based on UK time . . . even if it is wrong (when compared to the rest of Europe).

Yeah, but who has the standard that the rest of the World sets its watch by?

Yay! For GMT
Joining the Q

Malo1961

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 05:20
Good morning everyone. The final phase has started now.
Before i proceed with judging i would like to apologize for any mistakes in proper use of the English language and spelling. Please bear in mind that English is NOT my native language.
To judge this competition i had to set some guiding lines for myself which are:A: basic photographic skills i.e sharpness etc.....B: Originallity and creativity in relation to the theme. C: The overall impact of the picture(very personal,i know...)and D: Does the entry fit the mark buildings as intended by the topic starter(i.e me )
I tried to be gentle on everyone and leave some remarks about possible improvement of the picture. So i hope i don't hurt anybody's feelings. It's just one man's opinion of course. OK...here it comes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xbow:
As you mentioned it yourself. Just a grab shot. It does not work for me.Sorry. The building has a lot of potential, photographical speaking. You should have come back to catch something like a nice reflection in the glass panels, showing more of the place and it's suroundings. This building deserved more as it got from you.

Joshua Hakin:
I like the idea you had, of showing something of, what seems a very interesting place. I like the muted pastel colors in it. The only thing is: The triptech as one entry, shows 3 pictures of different parts of various buildings in the complex. They obviously show the same style (as part of the whole complex).But they are seen by me as 3 seperate buildings. To fit the bill for this round it would have been better to make a clearly visible panorama of one building, and then present it as a triptech.

MX veteran:
Must have been tricky to capture this metal under these harsh contrasty conditions. You managed to give the building a ,,cold steel'' kind of look, something that reflects in the name of the museum.But....,the picture looks a bit soft and the building should be complete in focus. An other viewpointmore to the left would have been better, i think.

Clarky:
Naturally Sydney Opera house is showing up in this round. What i like about your entry is the fact that you tried to avoid the typical cliche kind of wide angle approach. Very often combined with a view of the harbour and bridge. In your case you went in a lot closer to show the immens proportions of the roof. Including the people gives an extra sense of scale. You also managed to keep detail in the very bright rooftops. Well done ! One small point,.....,it would not upset me if you had cloned out that distracting thing (electricity post??) in the lower left corner. But that's nitpicking.... (Commended)

Ikillrocknroll:
Aaahh.......,dereliction and decay. I love these subjects. Specially in black and white. But why did you crop this one to a square picture ? The upper part of the picture isn't strong enough to justify this crop. Better to go for the landscape approach. The picture is also leaning a bit to the right and the large amount of noise( or deliberate added grain) is making the picture to soft. Sorry.

Browngo 1:
Looking at this picture i can understand you wanted the whole of this very large pagode in one frame.In that you succeeded. I am not assuming you can go back there on a regular basis. But to me it's no more than a registration of a beautyful Japanese temple. If you went in a lot closer to capture the curved lines of the rooftops and the woodwork who show the Japanese craftsmanship, that would make the picture a lot stronger.

Niblue:
I have seen this one earlyer here on the forum ,right? Although i like the use of the small DOF andand the toning of the picure, it's a shame that the complete upper right corner is blown out. Otherwise it would have been a very strong entry showing us a very recognizable landmark using a very strong and different viewpoint. To bad about the blown out highlights.

Nimitz:
I guess you had to work very hard to get the whole of the building in frame, knowing on forhand that postprocessing and perspective control would be needed. There is a lot of symmetry in this picture. If i look at the 2 lamps(left and right from the door) they prove you were dead centre taking this picture.I admire this kind of dedication. I love the sky (but not on my own wedding party)But it lacks the overall impact to end in the top 6.

Mikew:
This one makes me happy. Less is better!As the saying goes. Symmetry, nice pastel tint, strong use of shadows. And the hole above the right drain-pipe makes me wonder, what is behind that wall? My eyes keep comming back to that point, trying to figure that out. (Third place)

Promhandicam:
Having read your other post citing to your work in Africa and therefore entering this ''Building” competition i must say your entry indeed shows us the terrible results of the flooded area you visited. But purely judging this picture on its visual impact it's completly distroyed by the blown out sky. If you had positioned yourself a bit closer, between the wooden log and the traditional hut, and focused on the black goat,you would have lost the blown out sky and with a lower viewpoint got a much stronger picture telling the same story with much more power.

Johnriley:
A picture with a big Wow factor. Taking into acount that this one obviously has been shot in another era, were people only could dream about the possibilitys the digital era would bring us in the years to come. The overall picture, showing the interieur of a famous Library( i presume), has a almost holy and divine feel over it. The four rays of lights seem to come from the central window and put there by a Higher Power. To capture this feeling with a manual filmcamera, using black & white film, and obviously great skills in development and printing leaves a clear message: New and modern isn't always better. Seeiing the picture and working the subject is far more important.If this shot would have been taken with a high res Dslr, i would nitpick over the walls falling to the left and right. Now ,i am glad you didn't fiddle in PS to set that straight, and in that way kept the integrity of this classic picture. (Second place)

GaryMoffat:
Another famous landmark well captured. I like the way the used aperture created the nice starlights in the streetlanterns. There is some digital noise showing in the sky, but it doesn't break down the image. The overall picture shows enough contrast. But personally i would have liked more detail and color in the sky. 30 to 45 minutes earlier would have made the picture a bit stronger. (Commended)

Prieni:
Again a very nice nightshot, showing the skyline of a big city.(far east??) I think you got the best sharpness possible, but the factor air/light pollution is winning the game here, hence...... softening the overall picture and therefore losing contrast. It's almost like looking outside thru a dirty window.The brownish sky isn't helping here either, i think.

ChrisE:
When i first saw this picture, i asked myself if the leaning to the right was on purpose. And if so, what were you trying to say. I love the muted pastel colors, and the painterly feel it has over it. Very pleasing to the eye. But could it be (and please tell me otherwise, if you like) that you used the wrong reference point to straighten out the leaning? The line of bricks deviding footpath and road? And the ugly shadow on the left is a bit distracting, i think.

Daniel Bridge:
By deliberately flipping this picture 180 degrees you managed to give your entry an original twist.I presume you want the viewers to look again,with this approach. Seen in this context i think it would make a stronger picture if you left out a lot of the waterlilly leaves as a clou to the optical illusion. It would make the reflection less obvious. And thus......the effect stronger. But......a creative and original entry on the theme Building! (Commended)

Amilner:
These Cathedrals cry out:'' extreme wide angle'' ,don't they? I like the tonal range in this one. You obviously have good scanning skills also. But.....The 2 first pillars are to dominant for my liking. They take away the attention from an otherwise beautyful place. If you had stepped a few feet foreward, you would have had more space and room to emphasize the height and the ceiling. Another bonus would be losing that stack of chairs in the lower right corner.

HowardJ:
The problem with these famous landmarks are always the same. Although an often heard comment is: Why photograph something like Pisa's Tower, The Eiffel Tower, The Golden Gate etc.etc.....It has been done so many times........The answer should be: Yes , you are right. But not by me! But be sure to find a different approach, an original angle to come up with a good picture. This one regrettable to say, has been shot many, many times before you, and after you , i am affraid. But then........You already passed judgement yourself, didn't you ?

Teejay:
This one has the same handicap in it, as the previous one. It's a bit to small to judge, but i think sharpness is ok. The place has a lot of potential in it, if you are prepared to work it. Think outside the usual frame. Often this means, come back later with other light, less bloody tourist who are spoiling your view, find new standpoints and experiment. Don't let my opnion on your picture scare you away though......! I see it's your first post, and it takes guts to jump in, like this. Keep on posting pictures in the future.

Pnjmcc:
Yeah.... those ugly green bins.There should be a law against them. It looks a relative easy job in PS to get rid of it, along with the streetsign. Otherwise you could have stepped a bit to the left ?But then....maybe it was not possible at all, because other ugly things would show up. The use of color negative film saved the day here. You kept the sky under control. But the overal picture lacks contrast. PS is showing some clipping in the highlights, and a slight tweak of the midtone slider in levels(0.85) improves the picture a lot. Under these conditions i would have opted for more detailed shots of this beautyful church.

Freetobe:
This picture has a lot of potential in it, but the first thing i notice is the lack of sharpness. Nice colors of an impressive building with a lot of history to tell. Nice straight verticals (almost scary).
The ''no walking on the gras'' signs on the lawn should have been cloned or cropped out. While you were editing this picture. And i would have tried an other approach to show the personality of the building. The green cross taking over the building offers a lot of photographic oppertunities.

Galoot:
Oh dear...... why do a lot of you have to make my life so hard! Do you have any idea what this task is doiing to my allready grey hair? Living in Scotland, with more subjects to choose from, than you could possibly photograph in a life time.It should be forbidden !Looking at this entry i really would like this picture to hang on a wall of my own. Everything looks right. The light, beautyful clouds ( who promise rain again), castle, bridge and mountains in the backround. All of this situated in a typical Scottish Loch. But........,(and i hate myself for saying this) Although i love this picture for all the reasons mentioned, i keep seeing this picture as a scenic or landscape. And therefore not as a buiding per se.To fit the mark Buildings it should be more dominant in the frame. Telling another story as this magnificent landscape does.

Lilly:
The request was: Give us your vision on buildings. Well.........this one fitts the bill, i think.Obviously shot with your newest lens, in your kit. It gives us a fish-eye( birds eye) view(vision) of buildings. Very well executed. The choice for black and white is right. To much color would be distracting. The beautyful mountains as a backdrop. And the distortion of the extreme wide angle gives me the feeling of: i want to be there! And because of this very original and elevated vision on the theme i pronounce you: (Winner) Congratulations !!!!

Justgetoutandride:
Although a technical good conversion to mono( i love LR for that) i am not sure what you want me to see. Is it the total building site, or the scaffolding ? There is to much info here and at the same time to less to keep my attention. Sorry.

Gartmore:
To judge this one i could easely copy all what has been said about the entry of Galoot. I should find an other wall to hang this one, also. The castle as a backdrop, the graveyard and the crowes circling above in the sky. Very sinister. But.......for me there should be more building and less surroundings to fit the bill. Sorry

Amoringello:
I can see what you had in mind. A mountain of buildings is something only the Italians can take so literally. Although the sky is very tempting to see this time of year it needs some clouds to keep the picture dynamic. But what's really killing this picture is the chopped off boat and sign. To bad....

Deecy:
Aha....The Louvre. I see a great picture in here. If... you had waited for all the tourist to leave in the foreground, and crop everything directly below the small pyramide. A bit more darkening of the sky and voila! But sometimes we just don't have enough time, or the oppertunity to go back later.

Lenscape:
Obviously there are a lot of castles in the UK. This one has been shot under less then ideal conditions. The light isn't helping here, and i think it really needs some dramatic light to impress.If you are actually standing in front of this one, it must be huge and impressive, but converting that feel to a photograph is always a difficult task. The two chopped off little trees in the forground are not helping out the overall scene either. I think with a little work a monochrome version would be more powerful.

Zach Abubeker:
I can understand you stopped to photograph this scene, when you saw this. The fire escape, the derelict wall, giving a faded message from the past.This needs a gritty black and white approach.To balance out the overall picture the fire escape should be lowered to the pavement. But then.....in a ideal world.......And unfortunately the pavement a bit overexposed.

GlynM:
Dereliction.........An old service station of British Rail? With some pigeons who at least find some use for it. People gave up a long time ago. Converted to monochrome and cloning out those electricity poles would gain a lot of drama in showing a depressing view of another era.

StrawberryBeret:
The Big Ben. Probably the Capital's most famous landmark. Often seen as part of that beautyful complex at Thames River bathing in golden light against the late evening sky. This somewhat agressive crop (in camera?) only tells me howe late it was, when you took the picture. Nothing more......Sorry.

Karma mechanic:
I don't know a lot about IR Photography as i have never tried it myself. I know what it does with greens and blues and i have seen some very good and impressive examples over the years. In this picture i really love the tonallity of the 4 pillars. They look massive and fragile at the same time. The backround and sky are lacking impact to make this a very strong picture. It's like everything but the forground subject has been covered with ashes again. (No pun intended) Maybe that's the effect of the filter, i don't know.

Unlocker:
With this kind of harsh light it must have been difficult to capture the amount of detail in the building. I think it could be a bit sharper, and do with some color correction. (mangenta/cyan color cast over the building)

AdrianP:
A very original and dynamic approach on the topic:” your vision on buildings”. It has got very strong leading lines and shows a good use of the wide-angle lens. But......,it isn't sharp and it has got
some blue-ish colorcast over it. To bad, because otherwise it would have ended high in this competition.

ChrisA:
A very good nightshot were you pushed your equipment to the limits. Coposition wise i think you could crop off the lower half of the river to make it a bit stronger. The major comment i have is about the noiselevels. Obviously it is a high iso shot showing of what modern pentax gear can do.But this kind of noise makes it impossible to end high in any competition, i am afraid.

Sussexsurfer:
That neck must have been hurting, after composing and recomposing this one. I don't know if the used lens was the widest you had, but maybe by stepping a bit to the left, or use a bit more wide angle it was possible to capture the lower window in total. And the overlap from the lamp would be cured at the same time. I love the reflection from the trees in the lamp. And as there is very little color in the picture i think that a more gritty b & w version would benefit the overall image.

Davem:
A beautyful picture of a church interieur. Well exposed with a perfect balance of natural and artificial light. Well done. The eyecatcher is the chandelier in the foreground. What a detail in that piece of art. But the chop off of the foreground ceiling arch and therefore not freehanging chandelier is a bit annoying to me. A couple of feet backwards and slightly to the right would turn this picture perfectly in balance. (Commended)

Utopia Poppy:
A detailed shot of a church window. You managed to keep detail perfectly in the sandstone(is it?) Well done. But somehowe the used angle and crop is to drastic for my taste. More wide angle or a few steps back to catch the whole window would show more of it's grandeur.

Dirk1000:
Well.....,it's definitely build by some creatures, from who we humans could learn a couple of things.The OOF branch in front of this ''room with a view'' and the OOF highlights are somewhat distracting. Nice idea but not exactly fitting the theme of this weeks competition.

McBrian:
Another nightshot. I like the way you managed to find a good balance of different light in this one.Enough color in the sky ( that beautyful twighlight) with the extra bonus of virtually no noise.
Well done! I think you could have straightened out those converging verticals. And the two forground trees could benefit from some creative painting with light? Maybe.....And.......ehhhhh......Didn't you notice that little ugly spot on the right-hand side of the tower clock ?

George Lazarette:
Holliday shot or not. I wish i would be there with this building. You did a great job in capturing the exotic whites of the building. I love the subtle shades of blue in the picture. But although i understand that all these locals are inevitable, for a really great shot they should leave. The only two that should be in the picture are the two on the roof. But then as stated earlyer.......in a ideal world !

Hefty1:
This one looks a kind of soft. The used angle doesn't tell me much about the building. The sky looks promising enough but i think there was a lot more to explore here. Sorry

So, this is it. Congratulations to the winners. You made it really hard on me with this one. Lilly, it's in your hands,......Again!

Martin.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

johnriley

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 08:07
Martin, many thanks for the judging. You have clearly spent a lot of time and careful consideration over a very large entry and have been fair and insightful. Well done.

Lilly, congratulations! Another win and another challenge now for you to set if you would ....

A cracking selection of images, we have some excellent photographers around here!


Best regards, John

Nimitz

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 08:27
johnriley wrote:


A cracking selection of images, we have some excellent photographers around here!


True true....These competitions really shows the talent around here. Extremely good quality.

A very good judging this week. Very well done Martin.

I did spent some time setting the picture. I'm amassed how good the SR worked in this situation. I didn't had my tripod when I did the shot

Ohh....It wasn't shot on my wedding day but a few days before - when we had the last meeting at the place

The wedding day was a sunny, but windy day....(very windy)
www.mieritz.net

Clarky

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 08:51
Congrats Lilly another win and well deservered , you are making a habit of this.
Very well judged Martin you sure had your work cut out for you on this one well done
Camera:|K-7|
Pentax Lenses:|DA12-24/f4 ED AL|DA35Ltd Macro|FA31Ltd|FA77Ltd|FA50/1.4|F70-210|FA20-35 f4/AL|A*200/f4 Macro ED|A50/1.7|A50 Macro f2.8|1.7xAF adapter|
Voigtlander|125/f2.5SL Macro APO Lanthar|
Sigma Lenses:|EX DG 100-300 f4|2X & 1.4X TC|
Flashes:|AF540FGZx2|RingFlash AF160FC|

ChrisA

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 09:28
Congratulations for such detailed judging of such a mammoth number of entries!

Malo1961 wrote:
ChrisA:
A very good nightshot were you pushed your equipment to the limits. Coposition wise i think you could crop off the lower half of the river to make it a bit stronger. The major comment i have is about the noiselevels. Obviously it is a high iso shot showing of what modern pentax gear can do.But this kind of noise makes it impossible to end high in any competition, i am afraid.

Thanks for this feedback too - my concern is that I can't see any of the noise you're referring to on my monitor, and if I go back to Photoshop I have to turn the brightness way up to see any as well.

Could I trouble you (or someone else that sees the picture as noisy) elaborate a little on what you're seeing? (Here's a link to it again so that you don't have to trawl back through the entries.)

niblue

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 09:35
ChrisA wrote:
Could I trouble you (or someone else that sees the picture as noisy) elaborate a little on what you're seeing? (Here's a link to it again so that you don't have to trawl back through the entries.)

I can see a fair bit of noise in the sky, especially in the lighter parts just above the buildings and particularily on the left hand side of the frame.

stevejcoe

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 09:50
Quote:

Could I trouble you (or someone else that sees the picture as noisy) elaborate a little on what you're seeing? (Here's a link to it again so that you don't have to trawl back through the entries.)

The picture does look quite noisy on my monitor




On this crop of the sky I can many pixels in various shades of green and brown.

Steve

GaryMoffat

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 09:54
Excellent judging Martin thanks for your comments much appreciated.

As a beginner I feel i am now beginning to capture some nice images.

Well done Lilly.

ChrisA

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 09:59
stevejcoe wrote:
On this crop of the sky I can many pixels in various shades of green and brown.

Thanks for this feedback, guys. Interesting - since it looks completely black on my monitor, even if I switch it to super-bright "movie" mode.

I'm using an old, but still very sharp, colour-calibrated 17 inch CRT monitor (Iiyama Visionmaster pro) set to a resolution of 1280x1024. However, I've long suspected that it's not as bright as some of the newer LCD displays, since when I run one of these calibration programs, the darkest things tend to be invisible.

So I can understand that if I adjust a picture so that it looks right here, then on a much brighter monitor it might look noisy. Also, I often find that people post pictures in which I can't see the shadow detail on my monitor.

It'll become more of an issue for me, as more and more people become used to looking at pictures on bright monitors. I guess I'll have to go with the flow at some point..

EDIT: Just had a PM from someone with a newish LCD monitor who can't see the noise!

Are some brands much brighter than others? Could we have some sort of straw poll of monitor brands/models and whether the noise is visible?

hefty1

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 10:14
ChrisA wrote:
Are some brands much brighter than others? Could we have some sort of straw poll of monitor brands/models and whether the noise is visible?

I can see noise (not a lot and not offensive to my eye, but it's there) and I'm using a year-old Philips 19" LCD monitor (reasonably cheap and cheerful but OK quality).

Well done on the judging Martin and congrats once again to Lilly - you must be running out of topics by now?
Joining the Q

niblue

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 10:16
ChrisA wrote:
Are some brands much brighter than others? Could we have some sort of straw poll of monitor brands/models and whether the noise is visible?

The noise is equally noticeable on both my Toshiba laptop display and the 19" Dell LCD on my office desktop.

stevejcoe

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 10:44
niblue wrote:
ChrisA wrote:
Are some brands much brighter than others? Could we have some sort of straw poll of monitor brands/models and whether the noise is visible?

The noise is equally noticeable on both my Toshiba laptop display and the 19" Dell LCD on my office desktop.

I can see the noise on both my 19" LG Flatron LCD and IBM Thinkpad screens

promhandicam

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 10:51
Well done Lilly and thanks to Martin for your detailed comments - it doesn't look as if you got much sleep last night!

Steve

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 07/01/2008 - 12:08
ChrisA wrote:
Are some brands much brighter than others? Could we have some sort of straw poll of monitor brands/models and whether the noise is visible?

Well my old Samsung 17" CRT shows the noise nicely too.

When you calibrate, do you not have an option to set the brightness? With the Spyder, you have to make sure you can see a difference between the 4 darkest shades.

Checking with the colour picker in photoshop shows that the sky is definitely not black.




Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.