Hey, I entered a competition on another site a while back and never really expected anything from it, apparently ive done a lot better than I first thought and am through to the next round (in the top 100 from around 2000 odd :D ), however the theme for this round is Architecture and I suck at taking architecture photos so ive got three that I like and was hoping for some help and critique to hopefully give me a good chance in the next round!
So here are the photos, all were taken in Hull, East Yorkshire, UK, and edited in Camera RAW, with a lil bit of masking and adjustment layers, I hope you like!
I like all three shots, and they all say 'Architecture' to some extent. However, i think the last one, The Deep, is stunning and my favourite by far. It says so much about architecture and its place in a changing society. I also really like the more subtle processing on it.
cheers for your views, much appreciated, is there anything you could recommend altering with the last photo, ive been lookign at it for hours and think it needs something changing in some way, to give it more of a 'pop' and stands out more, after looking on architecture photos on this site I thought that for the first photo having a decent contrast between the bricks and mortar helps the image stand out well, but I can find what I should change on the last one :S
Maybe it's just me, but I think the last photo would have been much better if you had focused on the third pillar from the left. Too much of the foreground is out of focus.
I like the color closeup of "The Deep" for visual impact. The last one shows a great contrast of styles, however. Watch your JPEG compression if the other site allows for a larger file size than what you have. I see clearly visible compression artifacts in the color shot, and you have a small file size of only 93k. Compression kills detail.
ditto for #2. I'm sorry, but even though I understand what you were going for with #3, the oof foreground doesn't work for me. Also, even though it's a contrast of architecture types, the architecture in the foreground really isn't very interesting.
ditto for #2. I'm sorry, but even though I understand what you were going for with #3, the oof foreground doesn't work for me. Also, even though it's a contrast of architecture types, the architecture in the foreground really isn't very interesting.
I think the photog was not trying to capture your interest with the foreground, rather he was trying to use it to bring your eyes to lead into the background focused buildings.
ditto for #2. I'm sorry, but even though I understand what you were going for with #3, the oof foreground doesn't work for me. Also, even though it's a contrast of architecture types, the architecture in the foreground really isn't very interesting.
I think the photog was not trying to capture your interest with the foreground, rather he was trying to use it to bring your eyes to lead into the background focused buildings.
Yup. Just saying that it didn't really work for me, the foreground was too large of an element, so it drew ones eye away from the more focused, more interesting background and left one with a dissatisfied feeling.
ditto for #2. I'm sorry, but even though I understand what you were going for with #3, the oof foreground doesn't work for me. Also, even though it's a contrast of architecture types, the architecture in the foreground really isn't very interesting.
I think the photog was not trying to capture your interest with the foreground, rather he was trying to use it to bring your eyes to lead into the background focused buildings.
Yup. Just saying that it didn't really work for me, the foreground was too large of an element, so it drew ones eye away from the more focused, more interesting background and left one with a dissatisfied feeling.
I totally agree, it doesn't do it for me either, even if I try.
ditto for #2. I'm sorry, but even though I understand what you were going for with #3, the oof foreground doesn't work for me. Also, even though it's a contrast of architecture types, the architecture in the foreground really isn't very interesting.
I think the photog was not trying to capture your interest with the foreground, rather he was trying to use it to bring your eyes to lead into the background focused buildings.
Yup. Just saying that it didn't really work for me, the foreground was too large of an element, so it drew ones eye away from the more focused, more interesting background and left one with a dissatisfied feeling.
I totally agree, it doesn't do it for me either, even if I try.
yeah, the front wasnt supposed to be oof, I have several shots similar to this, just from different angles and I had set the lens so that all should be in focus from 2m to infinity, for this shot tho I must have accidently set it to infinity, shame, the other shots that are sharp throughout arent as good compositions as this one, Im supirsed that the resounding view is the second shot, I guess it does have the biggest immediate visual impact so that could play out well with regards to people voting.
With regards to the compression artifacts, its just because I wanted to quickly upload a small version to post on here, with the final version I submit Ill properly resize it and prepare it. Thanks again people!
