Critique Welcomed Googie Meets Gehry

[Brian Moore]

I've been working on refreshing my website over the past couple of days and one of my pages is called "Googie Meets Gehry."

It's a series of pictures of the Seattle Space Needle and the Museum of Pop Culture, both of which are prominent structures in Seattle Center.

"Googie" is a type of architecture influenced by the space race and futuristic designs of the 1960s. Gehry is Frank Gehry, the architect who designed the Museum of Pop Culture.

Infrared with Sigma Quattro SD, Sigma 30/1.4 ART and Hoya R72 filter.)

Addendum: Just noticed the big dust spot near the center. I need to fix those pronto.

 

[Ralph Turner]

Two very contrasting architectural styles, indeed, and the reflection of the Needle is like a surreal blend of the two. Some wonderfully striking shapes.

 

[Brian Moore]

Two very contrasting architectural styles, indeed, and the reflection of the Needle is like a surreal blend of the two. Some wonderfully striking shapes.

Thanks Ralph. Much appreciated.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I’ll check out your updated website later today when I have more time, but this image has whet my appetite for more.

 

[Pete Askew]

Ah yes, the parking spot!

I really like the contrast between the tower and its reflection. However, I do find the fact that both the tower and the curve of the building are both to the left and I find that unsettles the composition somewhat and desperately want to rotate it right a bit somehow. My eye is also drawn to the highlight line at the top of the building which, although is partly associated with a lightening of the sky, is I suspect a digital artefact associated with micro-contrast / clarity adjustments. I usually get rid of this with clone-darken along the edge when I find it intrusive. There's bit to the right of the tower too making the darkening more obvious.

It is not just with digital that these margins draw my eye. I can think of several fairly famous B&W prints where they are present and are the result of the printer lightening the subject (dodging) against a darker background rather than using low contrast burning or a better mask.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

By just clicking on your image, Brian, I was transported to your website, and from there found my way to the Googie Meets Gehry page. It's a very good series, with some very cool images. Amazing buildings, really incredible.

 

[Ralph Turner]

Just visited the full series on your site, Brian… superb images. The contrast of form is even more apparent, the flowing, rippling almost sensuous curves of the museum set against the rigid, robotic structure of the tower, it’s like being on an alien world, only the sight of the leaves in one or two shots bringing one back to Earth

 

[Brian Moore]

I’ll check out your updated website later today when I have more time, but this image has whet my appetite for more.

Thanks Rob. (Hope not to disappoint.)

 

[Brian Moore]

Ah yes, the parking spot!

I really like the contrast between the tower and its reflection. However, I do find the fact that both the tower and the curve of the building are both to the left and I find that unsettles the composition somewhat and desperately want to rotate it right a bit somehow. My eye is also drawn to the highlight line at the top of the building which, although is partly associated with a lightening of the sky, is I suspect a digital artefact associated with micro-contrast / clarity adjustments. I usually get rid of this with clone-darken along the edge when I find it intrusive. There's bit to the right of the tower too making the darkening more obvious.

It is not just with digital that these margins draw my eye. I can think of several fairly famous B&W prints where they are present and are the result of the printer lightening the subject (dodging) against a darker background rather than using low contrast burning or a better mask.

Thanks for your critique on this, Pete. I'll play around with it a bit when I go in to repair that spot.

By just clicking on your image, Brian, I was transported to your website, and from there found my way to the Googie Meets Gehry page. It's a very good series, with some very cool images. Amazing buildings, really incredible.

Thanks for having a look at the site, Rob. Thanks for your comments too.

 

[Brian Moore]

Just visited the full series on your site, Brian… superb images. The contrast of form is even more apparent, the flowing, rippling almost sensuous curves of the museum set against the rigid, robotic structure of the tower, it’s like being on an alien world, only the sight of the leaves in one or two shots bringing one back to Earth

Thanks a lot, Ralph. The funny thing is that my first attempts to make pictures of the museum were distinctly unsatisfying. But since I lived just a 10 minute walk from there for a while I made a concerted effort to find ways to shoot it that were less unsatisfying. Over time I created a lot of pictures of MoPop (as the Museum of Pop Culture is often called). And yet, to this day, I do not have a picture of the entire building that satisfies. As I think about it now, though, I don't think it ever occurred to me to try to get a satisfying picture of the whole building. (I'm a two-hour drive away from there now so not so easy to pop over and make a few images, but now I think I must.)

 

[Brian Moore]

Ah yes, the parking spot!

I really like the contrast between the tower and its reflection. However, I do find the fact that both the tower and the curve of the building are both to the left and I find that unsettles the composition somewhat and desperately want to rotate it right a bit somehow. My eye is also drawn to the highlight line at the top of the building which, although is partly associated with a lightening of the sky, is I suspect a digital artefact associated with micro-contrast / clarity adjustments. I usually get rid of this with clone-darken along the edge when I find it intrusive. There's bit to the right of the tower too making the darkening more obvious.

It is not just with digital that these margins draw my eye. I can think of several fairly famous B&W prints where they are present and are the result of the printer lightening the subject (dodging) against a darker background rather than using low contrast burning or a better mask.

Pete here is another version of the image. Dust spot removed and a different treatment overall. (Although I did not alter the composition.)

FYI: I went back to the original raw file (called X3F in Sigma parlance) and found that the image was underexposed. I had forgotten that. In my original I had compensated by adjusting brightness, contrast and something called "Fill Light" in Sigma Photo Pro. (SPP is Sigma's proprietary raw processing software that you must use to convert X3F files to TIFF or JPEG.) I had then imported the TIFF into Lr and made further modifications.

This time, for the photo below, I made no adjustments in SPP and simply converted the underexposed X3F file to a TIFF and imported it into Lr. I then adjusted for brightness, contrast and clarity. I'd be grateful for your thoughts on this version. Thank you.

 

[Pete Askew]

It has lost a touch of edge (not necessarily a bad thing), but at least the artefacts have been reduced significantly / removed.

 

[Brian Moore]

It has lost a touch of edge

Thanks Pete. Not sure what you mean, though.

 

[Pete Askew]

There is still a touch of a bright line at the edge of the roof of the museum, but is now missing from the tower. However, the overall contrast seems a little lower and I think the higher contrast went better with the subject / presentation.

 

[Brian Moore]

It has lost a touch of edge (not necessarily a bad thing), but at least the artefacts have been reduced significantly / removed.

Got it. I agree about the higher contrast. Thanks, Pete.

 

[Stevenson Gawen]

I like the first one - don't have an issue with the artefacts. Actually, I think they're hard to spot...
Having said that, it is actually a pet hate of mine when people produce obvious halos, in skies especially it goes with the kind of landscape photography I don't like! But, again, I don't find this example an issue at all. Perhaps because the subject isn't a landscape.

This discussion makes me think of a different forum devoted to open source image related software. They have a category called Play Raw where one can post an image, and also the Raw file. Then everyone else produces their version! Quite interesting sometimes, to see the different outcomes that the photographer may not have thought of at all

 

[Brian Moore]

I like the first one - don't have an issue with the artefacts. Actually, I think they're hard to spot...
Having said that, it is actually a pet hate of mine when people produce obvious halos, in skies especially it goes with the kind of landscape photography I don't like! But, again, I don't find this example an issue at all. Perhaps because the subject isn't a landscape.

This discussion makes me think of a different forum devoted to open source image related software. They have a category called Play Raw where one can post an image, and also the Raw file. Then everyone else produces their version! Quite interesting sometimes, to see the different outcomes that the photographer may not have thought of at all

Thanks Stevenson. I appreciate your input. By the way, do you mind mentioning what that other forum is? I think it would be interesting to see the "Play Raw" examples.

 

[Stevenson Gawen]

do you mind mentioning

Not at all - I wasn't sure about etiquet in regard to cross-linking things...
It's the Pixls site, the forum (which is the main bit) is at www.discuss.pixls.us
The emphasis of the forum is on image processing, and only open source at that, but there's some great photography as well.
I'm keen on darktable which is well supported and is actually why I joined in the first place...

This is a nice example of a Play Raw - https://discuss.pixls.us/t/st-giles-cathedral-stained-glass-tricky-light/36048

P.S. if you see 123sg over there that's me.

 

[Brian Moore]

Not at all - I wasn't sure about etiquet in regard to cross-linking things...
It's the Pixls site, the forum (which is the main bit) is at www.discuss.pixls.us
The emphasis of the forum is on image processing, and only open source at that, but there's some great photography as well.
I'm keen on darktable which is well supported and is actually why I joined in the first place...

This is a nice example of a Play Raw - https://discuss.pixls.us/t/st-giles-cathedral-stained-glass-tricky-light/36048

P.S. if you see 123sg over there that's me.

Thank you, Stevenson,...er,...123sg.