Critique Welcomed The Co-op

[John Holland]

The Co-Operative Building in Manchester. Wandering about Manchester, I came up on this building (the Co-Op) that had a unique architectural style. So I tried a few different angles on it, and since the shy was not going to cooperate (overcast -- until the end of the day), I did some B&W conversions of the images.

Head on from across the street:

A bit closer - along the path to the front of the building (a 4 image composition)

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

I like the third the most albeit all are fine. Colours for me you know.

 

[Pete Askew]

Beautifully clean images, John and, in this instance, I think the featureless sky works well. My favourite is the last both because of the composition and orientation but also because I find my eye drawn to the red in the colour version and find the absence of colours give a more balanced composition.

 

[John Holland]

Thank you Ivar and Pete for your comments/feedback.

 

[Brian Moore]

John it almost looks like two different buildings. And you've captured both of them very well indeed. Since you invite critique I prefer the color ones. Also, I think both images would have benefitted from a tiny bit more foreground and a tiny bit less sky. Nevertheless, two fine images.

 

[John Holland]

Thank you Brian for your comment and feedback. I accept all feedback -- I like to hear/see what others think about the image and what would make it better.

I left a good portion of the sky in the image in hops that I could make use of the image in my stock image portfolio (for any text). The foreground was cropped/cut as I typically try to eliminate distracting elements (including people where possible) from the images. To me the car park in front of the building was a distraction. In the second image, I would have like more foreground, but failed to capture sufficient coverage in the multi-frame image (should have shot two to four more frames of the foreground).

 

[Brian Moore]

The foreground was cropped/cut as I typically try to eliminate distracting elements (including people where possible) from the images.

I understand your dilemma with distracting elements. As to people in architectural photos personally I like to see them because they offer a sense of scale and, in my view at least, add "life" to a picture of a building. I began to appreciate humans in architectural shots by viewing the work of Darren Bradley, a very fine architectural shooter who once frequented RPF. Darren would often set up his shots in such a way as to capture the human element, even going so far as to feature himself as the human when no one else was around. (I'm thinking in particular of a shot he made from the balcony of a tall building in San Diego. The shot featured an anonymous human being gazing at the San Diego skyline from another portion of the balcony. Darren had set up his tripod and timed the photo so that he himself could be the anonymous human. It was a very fine photo.) Here's a link to Darren's website if you're interested in seeing his work. http://www.darrenbradleyphotography.com/

Edit: John I just reviewed Darren's website and its pretty minimalist. I think you'll get a better idea of his work through his blog. http://modernistarchitecture.blogspot.com/

 

[Darren Bradley]

Hi guys,

Brian sent me a note and said my name had come up, so I thought I'd chime in.

First, my portfolio website actually has a lot more photos than most people realize. You have to click on them and then a lot more will scroll. I should fix the format because most people seem to miss that.

As for a critique of John's work, I am happy to provide my two cents but with the caveat that it's just one guy's opinion:

Technical stuff:
Verticals: It does not appear that the camera was completely straight, as I'm seeing evidence of keystoning on the first shot (both color and mono). Take a look at the tower behind your subject building, on the left. See how it's leaning to the left? I'm guessing it's straight in real life. If you are shooting hand-held or otherwise weren't able to keep the camera completely level, I would highly recommend correcting that in post-production. For most photography, nobody cares and it doesn't matter if the camera isn't completely level. But architectural photographers are a picky bunch, and maintaining the structural integrity of the subjects is important to our clients. Also, for the second shot, the horizon looks distorted and heavily slanted to the right. See how the people are leaning heavily to the right? The brick building in the background on the right looks a bit wonky, too. Was that a correction, or lens distortion, or just my tired eye?

Composition: I know it was mentioned about including more ground and less sky. I would second that opinion. There's a nice amount of sky above, and I think that's fine. You could even add more if you wanted, since it's just flat white. However, what you can't add later in post production is the foreground. In both frames (but especially the first one), you really need to have more ground in the shot. Buildings need to be firmly planted on the ground - both as a way to place the viewer and lead the eye to the subject, and to explain the shot. In photo #1/#2, the crop is awkward because it's cutting the lower half of the cars. That's not a spot that you would typically want to crop a vehicle. I know you didn't want to emphasize the cars, but cropping them that way only draws attention to them. Would highly recommend that you include the whole car and a bit of the pavement, as well. To de-emphasize the cars, burn the lower part of the photograph to darken that part of the frame. Put the cars in the shadows. In photo #3/#4, it's awkward to crop the bench and people the way you have. Again, you want to create an image that is restful to the eye, and that allows the viewer to see themselves and walk through the image. So including a bit of foreground is essential, in that case. Basically, you either want to show enough foreground or none at all (as in those detail/looking up shots you see). Showing only a bit doesn't de-emphasize it - it draws attention to an awkward crop. Also, this crop doesn't leave enough room at the base to ground those cylinders on the left.

Composition point 2: As I mentioned above, you really want to create the space to allow the eye to wander around the composition. For photo #3/#4, you have not left enough room on the left. There's not enough sky there. It creates a visually stressful point that pinches the composition. Do you have more room on the original image? If so, would recommend giving yourself more room on that side. It should be either enough room to not appear too narrow, or cut off completely. Similar problem as above - either give plenty of room or none at all. Not in between.

Does any of that make sense? Happy to explain more. Hope my critiques don't come across as too harsh. I'm just trying to provide real-world editorial feedback.

Overall, the subject and the work is not bad. The photos are reminiscent of the work of Bernd and Hilla Becher, who did a lot of architectural photography in a very neutral way, devoid of people, with flat, white skies. You should Google them if you are not familiar.

Hope that helps!

Best,

Darren

 

[Darren Bradley]

oh, one more thing on the subject of people in photos... i think it's partially cultural. europeans as a rule (and this includes you brits, brexit or not!) tend to have a very formal, staid view of architectural photography where they think that buildings should be depicted devoid of "distractions" - including people. i think this goes back to the earliest days of the bauhaus photos, which favored a more abstract view of architecture as an object. americans, on the other hand, have generally eschewed that view in favor of including people and cars and other signs of life. all the great architectural photographers in the us - shulman, stoller, korab - followed this latter model to great success. in europe, you had photographers like gorsky and becher who avoided people. abstract view vs. contextual view. i do both, depending on what i feel is appropriate for the subject. but as a rule, i am firmly in the contextual camp. for me, architecture can only exist with people, and it's so important to include them to show the viewer how the building lives and functions. without people, there's no point to architecture. of course, my editor in london feels very strongly in the other direction, and it leads to some heated discussion at times.

 

[Brian Moore]

I guess I've become Americanized.

 

[Darren Bradley]

It's about time!

 

[John Holland]

Thank you very much Darren for your excellent critique and insight! I do appreciate the time you took to look and provide the feedback. There is some areas i might be able to address with Photoshop processing, but I need to make sure I set up the shot better at the start.

 

[Brian Moore]

It's about time!

Cheeky bugger!

 

[Darren Bradley]

You're quite welcome, John!

 

[Darren Bradley]

Here's an example of a photo of a building I had to photograph at a car dealership. The building was absolutely crowded with cars in front which honestly were a huge distraction. The solution was to include them, but minimize them by burning them and therefore pushing them into the shadows so they were no longer the focal point. But if you look closely, they are still there, and it allows me to maintain enough space in the composition to not pinch the building. Does that make sense?

 

[Paul Lange]

I was half expecting a supermarket. The last one stands out for me. That building makes a statement, I wonder what it is like inside.

 

[Darren Bradley]

I was half expecting a supermarket. The last one stands out for me. That building makes a statement, I wonder what it is like inside.

It's the corporate headquarters for the Co-Op group (which includes the supermarkets). It was built in 2010. 3DReid was the architect.