London Cityscapes

B

benc98

Messages
937
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Good shots.... with some things it's a job to fail! That's not to detract from what you've done... you still need a good eye and these please me.

Ahh ... forgot to say what you could do next time!... Not much - maybe a little less of a tight crop?
 
Last edited:
2, 3, 4 & 5 are my favs. Number 2 especially love the composition.
 
Really nice shots Ben.

If you're going back to do more, try and get something a bit more off the beaten track ? :)
 
JohnnyJ said:
Really nice shots Ben.

If you're going back to do more, try and get something a bit more off the beaten track ? :)
Click to expand...

Thank you! My point exactly. If I see another shot of saint paul's cathedral and the millenium bridge from the same angle I may have a seizure.

Not to detract from your images - they are nicely done - it's just they bring nothing new to the table. There are loads of photogenic locations - many of which are relatively underused compared to big ben, st pauls etc. - around London. I always find it funny how all photographers face in the direction of St. Pauls cathedral when the Tate Modern's right behind them, which is a magnificent piece of architecture.
 
Great shots - I'm off to London for some shooting next weekend myself.;)
 
These are all views that have been shot to death but I really don't care, I never tire of seeing them and you've shot them well!

I miss London, I'm so overdue a camera trip down there!
 
Last edited:
Very nice set there, well done (n)
 
thestranger said:
I always find it funny how all photographers face in the direction of St. Pauls cathedral when the Tate Modern's right behind them, which is a magnificent piece of architecture.
Click to expand...

Probably because if you're on the Wobbly Bridge and there's the slightest hint of sun, you'll be shooting straight into the light at most times of day, throwing it into silhouette.

The Tate is also a very large building to photograph from so close-to; the better angles are on the other side of the river, quite some distance from the bridge.

Besides, the Millennium Bridge was put where it is precisely because it creates a view of St Paul's. That was a deliberate intention of the designers, Norman Foster and Anthony Caro. Norman Foster knows what he's doing most of the time, and it works. The number of photographs taking advantage of it is evidence of that.
 
Last edited:
Foster + Partners also created a framed view of Tower Bridge from Tooley Street at More London - the end of the 'Rille' water channel that runs along its length is visible pointing at the southern tower of the bridge in Ben's pic #4.
 
1 and 2 for me - I really don't get this 'been shot to death' comments - what does it matter, it's a personal experience for the individual photographer and just because many others have done it doesn't mean you shouldn't :snaphappy:
 
Last edited:
thestranger said:
Thank you! My point exactly. If I see another shot of saint paul's cathedral and the millenium bridge from the same angle I may have a seizure.

Not to detract from your images - they are nicely done - it's just they bring nothing new to the table. There are loads of photogenic locations - many of which are relatively underused compared to big ben, st pauls etc. - around London. I always find it funny how all photographers face in the direction of St. Pauls cathedral when the Tate Modern's right behind them, which is a magnificent piece of architecture.
Click to expand...
I have to agree completely, yes I have been guilty of this myself before but always felt bad after. It's the paint by numbers of photography, whether it's Ashness Jetty or Big Ben. Ask yourself if you showed your mother in law one of the many over photographed scenes, popped your camera on auto and gave it to her could she recreate it!
 
Brazo said:
Ask yourself if you showed your mother in law one of the many over photographed scenes, popped your camera on auto and gave it to her could she recreate it!
Click to expand...

No she couldn't :D

I have no issue with the same scenes photographed by someone for their first time, or even 10th time, there is always something different about it from the obvious light, clouds, time of year, differences in composition and processing. I'm going to London to shoot things I've already shot that have been shot zillions of times before, and I'll still love it if I get a nice one

If you are new to photography then recreating - copying if you like - is a great way to learn, and if you can find a new twist on a well shot subject all the better - IF it is actually better :)

Dave
 
There is a part of me which says "Why make it different?" It is what it is and maybe it shouldn't be too obscure or different. That's the traditionalist in me!

Having said that there could be big money in it for taking something iconic and making into a something sublimely different. Ho Hum!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top