Building exterior

fingerz

fingerz

Messages
1,100
Edit My Images
No
Hello everyone. Steve said I should post something so I decided to pick the photo that I'm most fond of so far (I got my first SLR a few months ago). Bear in mind that this represents the best I've managed to date. Everything else is worse.

It's the outside of the new(ish) BBC Broadcast centre in White City, London at Sundown. Taken a few days ago. It was a hand-held shot. I can dig out the exif info if you want it.

CRW_6030_700px.jpg
 
Well there is not much wrong with that. :thumb:

You have used the softer light at sundown to give the whole picture warmer tones and reduce the harshness and strong shadows that would have been much more apparent during the day time. The edges of the building (the roof line and the right hand wall as we look at it) lead the eyes into the frame perfectly from each corner allowing us to follow all the lines as we go and the cross sections add the detail and interest. I am glad that you have chosen to keep the whole building in focus and used a suitable F stop.

My one small criticism of this is that I would remove the tiny bit of the last vertical structure from the roof line that’s just visible in the lower left of the frame as it breaks the otherwise clean line. This should be quite easy to do as the sky is uniform and clear.

Overall an excellent shot and not a bad one to kick of as a first photo post here. :)

My next question about this building is did you take any more pictures as it looks like there is a thousand and one different photo opportunities here including a chance for some very good abstracts?

I am not too bothered about the exif for this shot but I am curious as to which lens you used?
 
Thanks Steve. I used the 18-55 kit lens that came with my 300D. I see what you mean about the last vertical bit on the roof. Should be easy to remove as you say.

I did take other pics but they were nowhere near as good. I had a go at catching the BBC White City building reflected in the glass of the building in the photo above. It came out ok but wasn't very striking.

Also, below the area of building you see above there is a pathway. I tried to get some shots of people walking past, with the lines of the building trailing away but because the path was completely in shadow it didn't work too well. The building was fine but the path/people were too underexposed.
 
Aye - top shot (sorry, must have missed that in the trickery forum) as it's caught the softer evening light esp. the fade from right to left. As Steve says looks like good place for other opportunities.
 
Well it's right next to where I work so I'll have a few more goes. Although I'll be on early shifts for the next four days so I won't be able to catch the evening light. It'll be late afternoon.
 
fingerz said:
Thanks Steve. I used the 18-55 kit lens that came with my 300D. I see what you mean about the last vertical bit on the roof. Should be easy to remove as you say.
Click to expand...

Looking at the results above I would say that you have got a very good example of the 18-55mm lens and would work with that instead of spending another £500 on the 17-40L. I doubt that you would see much difference in quality on day to day shots unless you are having them printed at very large sizes.

fingerz said:
I did take other pics but they were nowhere near as good. I had a go at catching the BBC White City building reflected in the glass of the building in the photo above. It came out ok but wasn't very striking.
Click to expand...

That’s the beauty of shooting digital, you can attempt stuff that may not always come out as you may hope but it costs nothing and you can learn as much from your mistakes as you can your best results.

fingerz said:
Also, below the area of building you see above there is a pathway. I tried to get some shots of people walking past, with the lines of the building trailing away but because the path was completely in shadow it didn't work too well. The building was fine but the path/people were too underexposed.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if you are shooting in Raw or not, but if you are there is a very easy way to blend two images together to get a nice balance. What you basically do is process one image for the highlights and bright sections and another so that the shadows and the darker sections are not underexposed, then in either Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro join them together.

Matt has written a very good tutorial on this for Photoshop and Silkstone has also written one for the same process but using PSP. Both can be found in our tutorials section of the main site or in the tutorial section of the forums.

There is also another more “dirty way” to compensate for underexposed shadows if you are using Photoshop CS as it comes with a shadow control section.

Another tip may be to set your contrast on the camera to a lower setting, this will capture more detail and if you find later that you need more stark differences, altering the contrast to be harsher during processing is easier than attempting to recover lost detail.
 
Cheers for that. I'm reasonably handy with Photoshop although I learnt it the wrong way round (I began 'photoshopping' comedy images and only learnt the proper photographic stuff later) but I figured that to stitch two pics together would need tripod shots as you'd need two pics that were taken from the exact same spot, wouldn't you?

I have all my settings (contrast, sharpness etc) set to zero in the camera itself as I figure that Photoshop can do a better job of that stuff, PCs having faster processors an' all. I try to have the image the camera captures as 'vanilla' as possible and then tweak it later. Is that advisable? It's just what I assumed would be the right thing to do.
 
Yes and no, the 300D default settings are not neutral, they have been set to have more saturation, contrast and sharpness out of the box to suit the beginner. Thats why I suggested altering the contrast in camera. You are right though in assuming that the pc will give you more control but only if the information is there to start with ;)

If you do decide to give shooting in RAW a go, download Rawshooter Essentials and give that a go as well, it’s a free download after registration. RSE also comes with a shadow/highlight adjustment but at the raw level so its much more effective. It’s much easier than the combining of two images as it is just a slider to move and you can see the results in real time.
 
I started doing stuff in RAW a couple of weeks ago and I've been playing with it. Tried RawShooter today on milou's recommendation. I liked the fill light stuff and the shadow/highlight control but all the other stuff I preferred the way Photoshop CS controlled it.

I changed the 'Parameters' in my camera and stuck all four settings on zero.
 
Ok I've had a better play with RawShooter and quite like it. But I can't find details of the free trial anywhere. How long does it last? Or is it limited in features? And how much is it to buy it?
 
fingerz said:
Ok I've had a better play with RawShooter and quite like it. But I can't find details of the free trial anywhere. How long does it last? Or is it limited in features? And how much is it to buy it?
Click to expand...

Nope its totally free and never expires. I presume you registered to download and then allowed it to activate via the web on the first use, if so you are sorted?
 
You can get the free RSE download here


BTW, the Professional paid version is imminent and should have some extra useful tools, including cropping.
 
Not got the time to read through the thread but having seen the "I'm only a poor newbie" post and then this image I sense a hustler in our midst. ;)

Very nice shot, lots of feel and I like it a lot.
 
Well that's very kind of you to say but as I said, that's the photo that's come out best so far. All my other stuff is worse and that one was more of a snap than anything else. I had no idea it would come out so much better than the others I took so I really need to get my photographic 'spider sense' up to par I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top