the admiralty building

[mrtoad]

a ablg by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

Also Known As: Old Admiralty House
Also Known As: Old Admirality Building
Designed by: Thomas Ripley
Construction Start: 1723
Construction Completed: 1726
Type: Government Building
Location: 26 Whitehall
Area: Westminster
Post Code: SW1
City: London, England

 

[LongLensPhotography]

1. Verticals!
2. the rod at the top is cut off
3. it could be a little brighter

 

[lindsay]

I didn't realise they still had HF aerials on top of the building. I wonder if they are used for something?
Nostalgia time. I took my "ADP Aptitude Test" there in 1978 - which started a 40+ year career in software development.

Re the photography though, I can't add to the observations above. It's just nice to see it as I don't get to that part of London these days.

 

[mrtoad]

1. Verticals!
2. the rod at the top is cut off
3. it could be a little brighter

a ab Xx by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

its just amateur work on an olympus C765 and a fear of over processing...i did what i could as you can see using lightroom sliders....but i suspect the correct equipment for this is a shift lens
the rod top....should have gone to specsavers..
cheers
geof

 

[LongLensPhotography]

much better now. You don't really need TSE lens if it is a small amount of correction needed. At over 30-40% it starts looking a little weird but I could only guess if that is any different with one of those. The files have so much resolution now that you can afford to lose that 10% to make it look straight.

 

[mrtoad]

much better now. You don't really need TSE lens if it is a small amount of correction needed. At over 30-40% it starts looking a little weird but I could only guess if that is any different with one of those. The files have so much resolution now that you can afford to lose that 10% to make it look straight.

thanks...i do think the camera was tilted up as well...and at 4Mp boy racer sensor....i was afraid to do too much to this...
if you increase the size of these oldies i am now finding after years and losing them you can see loads of lost pixels
appreciate your time though...
going to bristol with my lumix G1 and 14-45 zoom so i hope to do better
ps when you correct verticals....do you set one and then try to correct the other....there seems to be such a gap between the ends of the shot..parallax and all that...i usually use rotate then verticals but usually get my gonads wrong way round
cheers
geof

 

[LongLensPhotography]

ps when you correct verticals....do you set one and then try to correct the other

It's all very simple. Get the horizon 100% level or the middle verticals vertical (Same thing) and then adjust both edges in one go. If its a small amount you are finished at that point. Sometimes you need to change horizontal perspective a little too, but not very often. Extreme changes can have all sorts of negatives and you have to deal with that on an individual basis. They are best avoided where possible hence you always prefer to walk back and zoom in a little if possible and practical.

 

[mrtoad]

It's all very simple. Get the horizon 100% level or the middle verticals vertical (Same thing) and then adjust both edges in one go. If its a small amount you are finished at that point. Sometimes you need to change horizontal perspective a little too, but not very often. Extreme changes can have all sorts of negatives and you have to deal with that on an individual basis. They are best avoided where possible hence you always prefer to walk back and zoom in a little if possible and practical.

thanks ...i will do that admiralty building again just to check i have it right
cheers
geof

 

[ah5168]

If there is room in the foreground, as with the building above you can keep everthing vertical by keeping the camera back vertical and taking the shot. This will give you a lot of foreground in the shot which you can then crop away. This gives you a more natural perspective than getting up close to the building and pointing the camera in the air.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

If there is room in the foreground, as with the building above you can keep everthing vertical by keeping the camera back vertical and taking the shot. This will give you a lot of foreground in the shot which you can then crop away. This gives you a more natural perspective than getting up close to the building and pointing the camera in the air.

That's certainly one good way of doing it and ideally there is also something to fill the foreground with so you don't have to crop [almost] anything out.

 

[ah5168]

That's certainly one good way of doing it and ideally there is also something to fill the foreground with so you don't have to crop [almost] anything out.

The problem with composing this way is that the foreground will make up 50% of the image, if you were to leave it uncroped the emphasis would then be on the foreground rather than the building. This technique is really just to keep the verticals vertical rather than a compositional technique. If you have a look at this example from one of my lectures on architectural photography you can see the uncropped version isn't a great composition.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

The problem with composing this way is that the foreground will make up 50% of the image, if you were to leave it uncroped the emphasis would then be on the foreground rather than the building. This technique is really just to keep the verticals vertical rather than a compositional technique. If you have a look at this example from one of my lectures on architectural photography you can see the uncropped version isn't a great composition.

Yes, in your example cropping is the only way if you choose to shoot perfectly vertical. If you had a nice path or a flower bed or some other feature you may as well wish to leave it in, particularly for fine art shots for print market. Even houses sometimes look good with context, i.e. large paved drive, or elaborate front garden.