Attempt at architecture

[another view]

I just got back from Houston, and this was out the window of one of the hotels downtown. I had to shoot it through the window (28th floor, they don't open!) so I put the camera right next to the glass and used an aperture of about f4.5 to help keep the dirt from showing. Since I had a tripod but forgot my hot-shoe bubble level, I had to straighten the perspective out just a little in Photoshop; also because I wasn't exactly in the middle of the shot (would have needed repelling gear for that).

I thought it was interesting because of the symmetry and lack of scale until you think about what you're looking at. Comments appreciated.

[Clifford_Sax]

Either i`m tired or you`ve created a photographic optical illusion. I`m certain those buildings are moving! I love the fact that this is an abstract and the lack of reference to scale is quite awesome (I hate that word but you Americans use it all the time ;-) The symmetry works well also because there is enough textural variety to keep it from being boring.

Very nice job!

[Clifford_Sax]

I just tried again and it IS an optical illusion! If you stare at the centre of the background buliding then it appears to be moving very slowly to the left. I love it!

[greg hxc]

I catch myself looking for a sercret pattern in the dark windows.

I think I need to stop reading The Da Vinchi Code.

[mtbbrian]

I like this image..
It has a lot of good compositional elements going for it.
Repetition, line, symettry.
Brian

[Wings]

Call this an attempt?

I consider it rather good.
It is a bit too flat though. Check the histogram of the levels tool in PS to see what I mean (whites).

[Ultra Magnus]

I see it too, pretty wild. I think it sort of has some of the effects of these optical illusions...

(you're supposed to look for the black dot in the bottom one)

[another view]

I see it too, pretty wild. I think it sort of has some of the effects of these optical illusions...

(you're supposed to look for the black dot in the bottom one)

Haven't seen the second one, that's great! The lighting was very flat, I had to shoot it between thunderstorms. I did boost the contrast up but might need to go a little farther. Thanks for the comments everyone.

[SmartWombat]

Hmm, it's a city, and they are grey and flat looking without sunlight.
Flat, sure. But given it was shot between storms and looks like it, I like the way it is.
I know you can over-tweak images in PS (I've seen it done recently) and this is right, to me.
I suppose I'm a realist

[Wings]

SmartWombat, the fact is that the only elements in the photograph are buildings. There is nothing in the image that indicates that it was a shot between storms, in that case a slight correction is absolutely allowed and I agree, with the right tool in the right hands of course. A correction like that doesn't change the realism, only for the photographer, who knew under what kind of conditions this photograph was taken.

It's purely the image that counts, not some background information, at least that's my opinion.
A viewer shouldn't need the whole story behind a picture to make up his/her mind whether an image is good or bad or if it needs some kind of corrections. That's is totally wrong in my opinion. One example; every bride under a blue sky will have a blue cast on her white dress. Does that mean that not even the slightest correction is allowed, because it would remove some of the realism?

I suggest you look at this thread;
Which one's better?

I made a suggestion in that thread for a correction purely based on the information available in the image, because that's the only thing the viewer will ever see. In this case the image begs for this correction, because it wouldn't look realistic without one.

You make it sound as if digital imaging is a bad thing. Just because some people have gone too far in some images and have indeed make them less realistic, doesn't mean we should get rid of everything that helps us to make better looking photographs, whether it be certain lenses, studios, filters, film, darkrooms, digital imaging software, etc.

I suppose you can call me a realist too ;)

[stew]

I just got back from Houston, and this was out the window of one of the hotels downtown. I had to shoot it through the window (28th floor, they don't open!) so I put the camera right next to the glass and used an aperture of about f4.5 to help keep the dirt from showing. Since I had a tripod but forgot my hot-shoe bubble level, I had to straighten the perspective out just a little in Photoshop; also because I wasn't exactly in the middle of the shot (would have needed repelling gear for that).

I thought it was interesting because of the symmetry and lack of scale until you think about what you're looking at. Comments appreciated.

I enjoy the composition a lot, and I am also a fan of archiecture / city scapes. But my issue with this picture is that the lighting is too flat, IMHO. A different time of day probably would have illuminated the subject in a more interesting fashion. Also, I wonder what B&W would look like?

-Stew