Newfag here, I really like shooting buildings but don't really know what to do beyond hurr durr point and shoot so any criticism or advice is appreciated.(1/15)
couldn't choose between these two, no idea what to look for but I think I like this one better(3/15)
(4/15)
(5/15)also fuck captchas
also gearino wise I have a used snoy 6300 with the 16-50 kit(6/15)
(7/15)
(8/15)
(9/15)
(11/15)
unfortunately no properly focused shot of this(12/15)
(13/15)
(14/15)
>>4520778Get a tilt shift lens if buildings are your jam. No autofocus but if you take your time you can get some very accurate, or, very unique photos of buildings.
You've got a thing on your lens. Give it a wipe...
(15/15)not a building but I quite like cranes>>4520795thanks anon, I'll look into that but I'll have to budget for a bit before I splurge on a new lens
>>4520796I know :((( I'll pick up one of those duster thingies tomorrow(bonus)
>>4520778>I really like shooting buildingsIs this something genetic in America? Nice to see some variety though, most of the other famous building shooters focus on schools or corporate headquarters.
>>4520800>in Americathat's Berlin lolIn my case I think it's just autism, they are nice and geometric and contrast nice against the sky, also they are incredible achievements of man
phone snapshit since I didn't have my cam on me but alas
Clean your sensor
>>4520778You can get Julius shulman’s “Los Angeles” pretty cheap on Amazon. That will probably help your composition
>>4521642Not OP but any other good architectural reccs for books? I've been doing it a while but would be interested to see more.
first thing to do is to find a building that isn't disgusting soulless modern architecture filthvery difficult to do this in most of the world
Are these photos edited?I'm also quite drawn to buildings when I see them, and I can't really explain why or what it is about them that I want to capture. I'm somewhat new to photography, so take any advice I have well-salted. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that two of the most common, or maybe best forms of building/architecture photography are to capture a more "accurate" and complete image of the building, and then just a little slice of what your eyes would see. And then they can tend to be more isometric or orthographic perspective.>>4520778>>4520784>>4520790These are my favorites, mainly because of the canted composition. I think the Dutch tilt does a huge amount of legwork with architectural photography. I can't exactly explain why, but it brings a sort of dynamism to photos of totally static objects that might otherwise feel like they have nothing going on. Looking at all of the photos you posted, I can definitely see it's true that you aren't really doing anything very stylish or with a lot of deliberation, but to me, these three canted photos actually feel very stylish. If you had posted only these, I would've guessed you kinda knew what you were doing, and not just because they would all three be canted; more because they genuinely feel much higher-quality than the rest of the pack. Hell, I feel like some of the others could actually benefit pretty decently from exaggerating rotation a bit to get a similar effect. I'm still quite new to adding any sort of particular style to my photos rather than just trying to make them accurate, but lately I've been playing around with intentionally canting my shots to force more emphasis on my subject or motion rather than just going for standard visual accuracy.
>>4520781>>4520783>>4520785>>4520791>>4520793I feel like these could benefit greatly from upright editing, and/or forcing certain lines or shapes to sit perfectly parallel to the edges of the image. Especially since these don't depict the entire buildings, you once again have the freedom of not having an anchoring horizon, so you can basically just arbitrarily pick a specific favorite line (maybe the most prominent one like a near corner) and align that one perfectly up and down while letting all the other lines do whatever. As far as I can tell, none of these photos have any prominent lines that are perfectly 90 degrees or 45 degrees in any direction. It might be useful to force some perfectly angled lines.Another thing I like about close-up compositions like this in architecture is that it all feels very geometric and "liney". You can't see the base of these buildings, and you get very little of the actual "body" of the building, if any, so what you have is a composition where there's a bunch of sky, and then suddenly, bam, engineered geometric lines and shapes. It feels less like a photo of a building and more like a canvas with distinct regions of patterns/textures and emptiness. I think the fact that architecture photography is so overwhelmingly just standing on the ground and shooting upward at something big really lends itself to this because you almost always have the sky in the background that acts as empty space. In a way, some photos of buildings feel beautiful in exactly the same way as photos of clouds in the sky. Which brings me to my next observation..
>>4520786>>4520797There's a style of photography I've been seeing lately from some people I follow (picrel). I'm not exactly sure how I'd describe it other than that the photo is basically just the sky, but with an extremely isolated object "encroaching" on it so that it feels a bit out of place. Often it's less prominent structures like those tall McDonald's signs, or a street lamp, or a really tall and thin building. In a way it almost makes the object feel like to a star in the night sky, or maybe something small floating in a huge body of deep water. For me, these photos capture that a little bit. I think it might be worth exploring this whenever you find a building that's tall and isolated enough to make it feel like it's floating in a sea of sky and disembodied from everything else.
