Ugly building

[mugge]

This is a picture of a building in process in Melbourne. I thought it was going to be ugly when finished. My aim was to show just that. C&C most welcome.

[Manfred M]

I moved this image from the People & Pets thread to the more appropriate Nature & Architecture thread.

The image looks rather underexposed. Just wondering why you opted for this approach?

[mugge]

Manfred, I felt that by increasing the shades of grey, I'd be reducing the total impact.

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I felt that by increasing the shades of grey, I'd be reducing the total impact.

Could be, but when I look at the histogram from this image, it is underexposed.



Back in my wet darkroom days, the rule (which came from the publishers) was that any (B&W) image had to have pure black values and pure white values. Any photography not showing those attributes would be rejected.

I can live with your black point (it is close) but the white point isn't even close.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Ole,

Does that sky belong to that image?

I ask because there's something really peculiar (to my eyes) going on with the clouds - One on left almost appears to have a 'drop shadow' effect on the blue sky behind!

I think you'll need to return in about a year when it/they are finished before an 'ugly' judgement can be made.

[Shadowman]

Interesting capture, the lens distortion definitely doesn't do anything for the building.

[Wandjina]

Having been involved in the construction industry most of my working career, much of it in Melbourne, you are right Ole, this is not shaping up as one of the better examples of architecture around town. Is the structure in the background completed?
I initially thought those were some kind of fancy temporary safety screens on the rear building but on closer inspection they seem to be part of the structure. Lord help us!
The tower cranes are working only on the lower structure in the foreground of the photo. The true magnitude of this structure is yet to be revealed.

But I am with Dave when it comes to the sky and the clouds and agree with Manfred that it is too dark... The "shadows" need lightening.

[arith]

"Back in my wet darkroom days, the rule (which came from the publishers) was that any (B&W) image had to have pure black values and pure white values. Any photography not showing those attributes would be rejected."

Never heard that before Manfred But in the old days, I mean when I was at school, the dynamic range of B&W film was only 128:1 so it wasn't hard to achieve but the teacher did get us to set deep shadows just below that range, I can't actually remember how

The bright spot in this image looks like it isn't in the sky which often throws me because I usually expose on the sky unless their is an obvious white or shiny spot.

[xpatUSA]

Hi Ole,

Does that sky belong to that image?

I ask because there's something really peculiar (to my eyes) going on with the clouds - One on left almost appears to have a 'drop shadow' effect on the blue sky behind!

To my eyes there is a quite pronounced vignetting circle, possibly applied in post to add drama. Perhaps that's where 'drop shadow' comes from.