Assignment 8 - Buildings/Urban

[gekko513]

I don't think the "one shot per day" rule applies in this assignment thread. In here, I think the rules are no more than 5 pictures of different subjects per member.

I love the Grundtvigs Kirke shot, too! What time of the day were the two shots taken, and do you mind sharing the EXIF stuff for them? Was the last shot taken with a wide-angle lens of some kind?

 

[cookie1105]

Copenhagen Opera House

350d + 18-55 kit lens
Date 16/08/06
Time 21:42
FL 41mm
ISO 100
Exp. 10s @ f/7

Grundtvigs Kirke

350d + 18-55 kit lens
Date 16/06/06
Time 22:19
FL 22mm
ISO 100
Exp. 30s @ f/9

 

[gekko513]

Thanks. I'm going to have to experiment with similar shots. Yours really look great.

 

[snap58]

Copenhagen Opera House

350d + 18-55 kit lens
Date 16/08/06
Time 21:42
FL 41mm
ISO 100
Exp. 10s @ f/7

Grundtvigs Kirke

350d + 18-55 kit lens
Date 16/06/06
Time 22:19
FL 22mm
ISO 100
Exp. 30s @ f/9

Hey, you can't be taking pictures like that with that (awful) kit lens! : )
Great Pictures

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Copenhagen Opera House; 16/08/06; CPH, DK

Love the Scandinavian influence.

 

[Abstract]

I know it is not really the done thing, to post more than one entry in a day. But.... I had another keeper out of tonight's shoot. So, I'll post it anyway.

Grundtvigs Kirke; 16/08/06; CPH, DK

Wow, better than that first one you posted, or at least more interesting to me, IMO.

I also like how you easily proved that kit lenses aren't completely useless things you should upgrade immediately.

 

[kodiak]

cookie,
both great shots, particularly like the Grundtvigs Kirke

amazed by the colours, the way the everything is blue (including the road) except on the church - such a great contrast. also like the 'deserted' urban feel.

btw, is it lit like that? or just 'normal' street lighting?

 

[cookie1105]

Thank you, all of you. Everyone gets lucky occasionally

Love the Scandinavian influence.

Do you mean simplicity, symmetry and the colours blue & white? It really is a beautiful building. It was finished last year and was a gift to the state from the philanthropist Mærsk Mackinney-Møller (the guy who owns Mærsk shipping lines.)

Hey, you can't be taking pictures like that with that (awful) kit lens! : )
Great Pictures

I also like how you easily proved that kit lenses aren't completely useless things you should upgrade immediately.

I like my kit lens. As a beginner lens it is great. It has some problems (colour rendition + barrel distortion) but once stopped down a little bit, it's sharp enough. Until I can afford to upgrade to the 17-40L, I won't be changing it.

amazed by the colours, the way the everything is blue (including the road) except on the church - such a great contrast. also like the 'deserted' urban feel.

btw, is it lit like that? or just 'normal' street lighting?

Cheers, I guess I was just lucky to catch the street deserted. It was only 22:19 after all. It is the normal ambient light. The street is illuminated with white/ blue street lights and the church is illuminated with yellow spots. I white balanced off of the kerbstone in PP which cooled the image down a little bit. But we all know that funky things happen with longer night exposures.

 

[xrays]

Downtown Toronto at Dusk

Here's my entry for the month... Taken last night from the roof-top of a friend's condo in downtown Toronto, around the time the sun was setting (it was hard to tell exactly, because of the increased fog levels that night). I didn't have a tripod handy, so I was simply resting the camera on a railing. I also had a few shots with 20 second exposures, but this was the most dynamic looking final image. All I did was minor levels adjustments and save for web...

Canon 20D - 18-55 lens @18mm (kit lens)
ISO-100, 1.3sec, f/3.5

I just noticed the comments about the 'kit lens' for cookie1105's photos, and I agree that generally there's nothing wrong with them and you CAN capture some amazing images; but the truth is, having a 17-40L or the newer 16-35 2.8L would have yielded a sharper image, possibly with more contrast as well - the 16-35 will be my next lens.

BTW, cookie1105, I love those two shots you posted, very dynamic... And the one of the city street is amazing, it looks very much like a film set or even a painting.

x.

 

[bep207]

cookie, the reflection on the water really makes this picture

 

[sjl]

Melbourne night skyline



f/5.6, 17mm, 8 second exposure at ISO 100.

Taken from the rooftop carpark of Doncaster Shoppingtown (18th August, around 7pm), roughly (very roughly) 15 km from the Melbourne CBD. I'm somewhat disappointed with this shot (which is, IMO, the best of the lot; the others are a bit over-exposed, even though the camera thinks this one is underexposed) - I would have done better to take it from a higher point (thereby getting rid of some of the clutter in the foreground), except that the nearest "higher point" is in a building which has an external structure that blocks wide angle shots like this. Grr. (Maybe not so much blocks as impedes - I don't like the thought of a regular grid of white-painted steel across the entire shot. ) Still, it does have something about it nonetheless, so maybe it's just that my standards are getting higher.

I tried using the 100-400 zoomed in on the CBD (the taller buildings you can see, about a third of the way in from the left on the horizon), but the tripod I have isn't up to the job of holding that lens steady. Grrr. Damn shame, that. Yes, a new tripod is definitely on the list of things to buy (and pretty high on the list, too; it's probably the next semi-big purchase.)

For best effect, you probably should go to the large image.

 

[snap58]

Taken from the rooftop carpark of Doncaster Shoppingtown, roughly (very roughly) 15 km from the Melbourne CBD. I'm somewhat disappointed with this shot (which is, IMO, the best of the lot; the others are a bit over-exposed, even though the camera thinks this one is underexposed) - I would have done better to take it from a higher point (thereby getting rid of some of the clutter in the foreground), except that the nearest "higher point" is in a building which has an external structure that blocks wide angle shots like this. Grr. (Maybe not so much blocks as impedes - I don't like the thought of a regular grid of white-painted steel across the entire shot. ) Still, it does have something about it nonetheless, so maybe it's just that my standards are getting higher.

I tried using the 100-400 zoomed in on the CBD (the taller buildings you can see, about a third of the way in from the left on the horizon), but the tripod I have isn't up to the job of holding that lens steady. Grrr. Damn shame, that. Yes, a new tripod is definitely on the list of things to buy (and pretty high on the list, too; it's probably the next semi-big purchase.)

For best effect, you probably should go to the large image.

It looks good to me, I like the way the sky looks with the colors. Maybe try to actually have more foreground and go for a near / far composition (used a lot in landscapes) if you can find the e right foreground. Of course that might be hard to do with a 100 to 400 zoom.

Also post your exposure data if possible.

 

[sjl]

Maybe try to actually have more foreground and go for a near / far composition (used a lot in landscapes) if you can find the e right foreground. Of course that might be hard to do with a 100 to 400 zoom.

Well, this was with the 17-85; the 100-400 was an attempt to go right in on the tall buildings of the CBD which didn't quite pan out as I'd hoped it would.

I do hear your suggestions, and they're good ones; the main hassle is finding a good foreground for the picture. Not sure where I'd go to do so.

Also post your exposure data if possible.

What? It's right there! In my original post! Look! (Ok, so I went back and edited it to add that info. )

 

[cookie1105]

cheers bep207.

Agreed xrays, the 16-35L would be nice, but there is no way that I could justify the extra stop financially. In the distant future it would have to be the 17-40L.

My girlfriend says Grundtvigs Kirke looks like something out of a horror movie I really like your picture of the Toronto skyline. I think the pink fog gives it something by leading your eye through the picture. nice.

nice picture sji. Shame about the blurry plant, bottom right. I feel for you on the tripod isssue. Mine is always sagging after adjustment. Maybe I should have followed the advice about getting a good tripod from the beginning

 

[andiwm2003]

trinity church mirrored in hancock tower in boston. unfortunately the sky was too bright when i was there. i'll try that shot again some time.

sony a100
sigma 10-20mm
f 9
1/40 sec
iso 100
pol filter

 

[DAAANGIT]

Took this in Seattle!

 

[Lau]

trinity church mirrored in hancock tower in boston. unfortunately the sky was too bright when i was there. i'll try that shot again some time.

I like the juxtaposition of old and new in this. Have you tried burning in the sky a bit in Photoshop? You're right in that it's a little over exposed, but I don't think it would take too much to make it tie in with the sky in the building.

Either way, nice shot though.

 

[ModestPenguin]

Sony Cybershot
DSC-T1

Point and shoot

 

[andiwm2003]

I like the juxtaposition of old and new in this. Have you tried burning in the sky a bit in Photoshop? You're right in that it's a little over exposed, but I don't think it would take too much to make it tie in with the sky in the building.

Either way, nice shot though.

i dind't want to tweak it too much in photoshop. i wanted to stay within photography. but then i was highly tempted to make it a HDR picture from 3 different exposures. but i didn't have a tripod with me.
anyway, i somehow feel that something is missing in this picture. it somehow looks flat and boring. i had hoped that it looks like the tower disappears in the sky. or that there is more contrast between the old organic style of the church and the new tower.
i'll give it another try.

 

[Lau]

i dind't want to tweak it too much in photoshop. i wanted to stay within photography. but then i was highly tempted to make it a HDR picture from 3 different exposures. but i didn't have a tripod with me.
anyway, i somehow feel that something is missing in this picture. it somehow looks flat and boring. i had hoped that it looks like the tower disappears in the sky. or that there is more contrast between the old organic style of the church and the new tower.
i'll give it another try.

I know what you mean about Photoshop — I'm not fond of the heavily Photoshopped stuff either. But dodging and burning was done in days of yore with bits of card and wire during the developing process, so I tend to think that isn't 'cheating'.

Maybe even lightening the sky more and the top of the building slightly would be enough to send it the other way to have it disappearing into the sky. There's definitely a social comment in there about religion being overshadowed by the big corporations and money paving the way to heaven. Or something.

 

[cookie1105]

Pic....
Sony Cybershot
DSC-T1

Point and shoot

A different take on the assignment. Well done.

I would liked to have seen more of the catch on the rhs to sort of complete the picture.

 

[Xander562]

my brother's attempt

He took several pictures and spliced them together using Autostitch.
A really good program, if your running windows . hopefully they come out w/ a mac version though.
If you have access to Windows i highly recommend this program, its quite useful.

 

[cookie1105]

my brother's attempt

He took several pictures and spliced them together using

It's a nice picture. But, I am not sure about this. It says in the assignment rules:

3. Members should be the owner of the artwork they submit.

We would have to ask Applespider, but if your brother took the picture, then he is the owner of the artwork and you would not be allowed to post it in the assignment.

But you can tell him it's a nice picture

 

[Xander562]

It's a nice picture. But, I am not sure about this. It says in the assignment rules:



We would have to ask Applespider, but if your brother took the picture, then he is the owner of the artwork and you would not be allowed to post it in the assignment.

But you can tell him it's a nice picture

even if i give him credit? it's not like i'm saying here's MY picture that I took MYSELF. i'll edit it if you all want me too.

 

[cookie1105]

I probably overreacted. These are just supposed to be friendly assignments after all.

But I do think the rules are there for a reason. What is the point in having an assignment if you don't go out and shoot it yourself? I see the assignments as a way of giving members the opportunity to go out and shoot a specific subject/theme, which is not the easiest thing at times, and then improve upon their skills by offering the results of their efforts up for critique by their peers.

I know that you credited your brother Xander, but why bother offering work for critique, if it is not your own? If he is a big boy, why doesn't he become a member of MR and actively take part in the assignments. I'm sure that he would be most welcome.