Human figure in architecture part II

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi folks,

I have enjoyed the pictures posted by Michael in this thread, where he discusses the pros and cons of having human figures in architectural pictures. One of his pictures - of an icehockey hall with stairs in the foreground reminded me this picture of mine.

Chasse Theater, Breda, Netherlands

What do you think? All C&C is welcome, as usual.

Cheers,

 

[Michael Fontana]

Hi Cem

I know, it's difficult, but what do you think about that take?
I hope you don't mind my edits.

One reason for it: the newer building has - different than the old one - lots of horizontal moments; and your man stand precisly in front of a important parth of the new building: whre the diagonal meets the horizontal line.

Best, Michael

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Cem

I know, it's difficult, but what do you think about that take?
I hope you don't mind my edits.

One reason for it: the newer building has - different than the old one - lots of horizontal moments; and your man stand precisly in front of a important parth of the new building: whre the diagonal meets the horizontal line.

Best, Michael

Of course I don't mind, thanks <smile>

You are right about the man's position being less than ideal wrt the new building. OTOH, no other persons were to be found walking along the same trajectory and I kind of like his hunched, hands in pockets kind of walk.

I guess I could have done better indeed, maybe next time I go there <wink>

Cheers,

 

[Michael Fontana]

Cem, sometimes, I shoot the building without peoplef irst, and take later some shots, with poeple, at the same position and light (!!) and add them in PS into the "emty" one.

That helps a lot for positioning the people.

 

[Ray West]

Hi Cem,

Steps and people....

First referring back to Michael's post, it is interesting that the people in his second picture lower the ceiling, so to speak. For yours, I'd be almost inclined to paste a few in on the white (near image centre) 'stripe' of the new building, in the distance. I think due to the wide angle, the buildings look smaller than they are, which may of course be what you wanted to imply.

Earlier this year, I waited a fair bit of time, for this stairway to be empty.

Now, I can't decide if a figure makes it better.

or a younger person, maybe.

It is misleading to think in these cases that the figures alter the perspective, so to speak, since the camera position is different in each case.

(I'm not sure if you can read the exif info, but it is not relevant, I just posted these as another take on the importance of folk, or not, and other than a straight jpeg conversion, I've not processed them, other than a bit of cloning away of a leg in the last image, and slight cropping...)

My jury is still out on which one to play with... ( I thought of doing one of these poll things)

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[janet Smith]

Earlier this year, I waited a fair bit of time, for this stairway to be empty Now, I can't decide if a figure makes it better

Hi Ray

I have gone back and forth, back and forth between these shots, and have reached the conclusion that I definately prefer one of the ones with a figure included. However I'm struggling to decide which, because I prefer the composition of the one with the child, I like the oblique composition of the camera to the stairs, but I like the lady coming down with her bare feet & book, she looks ready for a relaxing time reading, and just in case it gets chilly she has her wrap, perfect!

On balance I think I'd go for the one with the child, I prefer the composition, the oblique angle, the child pressed against the wall and the fact that we can see to the landing above makes me wonder what's up there.....

 

[Ray West]

Hi Janet,

Thanks for replying. I spend ages looking at other folk's photos, changing my thoughts, etc. It is all really a bit unfair ;-)

If I were to say i was responsible for building maintenance, or related to the people, or wanted to sell the property, or wanted to see if it was possible to get a wardrobe through the door halfway up the stairs, then it becomes a bit more obvious which ones to choose (the above is untrue, btw.)

However, I tend to agree with your summary. Neither of the people were posed, they were just coming down the stairs, and I wanted the stairway bare. Afterwards, I wondered what it was that I have 'against people' ;-). This was not the only location I waited for rooms to empty, etc. I was forever playing 'catch -up' to the group....

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

... First referring back to Michael's post, it is interesting that the people in his second picture lower the ceiling, so to speak. For yours, I'd be almost inclined to paste a few in on the white (near image centre) 'stripe' of the new building, in the distance. I think due to the wide angle, the buildings look smaller than they are, which may of course be what you wanted to imply.
.......
.......
My jury is still out on which one to play with... ( I thought of doing one of these poll things)
...

Hi Ray,

I haven't had the explicit goal of making the buildings look small(er). But I wanted to have a person on the picture who would be close to the camera (around the distance where he is right now). So that in turn makes the building look smaller, tough luck I guess.

Re. your staircase, like Janet I'm also divided between the last two. But in the end I lean towards the one with the old lady in it.

Cheers,

 

[Ray West]

Hi Cem,

This could be like chess - I move your man with hands in pockets to tarmac area one, you move my juvenile girl to step six. I've noticed Michael cropped the bottom of your image. The effect of the man, left where he is, is quite different, imo, if you just crop the bottom. As is, I think a bit nearer would be better.

In future, we will need to take some friends to stand where we want, and some barriers to keep the public out. Or, take a few shots, then do as Michael did to remove the posts in this other thread, http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3933 and paste in the ones you want, where you want, if you know where that may be, of course.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

...I've noticed Michael cropped the bottom of your image. The effect of the man, left where he is, is quite different, imo, if you just crop the bottom. As is, I think a bit nearer would be better.

In future, we will need to take some friends to stand where we want, and some barriers to keep the public out. Or, take a few shots, then do as Michael did to remove the posts in this other thread, http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3933 and paste in the ones you want, where you want, if you know where that may be, of course...

Hi Ray,

Funny, I hadn't noticed it myself (the crop from the bottom)! But I would not do it since it was my explicit intention to include the stairs till the pointed bottom part.

In the past, when my wife used to go along on my photo trips, I've "used" her as an involuntary extra whom I'd ask many times to stand there or here or elsewhere; just to see how it'd change the composition <LOL>. Unfortunately, she's resigned from that job now ;-).

Cheers,

 

[Ray West]

Unfortunately, she's resigned from that job now ;-).

To good a retirement plan ;-)

 

[Greg Rogers]

How about an "on the fence" opinion? (non-opinion?)

Back to Cem's orig for a sec, I'm not sure I've ever been a fan of "blurry people" in fine architectural photography. Whatever the intent (implication of 'motion', or whatever), I often find it distracting from the sharpness (sorry, can't think of a better word) of the architecture) That said, I do not believe that my photography has returned to "art" quite yet, nor likely has my 'eye' for same...so it is likely I miss the point.

Perhaps the contrast between the "hard and sharp" nature of of the architectural subject and the softness of the "ghostly human" goes back to photographers intent, so please take with a grain of salt, Cem.

On Rays, I prefer the second, hands-down. (a non-wishy-washy opinion from me at last). For all the reasons mentioned by Janet, plus to me she (the lady in the photo, not Janet) adds a sense of size, perspective, interest, and humanity to the shot. And note that she is not blurry. (razz)

-Greg

 

[Ray West]

Hi Greg,

It may be that the architects are looking for something akin to their models, where they would show the detail in their building, but the street furniture, vehicles, trees, etc. were relatively crude representations. Another aspect is that a blurred figure is less easily identified.

If they make a cad model, then it, too, can be populated (Letraset used to do various figures). I'm thinking the architect's main interest in including people are for reasons of scale, or showing access, whereas we may be more concerned with adding interest, or improving the composition.

I have a suspicion, that the confined spaces, that Nicolas has to work in, are the most difficult wrt. placing people, but not obscuring the architectural detail, and not making it look posed.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Greg Rogers]

Hmmm.
Having taken some time to reflect on both Cem's picture and Ray's comment, I'm now leaning "towards" the blurred person is quite effective side of the fence.

Having looked at lots of renditions by architects (back in the drawing board days), Ray does make a good point. It always fascinated me that they spent hours detailing their buildings then spent about 3 minutes sketching in trees and people....with good effect. I can now see the value the same regarding architectural photography.

Live and learn,
-Greg

 

[Michael Fontana]

Yep, the architects - within the renderings too - like to keep the architecture very often abstract; therefore some non-abstract people would make the lecture of the image more complex. This leads to either non recognizable, anonymus people, or - beside the human motion - to blurred ones.

Just a example; I agree, a exaggerated one:

Having Mickey mouse on a place whatever rises the question; "What the heck is MM doing here? "
So mainly, the viewer follows that question and doesn't contemplate the architecture....
MM of course is anecdotic; but any human figure, transporting a story, will have plusminus the same effect.

Talking about Ray's example:
Apart from Ray's personal context, the adultstep.jpg could be used to show, that steep stairs can be a problem for older people. The impact of the human figure leads away from the architecture itself. Meanwhile the child looks somehow posed, if not, its aware that a shot is been done.

That said, on these 3 shots, as for a architecture image, I prefer the steps only; but I could imagine having someone at the upper level, walking in the room at the left...

 

[Michael Fontana]

The crop of te bottom of Cem's picture was done to reduce the complexity of the lecture of that shot; the edge of the steps, changing direction, is - in my personal opinion - attracting to much attention; together with the old and new building plus the human figure, it's becoming a complex image.

Personally, I tend to reduce the image's complexity, to make its lecture as direct and easy as possible.
I doesn't works all the time perfect, though ;-)

 

[Asher Kelman]

Michael,

If I was going to offer an alteration, I'd suggest making the level of the steps perfectly horozontal and then add one man on th steps near his left side, but rebuild the last sep.

Someone want to hve a go?

Asher

 

[Allen Maestas]

Hi folks,

I have enjoyed the pictures posted by Michael in this thread, where he discusses the pros and cons of having human figures in architectural pictures. One of his pictures - of an icehockey hall with stairs in the foreground reminded me this picture of mine.

Chasse Theater, Breda, Netherlands

What do you think? All C&C is welcome, as usual.

Cheers,

Wonderful work, I love this image truly.

Al