Chicago Architecture 2

[war]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Q

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

I'm new to the Q and finding the 28mm generally gives me too much foreground for architectural shots taken vertically.   Is cropping to square a suitable solution or is  it jarring to the rectangularly inclined? Thanks for your comments.

 

Incidentally, the two buildings on the left are Prudential One and Two and that's the corner of the Modern Wing of the Art Institute of Chicago by Renzo Piano on the right. 

[prk60091]

i think it is a matter of taste.  

 

i have taken many shots from that walking bridge with my Q and before that my x1 M2.  In the image you posted there is a lot of distraction in the foreground.  I have usually walked further away from the Art Institute and closer to Millennium for my images along the bridge (I am at work now so i cannot post one) 

 

 

You can crop the image  (with the obvious loss of pixels) to your taste whether it makes a difference depends on the mode of presentation (web not so much // physical print may make a difference depending on the size of the print.

 

Not every lens and/or camera is meant for every image.

Edited July 13, 2016 by prk60091

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stuny]

Very nice.

[ShawnK]

One of my fav book is "New York Vertical" by Horst Hamann. That has the book & the pic incl are vertical in the ratio of  4"x13" (I just measured). That somehow displays those skyscrapers rather well. So IMHO cropping them slim vertically would be very nice too. Nicely framed B&W prints w/a hefty matt, looks real great too. I do love this image of yours as is. Congrats. 

[war]

i think it is a matter of taste.  

 

i have taken many shots from that walking bridge with my Q and before that my x1 M2.  In the image you posted there is a lot of distraction in the foreground.  I have usually walked further away from the Art Institute and closer to Millennium for my images along the bridge (I am at work now so i cannot post one) 

 

 

You can crop the image  (with the obvious loss of pixels) to your taste whether it makes a difference depends on the mode of presentation (web not so much // physical print may make a difference depending on the size of the print.

 

Not every lens and/or camera is meant for every image.

 

Thanks for your comments. I think you are right. I hope you will post some examples, it would be nice to see another take on the same subjects. I rarely shot there as I find the clutter in Millennium  hard to deal with. I have yet to get a decent image of Cloudgate.

[war]

One of my fav book is "New York Vertical" by Horst Hamann. That has the book & the pic incl are vertical in the ratio of  4"x13" (I just measured). That somehow displays those skyscrapers rather well. So IMHO cropping them slim vertically would be very nice too. Nicely framed B&W prints w/a hefty matt, looks real great too. I do love this image of yours as is. Congrats. 

Thank you for your response and complement.  Yes I've seen the book and it's great, the vertical crops accentuate the buildings.  I think though that he may have used a view camera with bellows. Tall buildings are a challenge when you can't get back far enough.

[spylaw4]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 Tall buildings are a challenge when you can't get back far enough.

 

Indeed!  They're a problem without view camera/bellows.

Personally, I don't find square format a problem although for tall objects a portrait format is probably better.

 

It's a good photo BTW!

[war]

Indeed!  They're a problem without view camera/bellows.

Personally, I don't find square format a problem although for tall objects a portrait format is probably better.

 

It's a good photo BTW!

Thank you. I'm trying to wean myself from many years of using Nikkor PC lenses for architectural subjects. I think you are using the Q so you have experienced these uninteresting and somewhat distorted foregrounds when getting back far enough to get straight tall objects.

 

You are right though, it does seem counterintuitive to put a tall subject in other than a tall format.

[pechelman]

I'm new to the Q and finding the 28mm generally gives me too much foreground for architectural shots taken vertically.   Is cropping to square a suitable solution or is  it jarring to the rectangularly inclined? Thanks for your comments.

 

Use the 28mm and the extra foreground to your advantage by finding a foreground that is less distracting and more interesting or more complimentary to your subject. For example, that garden and sculpture to camera right looks like it might provide a very interesting contrast to the buildings, though you may need to rethink composition as you might be too close to the skyline to physically fit the entire height.

 

I would worry less about crop shape and more about composition when going square.

Edited July 19, 2016 by pechelman

[spylaw4]

Use the 28mm and the extra foreground to your advantage by finding a foreground that is less distracting and more interesting or more complimentary to your subject. For example, that garden and sculpture to camera right looks like it might provide a very interesting contrast to the buildings, though you may need to rethink composition as you might be too close to the skyline to physically fit the entire height.

 

I would worry less about crop shape and more about composition when going square.

 

Yes, it's a good idea ..... but ..... how often is that possible?

 

Ah well, there's always perspective correction in LR, I suppose.

Edited July 19, 2016 by spylaw4

[pechelman]

Sure, that's not always possible, I agree.  I wasnt suggesting that one should resort to forcing that foreground into working for that skyline, but was rather attempting to explain that the "disadvantage" the OP noted about the wider than normal 28mm isnt one, nor is it necessarily an advantage, it just is part of that FOV.  

 

Generally speaking, in my own shooting, when I first got a very wide angle lens many of my shots were boring or distracting to my intended subject because of the foreground or simply because I was shooting in a more "fit everything in" mindset.  Rather, things for me improved when I selectively used wider angles by incorporating foreground more carefully and generally more times as the focal point.

 

As another poster noted, he had good results when the subject is the skyline by moving to a further location. With the 28mm in the OP's location, I probably would have changed my focus (literally) to making the subject that park or sculpture and using the buildings as a background. I think the contrast of shape and form between the two might have made for an interesting image, but I wasnt there. Either way, these are just thoughts on how one might choose to use a 28mm to their advantage in that location rather than struggling with it and a non-interesting \ distracting foreground.

[war]

Use the 28mm and the extra foreground to your advantage by finding a foreground that is less distracting and more interesting or more complimentary to your subject. For example, that garden and sculpture to camera right looks like it might provide a very interesting contrast to the buildings, though you may need to rethink composition as you might be too close to the skyline to physically fit the entire height.

 

I would worry less about crop shape and more about composition when going square.

Thanks for your observation. Certainly the 28 isn't the most versatile lens for every occasion. Your suggestion is certainly the best solution, but then you run into situations like this example where the foreground is a disaster.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

So I guess you abandon the shot and move on and find a better location.