Photo Critique – Architecture
Dear Professional Photo Critique,
I’ve just started to become a bit more serious with my photography and would love any feedback! I’ve been experimenting with negative space recently. This image was taken from the Barbican Estate in London, UK.
Many thanks,
Nicholas Hennell-Foley
“Two Parts of City Life.”
CANON EOS 600D 50mm f? 1/180 ISO 200
Aaron
Hi there Nicholas,
Thank you so much for submitting this image to our photo critique. It’s not often that we receive images of architecture, and being a portrait photographer myself, I’ll have to rely on the work of others as a resource when critiquing your image. But before I introduce you to some of my favorite architecture photographers, let me first address your image.
The dark element you have on the far right side is great for establishing a sense of depth in the image. Having foreground, subject and background elements really help achieve depth. It’s dark, and since my eyes are naturally attracted to brighter spots in an image, it doesn’t compete with the brighter building in the center. I consider this central building your center of interest or your subject.
I like the light and time of day you chose to shoot. However, I would love your light to be more directional. Consider waiting until the light is less overhead and comes in more at an angle. This type of cross light helps reinforce and emphasize texture.
When analyzing some other photographer’s architecture work, I noticed that symmetry and balance is extremely important. Because you have two elements on the right side of your image, it heavily weights the image. Architecture, by its nature is straight and linear, with an emphasis on balance and lines without distortion. A composition that creates a sense of imbalance might take away from the subject’s inherent qualities.
I do appreciate your use of negative space but I’m not sure that it works here for me. Negative space is used to highlight or draw more specific attention to positive space. In this image, your positive space (your subject) isn’t very compelling. Here are some examples of negative space that I feel work very well to isolate a subject and bring more attention to it.
In the image above by Daniel Hewitt, you can see how powerful this central figure is. It’s stark contrast with the whites on either side make this image even more compelling. The symmetry and balance Hewitt uses reinforces the subject matter.
Cameron R. Neilson is a photographer based in New York and recently just finished a project called Straight Up that incorporates images from the vantage point of people walking on the street below. You can check out some of his images here: website. His image above has a similar feel to the image you submitted. Neilson’s use of negative space is deliberate as he isolates each of the three buildings.
He uses compositional strategies of the Rule of Odds, Center composition and also uses diagonals as you can see in the top right corner of his image. Pay attention to Neilson’s use of light to create the sense of three dimensionality. There are definite highlights and shadows on the center structure and the one on the top corner. He also shot the image in a way that he’s shooting from a corner as to not flatten out the structure. His light use and camera angle reinforce dimension and shape.
Here are some tips that I’ve put together to give you some more guidance when shooting architecture: (these might not be applicable to the photo you submitted, but might help you in future endeavors).
1. Include a person in your image to help humanize it and give the image a sense of scale.
2. Experiment with different times of the day and seasons (i.e. stormy weather, dusk, dawn, etc.). This will also change your light direction and give you variations. In order to predict how the light will fall on your subject at a certain time of the day, you can use the app PhotoEphemeris. It is available for both Android and iOS. 
3. Choose your camera angle carefully. Photographing a structure on its flat surface makes the image look flat. Try photographing the structure from the corner or an angle. This helps the viewer understand the image is three dimensional.
4. Don’t forget to incorporate the use of fundamentals in your image. These include but are not limited to: symmetry, balance, rule of thirds, golden means, negative space, center composition, leading lines, framing, etc.
5. Ensure that your vertical lines are straight. Lenses usually cause distortion and vertical lines can curve. You can fix this in your post production software like Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Photoshop.
6. Consider the use of long exposures and neutral density filters for daylight shooting. This will enable your camera’s shutter to stay open for long periods of time and anything in the image that is moving will ghost out (disappear from the shot). For an eerie yet very skilled approach to this, I encourage you to watch Silent World by Lucie and Simon.
While I never advocate copying another photographer, I do think it’s important to continually drink from the pools of inspiration. Flood your head with good, solid examples from other professionals and their strengths will subtly manifest themselves in your personal work. It’s the reverse philosophy of “garbage in, garbage out.” Here are some of the photographers that I enjoy:
Simona Panzironi: Website
Randy Scott Slavin: Website
Lastly, I’d like to introduce you to Amsterdam-based photographer Dirk Bakker that merges graphic design with architecture in a stunning way. His images are colorful and have a strong sense of design with a special attention to line, interesting patterns and abstract shapes. IG: @macenzo
Megan
Nicholas,
I am drawn to the use of negative space in an image, and this is a good example of it. Negative space brings attention to shape and form in the most common of surroundings, breathing a new perspective into surroundings. I like that you have not only used negative space, but that with the tight cropping of the image you have given interest to a subject that, if not captured well, could be mundane. Taking out the corner of (perhaps another building) in the bottom corner of the image I feel has strengthened the image as a whole.
With the edit I see that you have taken out a shape in the bottom right, but I also see that you have darkened the right side structure and the sky in the top of the frame seems darker as well. I prefer the coloring and tone in the original image, it has a bit more of a mood/tone. In the original image, the background is a bit more subtle and washed out/pale tones in the sky and building. The structure on the right has more of a gradient in light and more texture and detail, which brings more balance to the image. With the darker edit it feels a bit heavy on the right. You already have good contrast within the image without adding more in the edit. I always argue with looking at any image that color and tone can significantly dictate a mood, so really be mindful of what you’re trying to convey. Thanks for sharing!
David
May 1, 2018 @ 5:10 am
I like that you used negative space in your architecture photo. The color palette of the far-off buildings fits well with the gradient sky-pastel and easy on the eyes. However, I agree with Aaron when he says that the use of negative space does not draw attention to what seems like may be the focal point of the photo: the distant buildings. I do think that it was a good idea to place the side of the closer building in the last third of the frame. It gives your photo depth and contrast. I’ve tried my hand at arch photography, and have read that when shooting a structure, it’s important to shoot it in the context of its environment. Maybe next time, research the building you want to shoot-its history, its purpose, how it is intended to engage/ not engage with its surroundings-as it will probably shift how it is you see the structure, and therefore change the way you shoot it. In this sense, the photo seems lost in context, which makes this image confusing for me. Architecture is beautiful in the way it connects civilization, environment, people, culture, politics (everything!). Everything about it is intentional.The mechanics of composition i.e. symmetry, rule of thirds, leading lines, lighting, distortion-less lenses are important in creating a visually pleasing photo, but I believe the most imperative aspect of arch photography is the intent.
Aaron said that it would be good to add a humanistic aspect to your architectural photography. I have been told to not include people in photos like these before and I think that it varies. I really like capturing people in an environment that was made for human use. However, this can be difficult in arch photography especially since most of the time you will want to be using a low ISO and long exposure for a fine-grain photo with proper lighting. Motion blur will be inevitable in these kinds of photos if humans are what you want to capture. I think it looks aesthetic sometimes, and sometimes I think it looks sloppy. I don’t think all architectural photography requires human presence, a lot of the time, people just add chaos to an image that needs to be seen on its own. I feel like it’s an intuitive call that depends on every photographer.
Another thing that was mentioned in most of the comments was the balance and symmetry of your photo. I find it interesting that you created asymmetry out of two seemingly symmetrical structures. I think that this is an unhabitual way of seeing and thinking and I appreciate that. However, I am a sucker for symmetry especially with arch photography. The fact that human beings can create astoundingly symmetrical, equal designs, and even mimic the symmetry found in nature is so profound. I am always mesmerized by the photographers who can capture these characteristics (also by the architects who design these structures). The most memorable arch photos I have seen are ones that are mathematical, aligned, and balanced. You can tell that the photographer put a lot of thought and care into the photo. I also know how difficult it is to take photos like these and can appreciate the process. I always aim for symmetry in architectural photos.
May 1, 2018 @ 9:15 pm
Your use of the dark buildings in just a third of the photo is a good idea and it definitely sets up a sense depth, however, I do agree with Aaron that your use of negative space doesn’t fit right with this picture. I think you have to much negative space and it really deters the eyes from your main subject which should be the lighter buildings in the back. A good example of negative space use I believe is the one photo Aaron posted done by Dirk Bakker, the one with the colorful building that is also reflected in the water. Technically the water is just a bunch of negative space, but the factor that there is a reflection helps fill that space with more of the main subject. The water also helps set up depth as well since the bottom of the building meets the water as well.