Photography Classes Online – Icon Photography School › Forums › Photography Lessons › Lesson 10 › Assignment 10 cityscape
- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by Duncan Rawlinson.
June 21, 2011 at 7:43 pm #18420TammyParticipant
This picture was taken at the Navy Pier in Chicago, IL.[attachment=0:28la5orr]IMG_4578.jpg[/attachment:28la5orr]June 23, 2011 at 2:39 pm #20497Duncan RawlinsonKeymaster
So it looks to me like this is a scanned photograph.
I’m wondering if you are shooting for the assignments or just picking old images out of your photo library?
It’s ok to do that I’d just like to know…
This photo in particular has lots of things going on. In fact there are too many things…
Take a look at these images:
photo by the-o
photo by the-o
Notice how the photographer above has organized the frames in a very specific way.
Also note the use of color!
Finally, note that that not all cityscape photographs have to be shot in landscape format… You can shoot in portrait as well.
Thanks!June 23, 2011 at 10:47 pm #20498TammyParticipant
You are absolutely right. This picture is scanned from my wall because I have been trying to find a shot that I could take that would show everything I learned in this assignment. Unfortunately I don’t live anywhere near a city. Everything that I have done so far has been from scratch. This is the only picture that I used from my “library” because I wanted an opinion on how it related to the assignment. You have pointed out what you feel is wrong with the photo but you didn’t point out anything you liked. I have already taken pictures of the country and I have ample examples of that and I have recieved feedback on those photo’s and I am grateful. I wanted to know how I could improve on a “cityscape”. The examples you have shown me are confusing. The first photo has an object in the bottom right hand corner that seems to distract from the photograph. I am wondering when it is okay to amputate in a photo and when it isn’t. The second photograph also has an amputation. The tree has been cut off in the left hand corner. Do you think that was so that the tree matches the height of the building on the right hand side? Finally my shot was in portrait format and not in landscape which makes your final comment somewhat confusing. I took this photograph because I wanted to project how closely the two opposite subjects relate to each other. Notice the haze at the top of the photograph. That was smog. Also I liked the way the sun cast a shadow on the buildings but not on the ships. The “city” in this picture has a suttleness about it while the boats are clear and bright. I remember when I took this photograph and I remember how I felt when I took this photograph and when I look at it all those emotions come back to me. I was in awe of the stature of the buildings and the size of the boat in comparison to those buildings and how the two have similiar aspects of stature yet were so very different. I am also confused about the blurry look of the flowers in the front of the second photo and the clearity of the buildings in the background. Is that technique meant to draw the eyes away from the flowers and to the buildings? Would this shot look better had it been shot with a larger F stop and took away the depth of field in order to bring the viewers eyes toward the obviously opposite stuctures in the frame? I am anxious to hear what you think. Thank you again for the feedback on all the assignments. I see myself as more of a lifestyle photographer and setting up a frame under those conditions isn’t always easy to do because I never really know when it is okay to amputate a subject and when depth of field is distracting especially in a landscape or cityscape frame.[attachment=0:u502z3r0]_MG_7784.JPG[/attachment:u502z3r0] This is a photo that I took for assignment number 7 on lighting. Could you compare this photo with my original submission so that I can learn more about the subject matter in this lesson. Thank you again for your time.June 24, 2011 at 2:01 pm #20499Duncan RawlinsonKeymaster
I hate to blunt and don’t take this the wrong way but I didn’t point out anything I liked because there wasn’t really anything I liked about it. Maybe I was just in a bad mood but I think the fact that it was a scanned image, crookedly scanned, with dust on it sort of bothered me for some reason. I think it’s because I’ve had so many students cherry picked photos from their library to fit the assignments instead of going out and shooting the assignments… This is the first time you’ve done that and it’s fine because you don’t live near a city. It jut gets to me after a while because I don’t feel students learn very well when they do this…
So my apologies for this less than stellar critique.
The blurry flowers could have been shot this way to help establish depth and organze the frame. They also provide somewhat of a foreground feeling. Although photographers usually don’t do this for cityscape or landscape photos. Usually shooting at a with maximum depth of field is the way to go. That way everything is in focus.
It’s one of the basic things about photography, that is, to achieve a good photograph you often have to incorporate a solid foreground, mid ground, and background. And trust me, this is not as easy as it sounds…
The photo you submitted for assignment 7 is nice and it uses the ‘frame within a frame’ technique. My concern with this image is that the “frame” part is dominating the photograph. In other words it’s sort of fighting with itself. It’s not clear what’s the main area of interest..
Either way it’s a nice image and always use reflections like this to your advantage!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.