Jennifer Doerrie  


Park Place Office building by Jennifer Doerrie

June 2020 - Park Place Office building

About the Image(s)

Park Place Office Building

April 18, 2020
f/8
1/400 sec.
ISO 100
100-400 mm lens at 220 mm
hand-held

Like nearly everyone, I've been staying close to home during the pandemic. There is an office complex overlooking one of our local parks, and the architecture caught my attention while Robert and I were walking and searching for birds one evening. I had only my long telephoto lens since I'd not planned to photograph architecture, so I necessarily was limited to tight compositions. I like the lines and shadows in this image, but am concerned the door may be too centered. Yet other cropping causes the lines to run into the corners of the image, which I also find problematic. Do you think it is better to have the door so centered as I do here, or should I crop this image differently? I also question whether images like this one are strong enough to compete pictorially in exhibitions, or whether they are best saved for architecture themes. Are there any thoughts about that? Thanks


This round’s discussion is now closed!
10 comments posted

Stephen Levitas   Stephen Levitas
This architectural study looks great, and the verticals are good.
The door is in the shade, so it does not dominate. But better is the way its left frame aligns perfectly with the corner vertical of the balcony, making a continuous line, and diminishing the prominence of the door.
I don't do competitions, so I am not sure how this would do, but I suspect it is not quite dramatic enough. Perhaps stronger light and shade elements might do better. How about shooting something like this with diagonal shadows, like the shadows you have in the top half of this shot? A lot of the famous 20th century photographers who shot building facades made use of slanting sunlight, so there was a contrast between the rectilinear components of the building and the diagonal shadows.   Posted: 06/08/2020 13:46:20

Diana Magor   Diana Magor
I think Steve probably has the right idea with his suggestion to go for more dramatic lighting and strong shadows. I rather liked the top half of the shot and I might have concentrated even more on this section, which would have simplified the whole image. It would have taken it down to a more abstract shot which becomes more pictorial and less an architectural image. Having said that, it is probably better kept for an architecture competition. Could you try printing it with much greater contrast? You know I like very dark dramatic skies. i have had a go but the one I was working on wasn't really big enough to get good results -it started to pixelate. I liked the square format I made within which is the strong vertical shape. All I did was use curves, making the whites remain reasonably light but the darks go much darker. What do you think? I'm sorry Jennifer if this completely destroys your vision of the building!   Posted: 06/09/2020 11:34:11
Comment Image

Asbjørn M. Olsen   Asbjørn M. Olsen
I tend to agree that the top half is the interesting part of the image. The lines in the lower part, with the balcony (I think it is), confuse me, and perhaps make me loose interest in the full frame. Diana's suggested crop gives a much cleaner impression, and attracted me to look again.Could perhaps be interesting if you revisited this building, and found other angels. There are so many lines...   Posted: 06/13/2020 08:30:27
Diana Magor   Diana Magor
Yes it simplifies the image, but the angles remain important.   Posted: 06/13/2020 13:57:09

Tom McCreary   Tom McCreary
I like what Diana did with the image. The top part is the best area. I would keep it for an architectural image, not a general subject. That said however, Diana's image is much stronger and might have a chance of acceptance.   Posted: 06/13/2020 14:06:39

Stephen Levitas   Stephen Levitas
Since I visit all the DD groups each month, I sometimes like to point out subject matter coincidences to everyone. This month, four people have dealt with deeply cast shadows:
Group 11, Henry Heerschap.
Group 32, Jennifer Doerrie.
Group 51, Bob Barley.
Group 78, Jason Kravitz.   Posted: 06/19/2020 00:28:14

Stephen Levitas   Stephen Levitas
The more I look at this, the more I like Diana's suggested version.
This might be obvious to everyone, but I note that the building itself is entirely rectilinear, but the photograph is of entirely diagonal lines, including and especially the shadows.   Posted: 06/21/2020 12:07:57

Lynne Hollingsworth   Lynne Hollingsworth
I apologize for the late comments...
Like the prior comments, I think the top of the image is the most interesting, but I would probably leave a little more than on Diana's image - maybe crop about 1/3rd off the bottom. The increased contrast works very well however and helps the lines pop.   Posted: 06/27/2020 13:43:19
Jennifer Doerrie   Jennifer Doerrie
You're ahead of me this month. Is something like this what you had in mind, or did I still leave too much?   Posted: 06/29/2020 00:43:38
Comment Image

Jennifer Doerrie   Jennifer Doerrie
Thank you for all the feedback, and apologies for my absence for the discussion. I don't have enough experience with architectural photography to have a vision for this or most buildings. Diana's crop does seem to simply the image and make it more abstract. I agree increasing the contrast helps, too. Perhaps when I finish my office move I can revisit this image and incorporate some of your ideas.   Posted: 06/29/2020 00:48:45