View Full Version : Black and white photography
I'm currently in 2nd Year Architecture at The University of Witswatersrand in South Africa. As part as our photography elective, I took this shot on our campus. To see more go to http://fayj.blogspot.com and click on Just My photo's.
to my eyes looks pretty good picture
the exposure looks pretty good....looks kind of dark but i would leave it like that
Welcome Feige.
I see Wits University is getting nicely represented on PPB! Along with South Africa!
Keep contributing. We need more input from SA!
Michael
ajwtaylor
05-06-2006, 21:24
Nice avatar feigetl ;)
feigetl,
please don't link your images from other sites. Upload it using the manage attachment feature:
Hi sorry, I'm new to this and wasn't aware of that-will change that!
No problem!
Welcome to [PPB]². I hope you enjoy your visit here and be part of our community!:cheers:
Thanks! Good to be here.
Welcome Feige.
I see Wits University is getting nicely represented on PPB! Along with South Africa!
Keep contributing. We need more input from SA!
Michael
And thanks Mikey, joined your thread about South Africa- very cool.
to my eyes looks pretty good picture
the exposure looks pretty good....looks kind of dark but i would leave it like that
When I was printing this picture my lecturer suggested I do a reprint because she thought it was too dark, but I decided I liked it better that way. Thanks.
Nice avatar feigetl ;)
And thanks ;)
jparchitectus
05-06-2006, 23:28
Nice shot - To me it is more of a generic architecture photo. It doesn't tell me any more about the building then it shows. I tend to go more abstract and more dramtic with my shots - Doesn't mean you have to.
Any more information on the building?
JP- the building is called the Oppenheimer Life Sciences building at the Wits campus, it was built in the 1970s. I have forgotten the name of the architects, but I'll dig it up this week. The 2 ramps link it to the old Biology building. There is some very good off-shutter work inside the building, as well as a fairly dramatic library.
Do you have any other pics of it Feige?
I have two that show the facade of the OLS, not the greatest pictures, they were in my reject pile-but will post the one anyway.
Nice shot - To me it is more of a generic architecture photo. It doesn't tell me any more about the building then it shows. I tend to go more abstract and more dramtic with my shots - Doesn't mean you have to.
I agree with you, it is more of a generic shot, but it's a pretty postcard type of a generic shot.
One of my photo's that I particularly liked was this shot of the collumns of the William Cullen Library-Also on the Wits campus. It isn't dramatic but I like how its raw and shows a degree of honesty to the materials and construction.
shmoolikipod
06-06-2006, 14:40
One of my photo's that I particularly liked was this shot of the collumns of the William Cullen Library-Also on the Wits campus. It isn't dramatic but I like how its raw and shows a degree of honesty to the materials and construction.
I like that one best !
welcome, female participants are scarce and most welcomed :)
goldthang
06-06-2006, 15:03
B"H
Fayj, if I could be critical.. I feel that the photo above is too central. I sence that it would be far more dramatic and more effective if it was cropped off to the left; something like this perhaps…
welcome, female participants are scarce and most welcomed :)
Hehe :) Feel all special now
You may be critical :) However, I disagree. Although the front collumn is central I think the collumn behind it, being to the right balances out the photo nicely. I prefer it my way, But I guess different strokes for different blokes is apparent here.
goldthang
06-06-2006, 15:21
B”H
Hmmm… that’s interesting.. :) What about the shadows to the left of the central column? How is that balanced in your preferred way? :confused:
B"H
Fayj, if I could be critical.. I feel that the photo above is too central. I sence that it would be far more dramatic and more effective if it was cropped off to the left; something like this perhaps…
the 'rule of 1/3'
Because :) a shadow isn't a concrete thing (mind the pun), and thus the focus (or my focus) is shifted to the right of the photo, hence, I don't see it as central.
RebelBMH
06-06-2006, 16:38
haha the 1/3 rule... it would be nice to see a bit more of the darker veg. on the right to help balance contrast as well as the centering issue or maybe some quick photoshop editing. Overall though, looks pretty good. The cracked base is my favorite part!
I'll be a junior at Ball State University in Indiana, our photography department sucks :(.
Hmm, interesting suggestions, maybe I'll try some photoshopping. Love the cracked as well.
jparchitectus
06-06-2006, 17:43
Very nice commentary, and thanks to feigetl for taking it so well!
goldthang
06-06-2006, 18:14
B"H
Our class wouldn't be the same if we didn't give feige a hard time :cheers:
That crack is a wonderful metaphor for the state of the university.. Especially the archi department.. Personally that would be a focus for me, and not make it a "generic pretty postcard picture."
In terms of shadows not being “concrete”, I feel that an architect that neglects the quality of light and shadow within the space wastes an amazing opportunity to celebrate or overwhelm an element of design. I therefore feel that if it would be placed in the photograph it must show what it is celebrating or hiding and not just fizzle out leaving questions.
If you mean, if I didn't constantly get 500 calls, all asking me the same questions- After I've stood up and anounced what everyone's calling me about, then yes..
Yes perfect metaphor.
I agree with you, and I don't think shadows (or these particular ones) fizzle out or leave questions. I think they offer a lighter balance, to the heaviness of the object they are shadowing.
Ps. Looking at your cropping of my picture, I do agree that yours is more dramatic, but not the look I was going for.
DarynHosi
07-06-2006, 03:45
Hey guys,
What year are you in at Wits?
I'd explore a little of the reason the task has been set - is it about photography, or about photographing a building (or architecture). If the former the meaning of the shadows, vegetation etc change and they become elements on a canvas as opposed to the object being photographed. And if this is the case then the photo itself is the "work" and the elements coupld equally be a bowl of fruit.....
If, on the other hand it's about photographing a building/piece of arch, then the outcome may well change/have a diff emphasis.
1/3 rule rules
there's also the golden section - and I saw somwehere a web site that could golden seection templates for use in photography.
The first image - has a nice 1970s feel - if the 70s were nice!
I'd explore a little of the reason the task has been set - is it about photography, or about photographing a building (or architecture). If the former the meaning of the shadows, vegetation etc change and they become elements on a canvas as opposed to the object being photographed. And if this is the case then the photo itself is the "work" and the elements coupld equally be a bowl of fruit.....
If, on the other hand it's about photographing a building/piece of arch, then the outcome may well change/have a diff emphasis.
1/3 rule rules
there's also the golden section - and I saw somwehere a web site that could golden seection templates for use in photography.
The first image - has a nice 1970s feel - if the 70s were nice!
sorry tdmc,
It's an automated spam blocker plugin we are trying to implement. I don't know why yours got blocked automatically. It was by no means the quality of your contribution to the thread.
[EDIT]: You probably don't know what on earth I am talking about! You were temporarily placed in a global ignore list automatically for some reason I am trying to figure out. All fixed now and your post is now showing again.
goldthang
07-06-2006, 07:49
B"H
Hey guys,
What year are you in at Wits?
Second year..
I'd explore a little of the reason the task has been set - is it about photography, or about photographing a building (or architecture). If the former the meaning of the shadows, vegetation etc change and they become elements on a canvas as opposed to the object being photographed. And if this is the case then the photo itself is the "work" and the elements coupld equally be a bowl of fruit.....
If, on the other hand it's about photographing a building/piece of arch, then the outcome may well change/have a diff emphasis.
1/3 rule rules
there's also the golden section - and I saw somwehere a web site that could golden seection templates for use in photography.
The first image - has a nice 1970s feel - if the 70s were nice!
Wits is a university that places a lot of emphasis on theory and understanding.. as one would imagine.. The Photography course outline is to capture the image of the set out subject and allow interpretation on a deeper level... We were advised against taking "pretty postcard" photography (sorry Fayj :P ) and look for the deeper meaning of the photograph. This particular photo, I would imagine comes from the Architectural Photography component of the course... It’s of the most recognised Wits building - The Great Hall. To photograph the Great Hall to comment on the university allow great possibility. If I may be as bold as to say that taking a "postcard" shot of such a majestic building is a waste of an opportunity and film.
1/3 Rule is vital to composition and using "I like" as a reason is just as valid or invalid as saying "I don’t like". It leaves an uncomfortable undetermined answer.. Taking theory that is accepted as admirable theory allows for greater understanding and a more stable foundation to argue a photo into an elevated class.
By the way TDMC do you know where that golden rule sit is? Its sound interesting..
(Please excuse the quality of this photo, it is the only one of the Great Hall that I have.)
BruceWalker
07-06-2006, 11:19
Your columns are crooked.
And if these are the columns posted earlier (their bases), then they're not quite right. They're missing an astragal under the upper torus. They're also missing their bases. Well, this is according to Robert Chitham (see image). Vignola uses a double astragal between two cavettos - but the most commonly used for the corinthian column is the composite base - which only has a single astragal between cavettos. Do I see these here? No.
PS - I'm just playing :D
The collumns in my picture weren't from Great hall, as I posted earlier they're from the William Cullen Library. Similar from far, but far from the same.
It also did not come from the Architectural photography component. It came from our first assignment, that required us to go around and frame shots. Somewhat of a compositional excersize.
1/3 Rule is vital to composition and using "I like" as a reason is just as valid or invalid as saying "I don’t like". It leaves an uncomfortable undetermined answer.. Taking theory that is accepted as admirable theory allows for greater understanding and a more stable foundation to argue a photo into an elevated class.
As valid or as invalid as "I like" is, it's the reason most of us do anything.
goldthang
07-06-2006, 14:36
The collumns in my picture weren't from Great hall, as I posted earlier they're from the William Cullen Library. Similar from far, but far from the same.
Really.. never knew that.. :P
It also did not come from the Architectural photography component. It came from our first assignment, that required us to go around and frame shots. Somewhat of a compositional excersize.
ah... in that case great shot.. First time stuff is allowed to slide when theory and application of theory is concerned
As valid or as invalid as "I like" is, it's the reason most of us do anything.
It also happens to be the reason why South Africa's landscape is being littered by disgustingly ugly buildings that show no concern for context, society, social appreciation and climate.
http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3311
It also is the same reason why most of our class lands up failing or just scrapping through with a pass... I've always understood that architects are not the type of designers that use such language to design buildings. They seem to be the type that have a logical, researched approach that is usually as beautiful as the building itself.
But like u said, "Different strokes for different blokes"
Got any other photos? :cheers:
You're actually completely right.
Yes. I'll post of The great hall. This is a view from the top of the great hall steps...
Not the greatest printing job, but I put my reprint in my portfolio and didn't scan it in.
This one is a photo of the actual photo so the quality isn't great.
Inside Great Hall... The focus wasn't sharp, but I loved the composition, so I went and re-took it, and again the better one is in my portfolio.
what camera and what film are you using for these?
Not 100% sure on the film, bc my lecturer buys in bulk and then loads them in pre-used (canisters?), but it has an ASA of 400. Ryan prob knows...
The camera is a Canon A-1.
goldthang
07-06-2006, 15:40
B"H
Im open to correction, but I think that its Ilford..
Arkitrion
07-06-2006, 16:32
...an A-1 you said?...do you mean a 1978 A-1?...I've got one in perfect conditions,you're nice pics will make me take off some dust from that piece of history and use it again....It also could be "vintage" right?;)
I especially like this one of you:
Arkitrion
07-06-2006, 16:38
sorry..was too big.
I mean this...
Thank you.
Yes, it was my dad's first camera. He saw an article in a magazine about it when it first came out, new he wanted it and saved up for months for it. When I decided to take photography he wanted me to use it.
goldthang, the site is
http://goldennumber.net/
I see there is a trial download of the software - to overlay photos etc.
Cheers
BruceWalker
08-06-2006, 03:26
That main hall is interesting. I'm guessing that the inside was renovated circa 70's?
RE: The 'like it' / 'don't like it' reasoning...it's how I achieve my best designs - but for some reason tutors and critics don't accept 'I like it'. They want a stronger reason.
What I have found is that if your 'I like it' coincides with good quality (once again - how do we judge that?) then you don't have to justify your reasons.
m2c
the "I like it"/"I don't like it" comes down to the trained eye... yes its a subjective thing but most people who are trained in design have an eye for whats proportional correct or balanced... You just know... but when your a student and still learning... then yes its even more subjective :) But I think if your work shows a certain level of understanding (through drawings, design, craftsmanship, etc.) then profs I think will tend to let that one slide at times because they know you "get it"...
and you guys have brought up some interesting things regarding subjects in your photographs... you also throw in another layer on that when you take out the color of an image and go Black & White... it then becomes about subject, light & dark, and/or contrast of the lights & darks...
feigetl, I guess you have only B&W images of these you have posted? (considering the camera you are using is much older than the digital world we mostly live in now) I would be interested to see how differently we could view these pictures if they had color...
and you guys have brought up some interesting things regarding subjects in your photographs... you also throw in another layer on that when you take out the color of an image and go Black & White... it then becomes about subject, light & dark, and/or contrast of the lights & darks...
Photo-graphy literally means "painting/drawing with light"
Photo-graphy literally means "painting/drawing with light"
Thanks Kevin... I was getting worried... I hadn't learned anything new today and I was approaching the last hour of the day :)
That main hall is interesting. I'm guessing that the inside was renovated circa 70's?
I'm not sure.
feigetl, I guess you have only B&W images of these you have posted? (considering the camera you are using is much older than the digital world we mostly live in now) I would be interested to see how differently we could view these pictures if they had color...
I only have black and whites of those images, but when I get my dig camera back, when my sis comes down here from NY for her summer, I'll take some colour images and post them.
I think the whole "I like/ don't like" debate is quite interesting, because I really believe that whether your eye is trained or not, you land up designing based on "I like", whether you have a better reason or not. Definitely when you have tutor looking over a design, you need a better reason than that, and that is why some people pass, just by sliding by. But once you've designed something according to "I like" there's always post rationalisation.
goldthang
08-06-2006, 13:46
B"H
goldthang, the site is
http://goldennumber.net/
I see there is a trial download of the software - to overlay photos etc.
Cheers
Thanks man...
That main hall is interesting. I'm guessing that the inside was renovated circa 70's?
RE: The 'like it' / 'don't like it' reasoning...it's how I achieve my best designs - but for some reason tutors and critics don't accept 'I like it'. They want a stronger reason.
What I have found is that if your 'I like it' coincides with good quality (once again - how do we judge that?) then you don't have to justify your reasons.
m2c
I know that it is a really valid reason on occasions, after all we are creature of habit (or at least I am), but for me, there is nothing as amazing as a well thought out building according to theory and one that lack of the architect's fad of the month.. I really enjoy the discussion of how people design, and the truth is that there are as many answers as there are buildings, but there is something special about a building that transcends likes and dislikes....
goldthang
08-06-2006, 13:47
B"H
But once you've designed something according to "I like" there's always post rationalisation.
Why not design with pre rationalisation?
That is the best way to do it, but sometimes, you sit down and start drawing and get taken away on a whirlwind of inspiration before you have time to contemplate rationale. And during those times, if you sit down there is always something you can rationalise with.
goldthang
08-06-2006, 14:51
B"H
Only if u sit down? :wondering
Yes, preferably on the floor :)
Frenchy Pilou
08-06-2006, 23:12
...one?
Yup, that's the one :) Admittedly, at first I didn't want to use it and wanted to use my dad's Canon EOS A2E. But he insisted that I learn photography on a manual camera and understand the settings. I can't say that I do, but I've really come to love that camera!
goldthang
09-06-2006, 08:36
B"H
Learning on old school equipment is always the way to go!!
I have a Pentax SP 500
Try getting good shots with a max shutter speed of 500.... :cheers:
My 35mm camera of choice right now is the Olympus Trip 35 (http://www.olympus-trip.co.uk/).
Really basic rangefinder camera, no manual shutter speed adjustment (unless you're feeling brave (http://alspix.blog.co.uk/index.php/alspix/2006/02/12/))- and a max speed ofr 1/200 but areally funky solar-powered light-meter (that's it around the lens). Just replaced the one I've been using since I was a kid- that my mom got when SHE was 12. Great camera, I don't think it knows how to take bad photos. Also, $20 on eBay is nothing to complain about.
haha, don't get me started on my Lo-Fi toy camera collection!
Do you have one of those cardboard pinhole cameras swank-e?
gosu_john
10-06-2006, 22:48
Actually on the note of specialised cameras, anyone here in the know-how of Large Format Photography?
Am looking into getting more serious shots at architecture photography, and the PC Shift Lens from Nikon at 28mm is too tight for a digital body.
Anyone has any experiences with this 28mm PC Shift Lens or Large Format Cameras? =)
Im open to correction, but I think that its Ilford..
Yup, asked Sally today, It's Kodak
Yup, asked Sally today, It's Kodak
must be Kodak T100 film
must be Kodak T100 film
Hmm, now that you say that, I recall her asking me if she should write down the type, I said no I'll remember. So much for that. Think she said Tri-X.
sorry, i meant Tmax
Tri-X is a professional film, must be expensive
She (lecturer) buys it in bulk and loaded it for us. Think we paid something like R160 for 6/7 rolls and chemicals. Ryan is open to correct me, because my memory at the moment doesn't seem to be too efficient (I trash canned everything to make space for exams)
goldthang
12-06-2006, 18:19
B"H
Ryan is open to correct me, because my memory at the moment doesn't seem to be too efficient
Its True!! Her memory really does lacks efficiency!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
:cheers:
You're saying that like you know :)
goldthang
12-06-2006, 23:28
B"H
I Do! :D
jparchitectus
12-06-2006, 23:45
Did anyone else hear kodak is no longer making new cameras that take shots with regular film...I should just say they are going all digital.
Did anyone else hear kodak is no longer making new cameras that take shots with regular film...I should just say they are going all digital.
not making 35mm film yes, neither is agfa i heard
professional film (medium and large format) are still available
I was speaking to they guy at our local pro lab (round the corner from my house- really handy) and he was saying that agfa's film and paper division no longer exists- they only manufacture specialist sheet film like x-ray film. So it's just Ilford still doing 35mm B+W. He reckons that 35mm as a whole won't last too much longer but I'm not so sure. 35mm is such a straightforward, simple technology when compared to digital, also MUCH cheaper. I think it will be around for a while. And I can still get film for m 1953 Kodak Brownie (granted it's a case of buying 120 roll film and re-packaging it onto a 620 spindle in a darkroom,but it's off the shelf film 50 years down the line)
yes, i still love my 120 medium format film and my toy cameras (http://www.toycamera.com/)
(shot with Holga 120F plastic camera)
goldthang
13-06-2006, 07:35
B"H
Thats very cool man!! Do you have any other stuff?
Went to my cousins for tea yesterday, and my great uncle showed me his museum piece cameras. He has this ancient Rollei which was so cool to look at, came with an exposure meter, he wanted to give it to me but he said he doesn't think you can get film for it anymore so not sure what I'd do with it.
It looks like this one:
If it's 120 film you can still get it.
Mind my photography ignorance, what's 120 film? and he said something like its 4x4 film...
120 film is used for 6x6 format and 6x4.5 medium format cameras
i have 2 twin lens reflect cameras myself
35 mm non-digital will never die -
any film output can be digitized to CD here
very cheaply, then it's in your computer.
Tri-X film is cheap in California;
all the high school photography students
use it for darkroom work
B&W is still preferred for serious photo work
including architectural which needs wide angle
and an understanding of depth of field
I think its because black and white film photography has a certian quality that nothing else can match (in my opinion)
I got hold of a roll of Kodak HIE B+W Infrared (http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/infrared/hie/hie.html) the other weekend.
These are just scans from the index sheet, I haven't done any prints yet. On the right is the image exposed with natural light, on the left is the same scene with a filter on it to take out blue and green light. What you are seeing is red and infrared light. The white is from the strong reflection of leaves in infrared.
Lots of fun, but a little pricey (R113 a roll for the south africans). I am considering getting an old digital camera and modding it to photograph Infrared (like this (http://www.hackaday.com/entry/1234000400053987/) or this (http://www.hackaday.com/entry/1234000110036028/))
Camera:Olympus Trip 35
Filter: exposed colour neg. film
Film: Kodak HIE infrared film
looks awesome - but a bit pricy for my liking - il stick to my trusty ol photoshop :)
A_Minima
15-09-2006, 09:39
I didn't found any references dealing with Bernd and Hilla Becher in the forum and I think this topic (B & W architectural photography) is the best place to mention them.
Hilla and Bernd Becher have embraced and expanded on a German tradition of classification articulated by the philosopher Hegel as "types," or individuals representing not only themselves but a class or category. The Bechers translated this concept into photographic "typologies," in which a generic group of like structures helps us to understand the essence or "idea" of those structures.
The husband-and-wife team photographs the same types of objects over and over, under the same light conditions and from the same point of view. They eliminate extraneous information, such as weather, time of day, human presence, and so forth. Groups of two or more images - in this case the full number is nine - are arranged in a geometric grid that suggests a systematic examination of an architectural form, such as a water tower.
A_Minima
15-09-2006, 09:41
Pic 2
A_Minima
15-09-2006, 09:41
Pic 3
A_Minima
15-09-2006, 09:42
Pic 4
A_Minima
15-09-2006, 09:43
Pic 5
Pedro Barradas
12-07-2007, 20:12
Couldn't contain myself... :D look at this pic... :poke fun:
:craqueur:
joHanneum Z
13-07-2007, 19:09
damn.how did she get to this photo?
and whose hand is on my shoulder?:wondering;)
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.