Michael Wolf offers a new perspective on Hong Kong's high-rises

indeed he fails to get the point.......mr Wolf thought of it and did it. It's ludicrous to say after the fact "i could have done that if i'd thought of it, if i'd made the effort to actually go there and do it". I also think these picture exhibit a high level of skill and it ain't as easy as people think it is to make them...........JMHO of course.

Yeah...i agree.

Just a long lens in the building opposite. Perspective distortion (if any) fixed in Photoshop.

IMO I don't think a tilt and shift would have a long enough focal range..

#3 is perspective corrected (either that or he shot really wide and cropped the bottom). He shot from a level equal to that near the bottom of the photo.

Look who's talking.

Life is as how you see it. There are plenty of green spaces in Tokyo, and Hong Kong for that matter.

You get a little wider on these and you would be able to a lot more than just buidlings...

Yes, Hong Kong is far better at preserving their space than is Tokyo. Seen from above, Hong Kong is city with some green and then green around it. Seen from above, Tokyo is all grey with a few fingers of green.

It is awful. Of course, it is a matter of perspective. I came from Canada, a country that still keeps vast tracts of almost untouched land even in the middle of its cities, and before that came from Sweden where tall buildings and urban sprawl are frowned upon.

But when I travelled to Hong Kong, I was very impressed. It is far too crowded where there are people but at least those people take care to keep nature in the city.

I would rather have tightly packed, efficient living space so as to leave more empty lands as wilderness, than boring suburban sprawl where everyone has to have a front lawn, a back yard, a 3-car garage, and a 3-car driveway.
Given the same number of people and same area of land, what would you do with your land?

Well, Alatchin, I don't think concepts have to be original. In fact, when someone desperately tries to be original rather than doing what they like, that can show and often be worse. But the heading did say "new perspective" implying some sort of originality, and hence my comment.

Nigle: No, only with static subjects with flat lighting and no compositional challenge at all except to have the camera straight and level. No moment to capture, no action or timing, no dramatic light or point of interest. Just a flat wall and hours and hours to align the camera in parallel to it.

I agree 100% there.

Peter - please tell me how you align the camera.

Yawn

Your comment proves this kind of a sight does not invoke any reaction in you....while for the photographer and many of us, it does. That makes the photographer and us 'human', and you a robo.
Be happy with your tricks and techniques.

Ronald Karlsson: Certainly. You need a tripod, preferably one without a center column. If you are not using a camera with a movable front an back such as a 4x5, you could use a leveling base, like the Manfrotto 338 QTVR Leveling Base. The use of a spirit level will have your camera vertical and parallel in minuets. If however you are using a technical camera like a 4x5, you can do without the leveling base and simply straighten the from and back of the camera to be level and parallel with each other and the building/wall in front of you. On a technical camera with a grid viewing screen you can check visually if the lines are all straight and make the necessary adjustments to get them straight if the don't appear to be so. If you have neither a leveling base nor a technical camera or even a tripod, then you can simply take the best picture you can aligning the lines with your eye and then straighten it using software in post processing. Its not no skill to do this, but it is elementary.

nikonuser72: Soap operas evoke much emotion in manny, but fine works of cinema they are not. My point about these pictures is that they are entirely technical exercises and not art. Reading the comments posted here from those that live in Hong Kong it is also clear that wolf saw such pictures everywhere in Hong Kong and without being able to think of something creative he copied the millions of pictures the locals had already taken. If you are moved by these pictures as art how does that make me a 'robo'? Who does move me? Try Michael Kenna for one.

Peterfree: I have used the word reaction, not emotion. I think there's some difference.
I'd be happy to see photographs of this standard from locals, unfortunately i don't find any on the net.Please provide some examples.
Seen Michael Kenna's photographs. Perfect examples of soap opera. I now understand why Michael Wolf is not your cup of tea.

Peterfree: As i mentioned I have similar pictures. I didn't see any local images for sale (not saying they are not any, just I didn't see them).
Knowing we were going up high that day (as a tourist) I chose to take my 300mm and 1.4 teleconverter with me. I saw the buildings, saw 'Repeating pattern's' And fired away.. So Im saying you can't assume that mr woolf was 'inspired' by gift shop images.

nikonuser72: So photographing a flat wall is 'fine art' but Michael Kenna's work is 'a soap opera'?

What words could possibly be said in reply to this....