Maybe a dumb architectural photography question...

PeterY

Senior Member
Messages
2,547
Solutions
1
Reaction score
972
Location
Toronto, CA
but why when there are people in an interior scene, they leave them blurry?? I realize that they are using a very slow shutter speed but then why have people in the shot at all?

I am not talking about a shot of Grand Central Station or any place crowded but these intimate scenes where you know that a person or people have been placed in there on purpose.

Is it to preserve their anonymity? So you don't have to pay them? Is that the conventional look? Is it to give a feeling of "motion" in a work place? Is it so that the person does not steal the scene from the interior?

Maybe my lack of understnading but I see it ALL the time and sort of makes me wonder why! In fact I don't think I have ever seen an architectural shot where the person was in focus.
 
So far I've never seen a 'real' architectural shot (in an architectural magazine) that had people in it. What type of publication was that?

Regards, Bill
 
Not in a magazine but on-line...
Surely you must have seen some interior shots with people.
So far I've never seen a 'real' architectural shot (in an architectural magazine) that had people in it. What type of publication was that?

Regards, Bill
 
All of the photo needs to be in focus for a good arch photo but you do not want the people to be THE focus, just in focus. The photo is about architecture, not people. That said the people help to create a desirable ambiance while remaining somewhat obscure. Look at the great shots listed by others and you will see I mean.
--
May the light be with you
Stop global whining
Stupid should hurt
 
Brilliant work in those superb photos on your site. Very well done!!!
--
May the light be with you
Stop global whining
Stupid should hurt
 
So far I've never seen a 'real' architectural shot (in an architectural magazine) that had people in it. What type of publication was that?

Regards, Bill
Much depends on the client as well. Some of mine expressly do not want people, others definitely do. Artistically, they add a great deal to an image but you need both and experience to get it right.

There is also the considerable problem of ensuring you have the necessary permissions. I do a fair bit of work for developers of schools. Most headmasters are adamant that not even blurred images of the children are acceptable. And the same will often go for the public bodies like hospitals.

--
----------------------------------------------
Michael Gove
http://photosignals.smugmug.com
 
People give buildings and spaces context and scale, even when they're 'blurry'.

Architects like to see the spaces they have designed in use, not always, but more often than not a good architectural shot will look more dynamic with people moving through the scene.

Apart from the artistic side of having motion blurred people in a scene it also has the advantage of being able to capture anyone without worrying whether they have model good looks or acting ability. Lighting on the people also becomes less critical.

I shot a shopping centre recently, I wanted to convey the idea of a busy thriving centre, motion blurred people gave me this look. It also meant that I was able to pick up more of the architecture without people 'blocking' the shot.

Cheers
Chris

P.S I'm an architect and photographer, so see this from both sides.
--
http://www.chp-architecturalphotography.com
 
Hi Chris,

Agreed :) It is always fascinating getting briefs from architects - and then negotiating with the building owners after! I love to see a building in use and can never see how blurred images of people could be banned - but they are with increasing regularity. Very odd.

--
----------------------------------------------
Michael Gove
http://photosignals.smugmug.com
 
In fact I don't think I have ever seen an architectural shot where the person was in focus.
Enjoy...
http://www.ampimage.com
Hmmm.... Lighting is very good, but many of those shots are cluttered and overdressed.

Example... This room is too hard on the shins!! ;-) ..............
[Sorry and all that, but you can't please everybody. :-| ]

http://www.ampimage.com/Photography6.htm
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"
 
In fact I don't think I have ever seen an architectural shot where the person was in focus.
Enjoy...
http://www.ampimage.com
Hmmm.... Lighting is very good, but many of those shots are cluttered and overdressed.
Barrie:
There are more than 100 different ways to shoot any subject .

So your opinion has been noted - but please, lets try to stick to the topic on-hand.

Lighting & styling are two very different topics... as is the message that one is trying to convey and the target market that one is aiming at.

Naturally all off these things need to be taken into account, especially when one is producing images for others to use ... but please, one thing at a time.

PeterY:

Placing people in an image, will often change the look and feel of the image - it will also usually change the 'focal point' and what the image has to say to others too.

The people themselves - their clothes, their stance, their body language, etc - will all greatly effect the image too... and the message that it portrays.



So it's easier, faster and less complicated, to either leave them out or just let them be a blur. Plus, it can start to get costly too - especially if models or actors are involved. So a good budget usually needs to be in place as well, to cover all of this.



It can also be trickier than it looks at times, as you will have to think more carefully about the lighting.

But as others have said, Photographers have actually been doing it for years - so it's not new by any means...



..but probably more associated with 'advertising', than 'architectural' photography.

--
Cheers,
Ashley.
http://www.ampimage.com
http://www.ashleymorrison.com
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top