You took my statement to be more general than I meant it. I don't disagree that one can make such images a statement that goes beyond the original intent of the designer. But to do so a CREATIVE selection must have been made by the photographer of lighting, selection of focal length, aperature, field of view, or any other myriad of factors. Even the choice to photograph a subject that isn't typically considered, such as a toilet, can elevate an image to art. Architecture photography is a tough topic in my mind. Once one obtains the technical mastery, it is seductively easy to obtain interesting images simply by virtue of realizing an instant of the architect's intent. The more impressive the building the more we must wonder if our infatuation with it is precisely because it manifests the architect's intent. When we succeed to add value, we have outreached a postcard.
Consider this present image without the twirl. Ok, I selected to include a corner of the roof-don't know why but that's my photographic inclination. I chose a particular focal plane (depth of focus too). I initially had people in the image and combined two images to remove them. Really, nothing particularly creative IMO. The image goes beyond that only by the virtue of the twirl. Before that addition I more or less imaged the intent of the designer. No matter how technically compentent one is, it ain't art till you add your spin on the subject whether it is man made or not.
I'll have to disagree with you on "because as a photographer one has done little to add beyond the original designer"-part. I feel you are over-generalizing. As I am an architect, I photograph architecture - sometimes other peoples' work and sometimes works from the firm that I work for - even projects in which I have been involved in design process myself. Believe me, _how_ you photograph it, makes all the difference! Just like any other photo, be it of a man made object or a work of Nature, what the photographer chooses to include or exclude, his or her choice of lens, perspective, lighting and timing are all crucial to the success or failure of the photograph. By making all those choices, more or less consciously, the photographer does add to (or subtract from) the intentions of the original designer. Please have a look at some of bee1000's photos in these challenges to see examples where the photographer's intent is what shines through more than that of the original designer. Heck, I'll even be bold enough to point you to one of my own shots, an angle and therefore intent, which I am sure the designers never thought of themselves:http://www.pbase.com/cslr_challenge/image/23316058 --Olaf
Twirl filter, actually. One of the few times that doing it on the whole image, rather than multiple ROI worked well. Its an ok graphic image without it. I guess I don't get excited about such straight images because as a photographer one has done little to add beyond the original designer. After all, the choice of tiles and its design, patio furniture, and in this case even the roof color was made precisely for its graphic appeal from a top-down as well as lateral view. So, show me a straight picture of this type that is done in a competent manner, and if I like it at best I might ask you for the designer's name. I guess the issue with this geometric manipulations is does it make a unique statement beyond that of the designer or is it simply gimmicky. -Yoni
