Analysis of Architecture in Photography

1060 Words3 Pages

Analysis of Architecture in Photography

I have decided to look at architecture for my next genre in

photography. I have chosen architecture as it is very different to

fashion photography and looks at totally different materials and

includes different characteristics. In the early years of photography,

few if any photographers were specialists in any area other than

commercial portraiture, which was the main area in which a living

could be made from the new medium. Early photographers did fairly

often photograph buildings, often working from the window of a

convenient room rather than at street level.

Many of the images from this era can truly be described as monumental,

giving the subjects (including some very fine ancient monuments) a

great impression of importance and grandeur. Using large glass plates

and making contact prints gave detail and tonality that, although not

strictly natural because of the lack of green and red sensitivity of

the medium, are of unsurpassed delicacy. Architecture demanded lenses

that gave sharpness and linear drawing across the frame, quite

different to the needs of portraiture, where softer edges were

acceptable if not desirable, and curvature seldom noticeable and

high-speed imperative. Buildings would sit still for as long as the

photographer needed.

For this project, I have chosen to compare and contrast two individual

photographs from two different photographers. The photographers I have

chosen are Tessa Musgrave and Adiseshan Shankar.

Photograph one by Adiseshan Shankar interested me because it is a very

attractive photograph. The photograph doesn’t really have a large

tonal range, as...

... middle of paper ...

...at it is a very solitary photograph.

Photograph 1 creates a serene mood and is very easy on the eye, photo

2 has a mixed sense to it, even though it also has calm nature to it,

the photo has a mysterious feel to it, you’re not quite sure if the

blankness of the photograph is supposed to be negative or positive.

On the whole, I like both of the photographs. There are obvious

features about both of them that stand out and there are a few minor

improvements that could be made to them. Photograph 1 has a really

nice feel to it; however photograph 2 has an edgier side to it. They

both differentiate to it each other but are both equally as dynamic to

look at. Both the photos are 2 totally altered types of architecture,

yet they both work really well in their individual ways, both having

their own highlights and weaknesses.

More about Analysis of Architecture in Photography

Open Document