Parliament & Statue of Oliver Cromwell

© John H. Siskin

Parliament & Statue of Oliver Cromwell

Uploaded: January 09, 2009

Description

I shot this at night because I hadn't adjusted to the time difference. I probably used my 135 f4.7 Xenar. Long exposure.

Comments

Joan E. Hoffman January 10, 2009

Stunning presentation of this amazingly detailed architecture! The lighting is wonderful! Amazing! #1065108

John H. Siskin January 10, 2009

Hi Joan,
Thanks! London is a beautiful place to shoot even in the middle of the night. One of the amazing things is that the buildings were created over centuries. In Los Angeles many of our buildings are created over weeks. There are still buildings out here that have fronts, but no backs.

I really like architectural subjects. While you are recording the art of the architects and builders you are also looking for the right interplay of light shadow and structure. As a result this kind of work is a voyage of discovery.
Thanks, John
#7010958

Lonnie M. Scott January 10, 2009

Hi John...I echo what Joan said. You picked a perfect exposure for this shot. We all know night photography can be tricky and then to choose B&W as a final image.....All I can say is BRAVO!!!!!! #7013267

John H. Siskin January 11, 2009

Hi Lonnie,
When I made this particular trip to London, just a couple of years ago, the only camera I took was a 4X5 Speed Graphic film camera. I left the digital at home. I only brought black and white film with me. So I didn’t really choose to show the image in black and white, I choose to see in black and white.

One of the problems with looking at photographs on the web is that they are all about the same size and shown in the same color space, both are a function of your monitor. Many of my students think that they know the images of Adams, Weston and many others, but they have never seen a single original print. There is a huge difference between the 16X20 inch print I made from this negative and the image on my monitor. As you look at antique images the difference between the original image and the digital reproduction is like day and night. I have never seen a daguerreotype on my monitor that looked anything like a daguerreotype.

Seeing original prints is really important if you are trying to do fine art photography. People do not buy fine art digital files; they buy prints. If you don’t look at the prints of the masters how can you judge your progress?

I have printed this image into ways, as a 16X20 silver print and as contact print in cyanotype. Both prints are satisfying in different ways.
Thanks! John Siskin
#7015417


To discuss, first log in or sign up (buttons are at top center of page).

Get Constructive Critiques

Sign up for an interactive online photography course to get critiques on your photos.


 

Did You Know?

Discussions by Category: You can view photo discussions on various themes in the Community > Photo Discussions section of the site.

BetterPhoto Websites: If you see an orange website link directly under the photographer's name, it's totally okay. It's not spam. The reason: BetterPhoto is the one that offers these personal photography websites. We are supporting our clients with those links.

Unavailable EXIF: If there is no other information but 'Unavailable' in the EXIF (meaning no EXIF data exists with the photo), the 'Unavailable' blurb is not displayed. If there is any info, it shows. Many photos have the EXIF stripped out when people modify the image and resave it, before uploading.


 

The following truth is one of the core philosophies of BetterPhoto:

I hear, I forget.
I see, I remember.
I do, I understand.

You learn by doing. Take your next online photography class.


Copyright for this photo belongs solely to John H. Siskin.
Images may not be copied, downloaded, or used in any way without the expressed, written permission of the photographer.
Log in to follow or message this photographer or report this photo.