Lovett Hall Photo | TrekEarth

Photographer’s Note

Lovett hall is the oldest building on the campus of Rice university. It was constructed in 1911 and now it houses part of the administration body of the university.
This building, like most other on campus, were based on a neo-Byzantine style developed by Ralph Adams Cram. Its specific characteristics include semicircular archways and a special rose-hued brick.
This building, in many people's opinion, is the most magnificent and truly a great architectural work. Visitors who arrive on campus for the first time can truly appreciate its uniqueness and beauty.
for a picture showing its construction in 1911, click here

Opinion Poll: Dear friends, could you please answer this question, if you decide to write critiques: Per Peter's workshop on this photo, regarding cloning out the white building behind Lovett, what is your opinion? As I mention in response to Peter, I thought twice about doing that before posting the picture, since first, under T.E. guidlines, it doesn't appear to be ok, and second, I think of it a bit as a distortion of reality, because, if someone were to stand in that position that I was and look at the building, they would certainly see the ugly white building behind Lovett. So, I don't know. Please comment on it, if you could. Thanks . Behrang

weswang, singuanti, Fixfocus, jjbach has marked this note useful

Critiques | Translate

Schultzy (5428) 2005-04-22 11:16

Very impressive and massive architecture. Nice composition Behrang. I like this "wild" sky. I've try to erase the building on the left side. Hope you'll like the WS.

[workshop] [compare] +

Vicky (1438) 2005-04-22 12:44

Hmmm. Reality or aesthetics? Good question. That's a tricky one. I guess the first course of action would be to chose another viewpoint to obliterate the offending article as much as possible, then clone out what little remains, if any? Or maybe a slightly different angle, putting the "ugly white building" behind the middle taller part of Lovett Hall, might have removed it from sight altogether, assuming that was possible. It's presence does spoil slightly the look of the photo, so I think I would have tried to apply the above procedures if I could. For the record, I do like this pic. Great sky, but the foreground is a little dark. Good though. Thanx Behrang

danyy (68040) 2005-04-22 13:54

Bonsoir Behrang,
Techniquement, la photo est superbe, le contraste entre ce ciel sombre et chargé et ce batiment ensoleillé.
Mais ces buidings à l'arrière plan sont hideux et troublent le calme qui semble émaner de l'endroit.

lukie (0) 2005-04-22 16:02

Nice contrast between building and sky, Behrang. I, personnaly, I would never clone something away on a picture, I just only sometimes crop my pictures. For me it's important to see the situation, the object in his real environment.

greetings,

Luc.

Tue (25608) 2005-04-22 18:46

I like this building! The light shines very nice on it! And nice clouds above it!
To answer your question: I think it's better not to clone the building away. It is a part of this view, if you like it or not.

singuanti (15240) 2005-04-22 23:06

Hi Behrang. I understand and agree with TE's stand on changing the shot to an extent where it no longer accurately represents what you would see if you were standing there. And I think you did the right thing by posting it in there. But I think workshops have much more creative license and therefore I have nothing against it being cloned out. Say you wanted to print it out I'd probably prefer the one without the building in the background. That's why a workshop can be more creative and useful. Nice shot too!

john_c (24635) 2005-04-23 0:26

This is a marvellous shot, Behrang. Wonderful contrasts and lighting; nice touches like the figure walking down the path. As to the issue at hand: My position is that with actual structures such as the white building behind, it should not be cloned out under TE rules, though artistically the shot would be improved. The reason for this is that TE is encouraging not just good photography, but also a true depiction of our planet. Therefore, the building stays, in my view. On the other hand, I don't believe the same argument applies to troublesome bushes, parts of trees etc. which are not material to the depiction of the subject matter. In any event, this photo is very worthy in its present form, and the building behind is not a major distraction - much like one often sees old and new architecture in a city, where the new architecture is sometimes ugly - nevertheless, its part of the scene. Those are my thoughts...

Fixfocus (9377) 2005-04-23 7:40

Beautiful light and colors in your picture,Behrang!I like the contrast between the old university building and the modern house in the background.The sky above is really impressive with all those clouds.
Well done!

weswang (18223) 2005-04-23 10:40

Hi Behrang,
A nice picture of the old building. I like the color contrast and the sharpness of this picture as well as the situated cloud.
I think Peter made a good point to this picture: without the tall building to make the distortion, this picture would be better. I also appreciate Peter’s fine technique to make the WS.
To me, I would have the building kept there, although it is a distortion. The view, however, can be avoided by taking the picture with a different POV.
Well, I still like this picture and enjoy the argument.
Wes

dsidwell (9745) 2005-04-23 15:36

I usually try to capture the ideal of a subject, which would mean removing the building. I feel that capturing the ideal of something is just as 'real' as leaving the building there. In some ways, you are capturing a different or perhaps even better reality. You could also get closer and use a wider angle lens, if possible, to remove the building. I like it both ways. The general light and sky for this image is very nice, too.

jjbach (9101) 2005-04-23 19:05

Excellent presentation of Lovett hall. This building has especial architecture! Your composition has great colours, sharpness and contrast. The texture of the sky is stunning! Very well done Behrang!

Regards John

thohau (949) 2005-04-24 2:35

Hi Behrang!
My opinion on your question: I agree with your opinion about reality and wouldn't clone out the building in the backgraound. It isn't nice but it is a part of this composition.
I like the heavy clouds - they give a special atmosphere.
Thorsten

MoosicMan (1231) 2005-04-25 8:05

Behrang,
Great shot of a lovely old building. Please upload some more of Rice University, I know nothing about it. Seems like you could have lost the ugly building behind by moving in tighter and using a wider angle lens? But that cloning job is good, and man, that is an ugly, ugly building behind!
Behrang, you also have a way with skies and clouds, don't you?
Good work,
Matt

Gregtom (7119) 2005-04-27 6:55

Hello, Behrang! You really had a good lighting there! This building is very interesting. Regarding the workshop, I think that we should not change what we see. We can remove dust or scratches, but for me, the removal of a building is rather not acceptable.
regards,
Grzegorz

duder (319) 2005-04-28 1:29

Hi,

I would definitely not use the clone tool for something as drastic as removing a building. As for this photo, it could be improved by increasing the brightness a little bit.