Mid Century Architecture in Hawai

[ShaneS]

Through social media I became aware of a group called Docomomo, a non-profit organization devoted to the documentation and conservation of buildings, sites and neighborhoods of the modern movement. The Hawaii chapter hosted a walk through Kailua, a suburb of Honolulu, yesterday to highlight some of the existing and endangered buildings in the area. The timing of the walk was partly due to the impending closure of the Macy's (image below) and the uncertainty around the future of the building. One person has heard that the facade was going to be removed and replaced with glass and that the space was to be broken up for multiple tenants.

The crowd was large (and apparently unaware that walking in front of a photographer with a camera to her eye is something to be avoided ) and the lighting was harsh but I wanted to share some of the images from the day. Most of these buildings were completed during the heyday of development in Kailua from the late 1950's through the early 1960's.

Building #1 - Macy's - Note the offset brickwork on the facade.


Building #2 - The second floor of this building was added later.


Building #3 - Note the cantilevered windows.


Building #4 - This is a very typical low rise apartment style on the island of Oahu.


Building #5 - I love the curved roof-line on both floors of this building. It was difficult to get a shot of the whole structure as there is a bus stop and a tree right in front of the building and its little courtyard was full of people on the tour.


Building #6 - This one is in the same era as the other buildings but seems quite a bit more 'modern' to me.


Building #7 - Even though it's a side elevation of the building what would a photo tour of Hawaii be without an image of some colorful surf boards in the windows of a shop


Unfortunately, the pace of the walk was quite quick so I was unable to create these images and note the details provided by the architectural historian who led the walk. However, the group is looking for images to document the buildings and I will be donating these to that cause. If they use the images they will be adding detailed information to the images in terms of the architect, year built, modifications, etc.

In case Dave Ellis is reading, I do have plans to go and shoot some of these buildings again under better conditions so any and all assignments from Dave or others will be duly considered

For those of you interested in the preservation of modern architecture here is a link to the group: http://www.docomomoscotland.org.uk/

[Shadowman]

Nice series.

[dje]

Hi Shane

That's a very interesting set of buildings which you have captured very well indeed. I don't often think about buildings of this era as worthy of heritage attention but of course that is a misguided view. It would indeed be a shame to see any of these buildings dis-appear as they all have appeal and are good examples of the styles of the time.

I'll let you off on the assignments, mainly because I can't think of any!

Thanks for sharing
Dave

[FootLoose]

Nice work, Shane. I am intrigued by the tree in #3. With its trunk running parallel to the window frame it gives the illusion of uwa distortion.

[ShaneS]

Dave,

It would indeed be a shame to see any of these buildings dis-appear as they all have appeal and are good examples of the styles of the time.

I'll let you off on the assignments, mainly because I can't think of any!

These buildings certainly don't have the appeal of the art deco era ones that you posted but as you say they are a sign of the times and I suspect more apt to be lost due to the fact that they are not as flashy.

As far as assignments, I have a few of my own in mind. For example, I'm wondering about different angles at different times of the day for some of the buildings and I am very curious as to how the the BBQ place (#3) looks like lit up at night

Greg, #3 was shot at 17mm on my crop camera so that makes it 25mm on a full frame. The tree really does grow at that angle and over the years has probably been repeatedly trimmed so it doesn't encroach on the building which enhance the appearance of its already angled growth - so let's call it side heavy


Thanks for John, Dave and Greg for taking the time to look and comment.

[Donald]

I just love these. So 'Josef Hoflehner' (who's got a new book out, by the way .... if anyone wants to buy me a present!). I love the style of the images - the vibrancy, the brightness, the colour. And I cannot pick out one weak composition in the set.

My complements, Shane. I think that's excellent image-making.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Shane,

An interesting series from a time period when I was growing up, as a consequence, they might seem mundane to me now, but as has been said, that's really no good reason for them to disappear - in another 20-30 years, the younger generation will look on them as we do Art Deco now.

I would clone out the wires in #6 and #7 if mine, I don't really see them as an integral part of the structures (and I bet they weren't on the architect's plans).

Re-shooting at different times of day, for varying sun angles to either enhance textures and/or improve the general scene is well worth doing and also with a eye to reducing minor rotation/perspective issues visible in some.
e.g. #4 shows good texture on the end wall

I'm not at all surprised that they'd want to use your images.

Cheers, Dave

PS that is a very apt bicycle stand outside the Arts building in #6

[Manfred M]

You have produced a nice series of shots here. It certainly sounds like the shooting conditions were challenging (I'm generally not good at multi-tasking while photographing). I suspect I would have heard nothing from the historian as I was shooting away.

Now that you are familiar with the specific buildings, returning when the light is better is certainly going to give you a chance to take some more great shots. If you look at this series as a set of scouting shots and study them that way, I expect you will modify how you take your next set of images accordingly.

[IzzieK]

Almost majority of these shots needed some tidying up, e.g., the trolley and associated items by the door of Macy's, the rubbish bin in #2, the power lines of #6 and #7. But all in all, nicely processed. My particular preference is #6 because of the red bicycle that matched the red bricks of the building.

[Donald]

Almost majority of these shots needed some tidying up, e.g., the trolley and associated items by the door of Macy's, the rubbish bin in #2, the power lines of #6 and #7.

But do you not think they're integral parts of the scene, Izzie? I think the images would be very sterile without those various features present.

[TonyW]

These are all fine images - colours, composition, etc. I am not specially enamoured with the style of architecture though.

What struck me was that none of these buildings would, to me, look out of place in an appropriate district of Brisbane. The sloping wall of #3 and the curved roof of #5 might be unusual and some of the cars face the wrong way. An interesting exercise, which I probably won't get around to, would be to travel around here and try to find an example of each.

[ShaneS]

Thank you all for taking the time to comment.

Donald, you turned me on to Josef Hoflehner and I do enjoy his work. Thank you for the high compliment - it means a lot!

Dave and Manfred, I will definitely be headed back to this area with more time and under better lighting conditions.

Dave I agree that removing the wire on image #6 might be an improvement but I actually like wires in #7 and feel like they add to the composition. As far as rotation and perspective issues this is where I am of two minds. Do we set up our composition to make artful use of these distortions or do we make every effort to correct them in PP? I suspect different folks would have different answers to that one, maybe even a different opinion on alternating days...

Izzie, I'm working very hard to show the world "as it is" in my work but I can understand your preference for a more sanitized version. Also, I'm not very good at cloning stuff out apart from a stray wire or branch. The work you suggest on the Macy's shot is well above my pay grade My thoughts tend along the lines of Donald's thinking that the items are there and integral to the shot - my job is to try and present them in an artful way that makes the viewer think. If I don't succeed the image goes in the recycle bin.

Tony, thank you for your kind words. I love your comment about the cars facing the wrong way! I just wish there weren't so many of them about so I could get clearer vantage points on the buildings.

Thanks again everyone for making me think critically about the images.

[IzzieK]

But do you not think they're integral parts of the scene, Izzie? I think the images would be very sterile without those various features present.

I do not know much about photography of this kind. Ever since the beginning, I have always been asked to remove electricity wires or rubbish bin in an image, to take another angle if bins are to be seen so it doesn't show. Just a line of thought when photographing to avoid being asked to remove them. Electricity wires as clear in a city environment is really quite easy to remove...whereas in a landscape scenario, it can be part of the environment if it is too far to even see properly. We all have our own opinions and this is mine. If anyone is offended by what I said, I am sorry. It is not meant as an attack but of ignorance.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Shane,

Please consider this reply an open discussion of the merits, it is not me saying I'm right, and by implication ....

As far as rotation and perspective issues this is where I am of two minds. Do we set up our composition to make artful use of these distortions or do we make every effort to correct them in PP?

I do as much as possible at the time of shooting to remove or minimise them, or, as you say, make them part of the composition. e.g. we'll skip #5, since at that angle, it clearly is part of the composition, even though that was forced on you by the space and people.

With regard to what is correct; I always feel that what is in the middle of the final cropped image (which may not be the centre of sensor when captured) should be vertical - and this can be used to correct any rotation errors, which then means that any 'camera tilted up' leaning verticals should then be equal at either edge of frame and proportionately less as we approach the centre from either edge. If they're obviously not equal, or seem to slope for no good reason, that's when I consider that something might need fixing.

The left side of #7 is the most obvious example, the windows slope, but everything else is mostly straight horizontally and vertically.

#6 is similarly afflicted, the building over on the right is leaning considerably more than the left side of the primary subject - it looks like you set the vertical on the left most brick column, where as the central one is actually in the middle of the frame and if that had been vertical, yes, the left side of the primary subject would have leant in more, but the building on the right would have been its equal. If the leaning in then looked too much, I might reduce the lean in PP.

One 'trick' I use when shooting to avoid leaning verticals is to keep the camera level by aiming the centre focus point* at a point on the building which is at the same height as the camera lens is. If that results in losing the top of the building, it is sometimes possible to shoot at a wider angle of view and turn the camera to a vertical/portrait orientation, then in PP, all I have to do is crop off the boring foreground this resulted in me capturing - yes it is throwing away pixels and some may consider that a 'no-no', but for web use only (as I shoot), when I know I'm going to downsize to display anyway, it really doesn't matter so much.

* I do this after I have placed the centre focus point on whatever I intend to focus on, AF and hold that focus, then use this technique as an aid to final framing. Of course, if the camera and tripod (if used), has any level guidance devices, they can be used also.

Here's one that I knew would be a challenge
In fact, in that gallery are many more architectural shots, many have been straightened completely, some left with a bit of lean in, and the odd one with a lot, see what you think.


More general guidance for members:

One other trick to achieve 'straight' perspective is to get as far back as possible, allowing capture using as long a focal length as possible - but I'm sure you know this already and besides, that often makes a boring shot when getting up close with a wider angle is more dynamic.


When shooting, always leave a margin in the angle of view captured to allow for PP rotation and/or lean correction.

~ maybe even a different opinion on alternating days...

Well, that's how I feel now - ask me again tomorrow and see if I changed my mind

Cheers, Dave

[Donald]

We all have our own opinions and this is mine.

Good heavens, not offended at all. A forum like this is a place for sensible, grown-up debate, discussion and exchanging of ideas.

I think what I was saying was that your thinking is perfectly clear and that is indeed the way we've been taught to think about scenes like this. But I think at times it's good to stand back and challenge those perceptions and 'rules' and just ask ourselves 'What if ....'.

The reason I like those features in there is that they make it all part of an urban environment for me.

I referenced Josef Hoflehner. Have a look at his work. He has objects in all sorts of places where they 'shouldn't be', but yet produces the most amazing images.

[TonyW]

With regard to the rotation and perspective, the only one that could do with a correction is #7. I would make the bottom of the building horizontal as well as the top and the left side vertical as well as the right. There might be an argument for having some lean in towards the top because that is how we actually see it but the lean in should be the same on both sides. #5 is the way it looks so that is OK.

Dave's example requires a builder/brick layer to fix, not just Photoshop. If you have ever been to Amsterdam, you will have seen buildings there that are way out of level and beyond the abilities of Photoshop to fix.

[ShaneS]

Izzie, I am not offended at all and appreciate your perspective. I think the value in what you pointed out is the fact that these items should always be taken into account when composing an image. Whether they stay or go is a decision for the artist/photographer and the resulting image may or may not be loved by all and that it something that I am learning to be OK with.

[ShaneS]

Dave & Tony, I appreciate your thoughts and tips on perspective correction and to be honest these building gave me fits in post trying to get it right and it was hard to decide what to make straight. My adjustments were done in ACR but it might be worth looking at it in Photoshop. Do you prefer to do it in one tool or the other?

Now I'm really bothered by #7 and will go back and take a look at it again. I chose to make the cream colored roof line and the right corner as my horizontal/vertical points and the left side did give me a bit of pause. I will focus on the interior windows and see where that gets me.

Thanks!

[Wavelength]

Very bright pleasing images

[TonyW]

Dave & Tony, I appreciate your thoughts and tips on perspective correction and to be honest these building gave me fits in post trying to get it right and it was hard to decide what to make straight. My adjustments were done in ACR but it might be worth looking at it in Photoshop. Do you prefer to do it in one tool or the other?
. . .

I use photoshop for perspective correction, the Edit>Transform>Perspective menu item. You have to Select All (Cmd/Ctrl a) first. You also have to be careful not to change the aspect ratio, which I do by moving the control points at both ends in opposite directions.