On 10/18/2010 2:42 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
> When I was shooting film, I didn't have a shift lens, but what I did was
> shoot things that had the potential for converging lines with the 50 on the
> Hasselblad from a way back, high in the frame. It gives a bit of the same
> effect, and lessens the amount of correction needed in PS.
Hardly a solution for a small sensor DSLR.
> I've found that too much correction on PS often looks strange. Apply that
> princple to 35mm or digital. The 50 on the '[blad is about 35 on 35.
It seems to me that the most common reason correction in PS looks strange is
poor technique. It's very easy to over
correct, and our eyes seem to be very sensitive to even a tiny amount of over
correction.
The solution to that is to be careful to always slightly under correct. A very
slightly under corrected image seems to
appear quite natural to most people.
Many of the images in my book Three Days in Brooklyn have more or less
perspective correction. I've shown it to maybe
three dozen people, almost all in an interactive way. Only two or three times
that I recall did the idea of perspective
correction come up, once with a painter and once a photographer. In both cases,
they only noticed that it mus have been
done in a couple of images, but not the many where it was used.
This is the one most likely to be noticed. I can't imagine using the image
without correction, nor how to do it right
other than with tilt/shift capability or software.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Perspective/_MG_3299.htm>
Although one could use this one without correction, it seems to me to be a much
stronger image corrected.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Perspective/_MG_3278.htm>
I mentioned that this one was corrected quite a bit to the photographer who had
noticed I must have used perspective
correction elsewhere. He was surprised and said he has assumed the sign had
either been at eye level or I had stood on
something to get level with it.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Perspective/_MG_3468.htm>
If you think it's a bit overcooked in post on the screen, I assure you it is
perfect on paper in a book.
The other reason images with a lot of correction may look strange is that the
actual perspective point hasn't changed.
Take a look at another image from the book. One that several people admired.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Perspective/_MG_3224.htm>
As you can see, a lot of correction was required. I think it came out rather
well, but ... Where there are projecting
things, like the cornices and the upper window sills, changing the apparent
perspective doesn't change the amount of the
image that was obscured by the projections. If I had stood on top of a truck to
get the apparent perspective of the
corrected image, more of the brick behind the cornices would show, so they
would, correctly, look smaller. Same thing
with the upper window sills and flower boxes.
From the apparent perspective, the level area at the top of the stairs should
be visible from above. Anything not
rather flat, like the sign above, that is heavily corrected, in PS or with T/S,
is still going to look slightly off.
You can take a building and reverse the apparent perspective, but you still
won't be able to see the roof.
Moose in Perspective.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|