Perspective or not?

[merv]

Have been taking pics looking up church steeples and I think the perspective effect is rather nice. However, I have heard photographic judges criticise the converging verticals and it should be corrected in Photoshop to show as near verticality as possible. I know I should take it as I like it but for competition use one has to listen a bit to criticism. I know there are no rights or wrongs but has anyone any opinions. merv:bang:

 

[teddyt72]

Have been taking pics looking up church steeples and I think the perspective effect is rather nice. However, I have heard photographic judges criticise the converging verticals and it should be corrected in Photoshop to show as near verticality as possible. I know I should take it as I like it but for competition use one has to listen a bit to criticism. I know there are no rights or wrongs but has anyone any opinions. merv:bang:

Do you have an example? A shot how you like it and then one 'corrected' as you assume the judges will prefer?

 

[merv]

Yes Eddie have just been out taking them. Will post a couple in an hour or so. Not sure if Im up to straightening them but will try. merv

 

[meonshore]

Have been taking pics looking up church steeples and I think the perspective effect is rather nice. However, I have heard photographic judges criticise the converging verticals and it should be corrected in Photoshop to show as near verticality as possible. I know I should take it as I like it but for competition use one has to listen a bit to criticism. I know there are no rights or wrongs but has anyone any opinions. merv:bang:

Using perspective distortion creatively = good

Having converging verticals because of a lack of care or understanding for a more straight-forward architectural image = bad

 

[GHP]

Using perspective distortion creatively = good

Having converging verticals because of a lack of care or understanding for a more straight-forward architectural image = bad

^^^This^^^

If you are taking the picture with deliberate distortion for artistic effect, then that is "right".
If you are trying to show a true architectural record, then it would be "wrong" to have converging verticals. But to do this type of shot with true verticals then a tilt/shift lens or a view camera would possibly need to be used.

As always, these are the "rules", which are there to be broken if you feel the image that you are after warrants it.

 

[merv]

This is a typical photo with converging verticals. Tried to use the lens correction in photoshop and it made matters worse. I don't see anything wrong with this image because it is the way the eye sees it. Why would anyone judge want to straighten this up? I don't think having parallel verticals looks right but thats only my opinion.

merv:bang:

 

[meonshore]

Well it is the way your eye saw it, through the camera at the distance and angle that you were standing. Standing back, and with a more parallel viewpoint and you would have got a different view.

Unless you are shooting the shard (or similar) then converging verticals might be an accurate representation of what *you saw* but they are not architecturally correct. So given a standard "judges handbook" it will be something they always pick up on *unless* as has been said above you are using the distortion to creative effect.

If you look at good quality professionally shot architectural images of both exteriors, and particularly interiors you'll see the verticals are correct (via good camera placement or tilt-shift/movements) or corrected (in Photoshop) which IMHO does a good job but sometimes can look a little fake on certain shots.

Fact is there is nothing wrong with taking these for your own enjoyment and continuing to do so. But if you want them scored highly in competition, or ever intend to market them then you may need to consider the alternative of having them straight.

 

[Canon Bob]

I don't see anything wrong with this image because it is the way the eye sees it.

Are you saying that the towers appear to be falling inwards by eye?...surely not.

Bob

 

[viewfromthenorth]

This is a typical photo with converging verticals. Tried to use the lens correction in photoshop and it made matters worse. I don't see anything wrong with this image because it is the way the eye sees it. Why would anyone judge want to straighten this up? I don't think having parallel verticals looks right but thats only my opinion.

merv:bang:

You won't be able to do much with that particular image. Ideally, if you intend correcting perspective afterwards, you'd need a bit of space either side of the vertical walls, i.e. a less tight crop when you are taking the picture, so that the areas you are retaining have somewhere to move into. It's kind of hard to explain without any examples, but I don't have any to hand as I'm at work.

 

[merv]

Thanks guys for your comments. merv

 

[Nod]

Personally, I never correct perspective effects. Partly because I hate the time spent in PP but also because the perspective is a result of physics and (IMO) corrected converging verticals (or horizontals) look unnatural. If I want unexagerated perspective, I try to get myself higher and to keep the camera as horizontal as possible - sometimes even cropping fairly heavily to get just the building I'm after a shot of and to remove all the extra foreground. To me, that's one of the major joys of FF - wide angles are wide! I shoot a fair amount using a Sigma 12-24 at the wide end as well as using my 8mm fisheye more than many do.

 

[Musicman]

Personally, I never correct perspective effects. Partly because I hate the time spent in PP but also because the perspective is a result of physics and (IMO) corrected converging verticals (or horizontals) look unnatural. If I want unexagerated perspective, I try to get myself higher and to keep the camera as horizontal as possible - sometimes even cropping fairly heavily to get just the building I'm after a shot of and to remove all the extra foreground

So, philosophically, if correcting the convergence is 'unnatural', how is cropping from a horizontally-held wide angle shot different from correcting the perspective with a shift lens or in PP?

You lose a few more pixels doing it that way, but the end result is the same

 

[Nod]

Please read my signature and the first word of my post and also take note of the IMO...

 

[DizMatt]

verticals converge naturally I thought....however, at the wide end of a zoom lens you can get it so that the verticals literally bow in towards the middle. so it makes them look converging and curved! which isn't natural.
that's how i'd correct in photoshop
if you're stuck , then use the middle of a zoom lens (if appropriate) or take the shot with a prime to minimise this

he's my favourite example of a failure in this respect from when I had a canon 17-85mm IS ...

rather ruins the shot I think by exaggerating the effect and visibly curving the vertical on the left

 

[markmullen]

I usually correct my verticals, Capture One is very good at it.

If you were specifically going for an effect by having your verticals converging I would understand (eg looking up a tall building to get a vanishing point effect) but the church shot above to my eye is spoilt by the spire appearing to bend inwards, as said with that shot there isn't much you can do as the correction would get rid of half of the frame. Similarly the Westminster shot looks odd leaning in from both sides.

 

[Canon Bob]

There's a big difference in effect between converging verticals in the centre of an image and leaning towers towards the periphery. One looks natural (vanishing point) and the other looks like impending doom.
All IMHO, of course.

Bob

 

[rpsmith79]

Lightroom has a very good tool for correcting lens distortion, it has a pretty good database of most lenses too (Nikon and Canon at the very least)

 

[GHP]

Lightroom has a very good tool for correcting lens distortion, it has a pretty good database of most lenses too (Nikon and Canon at the very least)

This is very true, but it won't help very much with converging verticals when the camera is pointing up, for example.
What it will do is to correct any built in distortion known for the lens being used.
In other words, if you take a lens with known distortion, e.g. a lot of wide angle zooms have barrel distortion at one end, or pincushion, or even a combination of both, which is like a moustache distortion, by telling LR which lens profile to use it will correct that distortion.
It won't correct your verticals though.

 

[Nod]

While I don't correct convergance in PP, I do try to avoid it in camera (well, by moving back and up whenever possible).There is one building in particular that i have problems getting a decent shot of - Chania cathedral in Chania, Crete. It's in a square, just off a busy street and I can't get far enough back to keep the camera reasonably level to avoid convergance. I can't get access to the upstairs window (which would be ideal to shoot from!) and there's also a fairly narrow window of opportunity when the evening light falls perfectly onto the west face without the foot of the building being in shadow. [thinking]Maybe a long monopod and a Zigview would get the camera high enough...[/thinking]

 

[Musicman]

It won't correct your verticals though.

Erm. Yes it will. I use it regularly.

LR v3 & v4 > Lens Corrections > Manual > Transform: Horizontal and Vertical perspective correction tools.

 

[specialman]

It's a matter of taste - some people like convergence, others don't. I don't know much about photographic judging but I suspect there has to be some form of personal preference on the part of the judges. It's whether you agree with that personal preference which is I suppose the question...

Obviously, some lenses exaggerate perspective more than others, such as UWAs. Others like T&S lenses correct it....

Shots like this benefit from perspective:


Portland Lighthouse by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

I'd never try to correct it because it serves a purpose, to draw the eye up through the shot. It'd probably look horrendous if i corrected...

Whereas this is something I should (probably) correct just to enhance the monument - at the moment it doesn't know whether it wants to be the leaning tower of Pisa or not


In memory of... by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

 

[Musicman]

It's a matter of taste - some people like convergence, others don't.

I'd suggest that it's rather more question of whether it's appropriate for the composition and the intent behind the image.

Rather like your light house, for this it would have been inappropriate to attempt to correct the perspective - I wanted to retain the dynamism that the converging verticals confer


The Place and The Shard at dusk by cybertect, on Flickr

However, for a static elevational study like this, with an emphasis on the geometry of the façade, you really need to correct for the perspective

otherwise it loses its formality as an image, and becomes a snapshot just to make a record [uncorrected version of the same photograph]

 

[rpsmith79]

This is very true, but it won't help very much with converging verticals when the camera is pointing up, for example.
What it will do is to correct any built in distortion known for the lens being used.
In other words, if you take a lens with known distortion, e.g. a lot of wide angle zooms have barrel distortion at one end, or pincushion, or even a combination of both, which is like a moustache distortion, by telling LR which lens profile to use it will correct that distortion.
It won't correct your verticals though.

Indeed, it was more aimed at the barrel distortion you get as shown by Dizmatt

But if you are stood in such a position that you have perspective/converging verticals then i think they should stay as is, as that is how you shot that particular photo

If you didn't want that persective/converging verticals then you should be in a position that reduces that effect, not stood 10 feet away looking up at 45 degrees (ok, slight exaggeration there, but you get my point )

 

[HoppyUK]

Agree with Rob the Musicman. Good comments and examples

I always correct distortion (barrel etc) and verticals too - if it works for the image. So easy in Lightroom, and any other software usually.

But there's a narrow dividing line, between when it's better to correct verticals, and when to leave them. In the Op's example, that has gone too far and if it was corrected the church would look very top-heavy and quite unnatural. Best to leave that one.

 

[specialman]

Musicman - liking the Shard image Great use of convergence.

 

[troutfisher]

I think musicman,s post sums it up completely.
Great shots BTW,the Shard looks superb