Architecture and straight lines?

[bilybianca]

Second:

[penolta]

In this case, the corrected one is clearly better, as the perspective in the first one is too exaggerated for a building of only two stories. It is a very nice photo.

[snostorm]

Hi Kjell,

I'll go with penolta here. I like the corrected version. I believe that penolta's analysis of the lower building height is correct.

Harriet's original looks better to my eye, as the corrected version looks top-heavy, and I think it is probably a function of building height in these two examples.

This thread has opened my eyes a bit -- I haven't done much architechtural stuff, but has given me much to consider if and when I do. . .

Very nice work, everyone, both picture posters and analysts!

Scott

[NonEntity1]

What an interesting thread. Honestly, I don't think I would have bothered changing either Harriet or Kjell's photos as the slight perspective angle is not something I would notice much or feel detracted by it. However, presented with the "improved" versions in each case, I did prefer both version improved (but only by a little).

Daniel's shot was tougher. I like the defished version better except for the fact that part of the arch was lost. If there was a way to defish and only lose some of the statue's base that would be my choice but losing the complete arch is too high a price for the defishing.

$.02 on artistic preference from a guy whose wife won't let him pick his one clothing, take it for what it is worth :roll:.

Tim

[NonEntity1]

I forgot to ask, does every wide angle reticular lens have the same effect as the Canon 10mm Daniel posted? I really dislike how that looked and would much prefer a fish eyed perspective. I ask because the Pentax 12-24mm is on my wish list, but not if 12mm distorts anything like that, I would not have liked that even if the person was not in the shot.

Tim

[danielchtong]

NonEntity1 wrote:

Daniel's shot was tougher. I like the defished version better except for the fact that part of the arch was lost. If there was a way to defish and only lose some of the statue's base that would be my choice but losing the complete arch is too high a price for the defishing.



Tim

Tim ,
Not just part of it has been defished . Also look at the 2nd defished version left top corner.



The top square portion of the column is now in an angle whereas the original spherical version had it perfect (well the column is crooked though).
Sure there are tradeoff. But how would general public, an average photographer and a good photographer values that?

I forgot to ask, does every wide angle reticular lens have the same effect as the Canon 10mm Daniel posted?

I believe Pentax 12-24mm or DA14mm would not be so bad.

Daniel

[mtngal]

Kjell - I immediately liked the corrected one better also. You did a nice job with it. Do you have any examples taken with your shift lens, vs a regular lens? I'd be interested to see how much difference it makes.

I'm another one who's been thinking of something wider than the kit lens. My original thought was to get the Pentax 10-17 but most of the time the bowed lines would drive me nuts and if I'm always going to be defishing the pictures, I'd rather get the 12-24. I briefly looked through the viewfinder with both lenses (Pentax rep was at my local camera store) but that's not enough to really decide. I rather liked the 10mm field of view, but think 12-24 is probably a more useful range.