Comments on: A True Perspective: Photographing Buildings

By: Bridget Casas

Bridget Casas — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:08:08 +0000

This is not a building but I did need to work on it in lens distortion and warp to get it to look like it is in the right perspective. It was a lot wider at the top then at the bottom when I started with it. These same techniques do not apply just to buildings, but to a lot of things in everyday life.

http://onegoodphotographer.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/a-nice-tribute-to-unconditional-love/

By: Chris Charlesworth

Chris Charlesworth — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:49:13 +0000

Just to emphasise my earlier point now I'm at a pc, I agree that in some circumstances things have to be straight but these are my two best selling architecturals.. (hope the tags work!) Example, curvature Example, leaning back

By: Romaing

Romaing — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:37:20 +0000

why do I like thedistorted one better ?

By: Chris Horner

Chris Horner — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:30:55 +0000

I actually agree with many of the above posts, and also prefer the first image to the second one. Yes the distortion can be corrected, but many times you may not want to. IMO the second image looks too ‘rigid’, and I immediately noticed distortion in that pic. But hey, if you or your client wants it, then cool. Otherwise, I like the distortion to make a powerful image. “Technically perfect” may not always be desireable. Just my $.02

By: Michael VanDeWalker

Michael VanDeWalker — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:20:46 +0000

Something to remember on this as far as shooting it with a TS lens and “correcting” it in post that is when you do it in post you lose part of the image as you end up basically having to crop part of it out. You don’t have that problem with the TS lens. To me it makes it much easier to frame the shot and keep interesting elements on the sides that help lead you into the center of attention.

By: Celine Ellis

Celine Ellis — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:58:40 +0000

Strick me down if you think im wrong – but i far prefer the first image to the second in the examples here.

By: Yvonne

Yvonne — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:37:36 +0000

At least in the examples provided, the original photo seems stronger compositionally and certainly more interesting than the “corrected” one. You could say that both are “distorted” but the distortions in the first photo are “natural” ones, while those in the second just look odd. For example, in the second photo the tops of the building don’t narrow off but in real life it would look as if the top of the building was narrower than the bottom. Perspective and all that. The eye and brain are quite capable of making the necessary compensations.

By: Michael VanDeWalker

Michael VanDeWalker — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:11:51 +0000

I love my tilt shift lens.

That being said, this discussion isn’t much different than ones talking about “Should I blur the water in a waterfall shot?” or “Should I use a narrow DOF and blur the background?”.

What do you want it to look like?
What does your client want the image to show?
Do you want the image to show what was really there?
Do you want an abstract look?

What ever blows your dress up! Go for it.

By: Kang

Kang — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:05:03 +0000

I think distortion is not neccesarily a bad thing all the time. The exageration could help create a nice effect and sometimes ‘breaking the rules’ of composition can lead to interesting results, at the end of the day, its a matter of perspective.

By: Jeffrey Kontur

Jeffrey Kontur — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:04:59 +0000

I think this could have been a good article. As it is, it comes across more as a sketched out idea for an article. This is basically 200 words or so to say that it’s possible to correct perspective distortion but without giving any actual instructions or guidance for how to do so. Grade: C-