Perspective Correction - Just Because You Can Doesn't Mean You Should!

"Bowser" wrote in message
...
On 3/29/2011 9:30 AM, Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:52:50 -0400, wrote:

On 3/29/2011 7:17 AM, Schneider wrote:

I don't take much architectural photography...snip

Then what makes you the expert?

Because I have an eye for all aspects of photography. I was going to
become
an architect but I found it boring and too simplistic. My spatial-IQ is
immeasurable. I can solve a Soma puzzle in less than a minute, a 2-set
Soma
puzzle in less than 3 minutes. My abilities to create pleasing
compositions
(or disturbing ones, intentionally), allows me to easily claim having
some
of the best instincts in that regard of any artists alive or dead. People
who have entered my homes for the first time have been known to comment,
"This is uncanny. Every item in your home, right down to the last little
one, is in the exact perfect location for it. It's as if everything is
exactly where it belongs and should have always been. How do you do
that?"

Easy, it's called "art".

Holy crap, this is the finest steaming pile of BS I've read in quite a
while! Tons of brag with no facts whatsoever to support it!

BRAVO!!!!!

You said it. The guy probably needs help loading his Holga, but when it
comes to shoveling out the bovine excrement he is clearly a virtuoso.
....

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:24:59 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote:


"Bowser" wrote in message
m...
On 3/29/2011 9:30 AM, Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:52:50 -0400, wrote:

On 3/29/2011 7:17 AM, Schneider wrote:

I don't take much architectural photography...snip

Then what makes you the expert?

Because I have an eye for all aspects of photography. I was going to
become
an architect but I found it boring and too simplistic. My spatial-IQ is
immeasurable. I can solve a Soma puzzle in less than a minute, a 2-set
Soma
puzzle in less than 3 minutes. My abilities to create pleasing
compositions
(or disturbing ones, intentionally), allows me to easily claim having
some
of the best instincts in that regard of any artists alive or dead. People
who have entered my homes for the first time have been known to comment,
"This is uncanny. Every item in your home, right down to the last little
one, is in the exact perfect location for it. It's as if everything is
exactly where it belongs and should have always been. How do you do
that?"

Easy, it's called "art".

Holy crap, this is the finest steaming pile of BS I've read in quite a
while! Tons of brag with no facts whatsoever to support it!

BRAVO!!!!!

You said it. The guy probably needs help loading his Holga, but when it
comes to shoveling out the bovine excrement he is clearly a virtuoso.
...


I'll be the first to let you know when your opinion begins to matter to
anyone.

Let's see how long you can wait for that day ...

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:09:41 -0500, Schneider wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:24:59 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Bowser" wrote in message
om...
On 3/29/2011 9:30 AM, Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:52:50 -0400,
wrote:

On 3/29/2011 7:17 AM, Schneider wrote:

I don't take much architectural photography...snip

Then what makes you the expert?

Because I have an eye for all aspects of photography. I was going to
become
an architect but I found it boring and too simplistic. My spatial-IQ
is immeasurable. I can solve a Soma puzzle in less than a minute, a
2-set Soma
puzzle in less than 3 minutes. My abilities to create pleasing
compositions
(or disturbing ones, intentionally), allows me to easily claim having
some
of the best instincts in that regard of any artists alive or dead.
People who have entered my homes for the first time have been known
to comment, "This is uncanny. Every item in your home, right down to
the last little one, is in the exact perfect location for it. It's as
if everything is exactly where it belongs and should have always
been. How do you do that?"

Easy, it's called "art".

Holy crap, this is the finest steaming pile of BS I've read in quite a
while! Tons of brag with no facts whatsoever to support it!

BRAVO!!!!!

You said it. The guy probably needs help loading his Holga, but when it
comes to shoveling out the bovine excrement he is clearly a virtuoso.
...


I'll be the first to let you know when your opinion begins to matter to
anyone.

Let's see how long you can wait for that day ...

I'd say he's pretty much spot on!

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:17:20 -0500, Schneider
wrote:
One thing that has been a thorn in my side since the beginning of
photography. Those who will COMPLETELY correct for perspective
distortions
in architectural photography; whether done in the darkroom with a
tilted
easel and lens, by a tilt-shift/swing lens and/or view-camera, or
now
digitally on a computer with your favorite editing software.


IT WAS WRONG AT THE BEGINNING, IT WAS WRONG ALL LAST CENTURY, AND
IT'S
STILL WRONG TODAY.


I don't care what every other photography book has ever brainwashed
you
into believing, IT'S WRONG.


I don't take much architectural photography (mostly because I see
no reason
to try to exploit and capitalize another artist's work, I'd rather
create
my own and take full credit for it), so I had to hunt in my
archives to
find a building that I could use for a demo, cropped from the side
of a
larger image.




In this image, which building in the three frames is the most
visually
pleasing and realistic looking?


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1404/5570472809_54df71e4b7_b.jpg




It shouldn't be distorted into some unnatural looking out-of-shape
monstrosity. It should reflect how all people see buildings,
naturally from
an average human vantage-point. Remove *SOME* but not ALL
perspective
distortion if you must play with your toys.


To tell the truth, I actually prefer the original totally
uncorrected
building, the leftmost image. It not only preserves realistic
perspective,
but it conveys a much more impressive altitude to the building than
the
other two. (Though it could use a just a slight more tilting to the
right
to make it stand more naturally.)


The next time that some brain-dead wannabee idiot who can never
think for
themselves tells you to align the sides of your buildings with the
sides of
the frame, keeping all of them at nice and tidy 90-degree angles,
because
that's what every other photographer and book has ever told them to
do
their whole life, tell them to shove their untalented and
blind-man's
advice up their ignorant ass.


THEY'RE WRONG AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.


"Even if 7 billion people are believing and doing a foolish thing,
it
remains a foolish thing."

Only in your opinion. When it comes to art, only the artist has the
right to decide what is right.

--
Peter from my Droid

On 31/03/2011, Peter N wrote:

Only in your opinion. When it comes to art, only the artist has the right to
decide what is right.

Except if they want to sell it, then the customer decides.

On 3/30/2011 1:45 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
"Bowser" wrote in message
...
[]
Wow, that's stupid...

Please don't feed the trolls.

David

Yeah, I know, but his explanation of why he's an expert was, well,
priceless. Possibly the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:55:02 -0400, Bowser wrote:

On 3/30/2011 1:45 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
"Bowser" wrote in message
...
[]
Wow, that's stupid...

Please don't feed the trolls.

David

Yeah, I know, but his explanation of why he's an expert was, well,
priceless. Possibly the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

A fair exchange then. You have no idea how many laughs that your relentless
mundane crapshots continuously provide.

Wait a minute, that's not a fair exchange. Your talentless crap makes me
laugh all the time.

In rec.photo.digital N wrote:
On 29/03/2011, Schneider wrote:

One thing that has been a thorn in my side since the beginning of
photography. Those who will COMPLETELY correct for perspective distortions
in architectural photography; whether done in the darkroom with a tilted
easel and lens, by a tilt-shift/swing lens and/or view-camera, or now
digitally on a computer with your favorite editing software.

IT WAS WRONG AT THE BEGINNING, IT WAS WRONG ALL LAST CENTURY, AND IT'S
STILL WRONG TODAY.

I don't care what every other photography book has ever brainwashed you
into believing, IT'S WRONG.

I don't take much architectural photography (mostly because I see no reason
to try to exploit and capitalize another artist's work, I'd rather create
my own and take full credit for it), so I had to hunt in my archives to
find a building that I could use for a demo, cropped from the side of a
larger image.


In this image, which building in the three frames is the most visually
pleasing and realistic looking?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1404/5570472809_54df71e4b7_b.jpg


It shouldn't be distorted into some unnatural looking out-of-shape
monstrosity. It should reflect how all people see buildings, naturally from
an average human vantage-point. Remove *SOME* but not ALL perspective
distortion if you must play with your toys.

To tell the truth, I actually prefer the original totally uncorrected
building, the leftmost image. It not only preserves realistic perspective,
but it conveys a much more impressive altitude to the building than the
other two. (Though it could use a just a slight more tilting to the right
to make it stand more naturally.)

The next time that some brain-dead wannabee idiot who can never think for
themselves tells you to align the sides of your buildings with the sides of
the frame, keeping all of them at nice and tidy 90-degree angles, because
that's what every other photographer and book has ever told them to do
their whole life, tell them to shove their untalented and blind-man's
advice up their ignorant ass.

THEY'RE WRONG AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.

"Even if 7 billion people are believing and doing a foolish thing, it
remains a foolish thing."

The one on the right, even though the sides are vertical in the frame,
looks like a ice cream cone, because, as you say, the correction is
abnormal.

I don't correct for perspective, but I make an effort to have the
camera pointing horizontal when the composition allows.

Full frame, uncorrected.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2054/...89f0c923c4.jpg

Since the horizon vanishing line is below the middle of the image if
the camera was horizontal you must have cropped some off the bottom
off the image. Which leaves an image with exactly the same perspective
geometry as would have been produced by a shifted tilt-shift lens. Or
one with converging verticals from an uptilted camera whose image was
then perspective adjusted.

Yet according to our ranter above, the optical means of producing such
images are morally and aesthetically ok, whereas achieving the same
result by post-processing is WRONG WRONG WRONG!

--
Chris Malcolm

On 1 Apr 2011 00:15:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:


Yet according to our ranter above, the optical means of producing such
images are morally and aesthetically ok,

Like all of you useless trolls--learn to read.

I never claimed that. In fact I claimed the exact opposite.

And, in an attempt to enlighten your stupidity a little. The image of that
building, if a tilt-shift lens was used to COMPLETELY correct for
verticals, would also have sides with no vertical angles to them. Your
bull**** red-herring crap about where a horizon might be, is just that,
red-herring bull****. The amount of bad "correction" and over-correction is
only limited by how far the lens can move, not where the horizon is.

Now go crawl back under your mommy's-basement rug where you've been all
this time up til now.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:28:56 -0500, Schneider
wrote:

On 1 Apr 2011 00:15:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:


Yet according to our ranter above, the optical means of producing such
images are morally and aesthetically ok,

Like all of you useless trolls--learn to read.

I never claimed that. In fact I claimed the exact opposite.

And, in an attempt to enlighten your stupidity a little. The image of that
building, if a tilt-shift lens was used to COMPLETELY correct for
verticals, would also have sides with no vertical angles to them. Your
bull**** red-herring crap about where a horizon might be, is just that,
red-herring bull****. The amount of bad "correction" and over-correction is
only limited by how far the lens can move, not where the horizon is.

Now go crawl back under your mommy's-basement rug where you've been all
this time up til now.

Do I take it that now you are more concerned about 'bad correction'
and 'over correction' than you are about correction in general?
Assuming of course that you are not trying to argue that the only good
correction is a dead correction.

Regards,

Eric Stevens