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

On 3/04/2011 10:50 a.m., N wrote:
On 3/04/2011, Me wrote:
On 2/04/2011 4:01 p.m., Die Wahrheit wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 15:26:28 +1300, wrote:

On 30/03/2011 12:17 a.m., Schneider wrote:

I went for a walk 'round town this morning, and I'm not sure how to
correct perspective in this shot.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50378866

By praying to all the Gods of the Universe that a city by the name of
christchurch which destroyed all the indigenous peoples, their
history, and
their culture should sink completely below the waves of the ocean next
time. Unfortunately, your impotent god didn't do a good enough job to
destroy itself. It'll need help next time.

Then and only then, will that photo have proper perspective.

Jeesh - you are truly very confused. The image is geotagged, but I
don't suppose that's enough to guide you back to planet Earth.

I think that one has been living under a rock.

Does scum oozed from primordial slime live under rocks?

I stayed in the Grand Chancellor, on the 25th floor, western side back,
in 2007 at the beginning of a photography tour with Capture New Zealand
Photography Tours.

http://www.capturenewzealand.co.nz/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2343/...d2390184_z.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2100/...767c0ea3_z.jpg

The sooner the building is demolished the better. That and several
other reasonably modern reinforced concrete high-rise buildings didn't
survive vertical ground motion very well (but at least they didn't
collapse). It's back to the drawing boards for engineers (and not just
here), who assumed that ground motion from a close quake should still be
mainly horizontal. One neighbour of mine had items stored on a garage
floor jump up in the air and land in boxes alongside. Overall the effect
on his place wasn't a tidy-up.

The quake stirred up some interest in Chch - my Panoramio photos had
80,000 hits via Google Earth/Maps on 23 Feb, about 250,000 for the
month, up from usual average of about 40,000 / month.

So was the tour worthwhile?
I sometimes shoot with another photographer friend with me, but find it
sometimes a hindrance, not wanting to get in their way, nor wanting to
steal their shots.

On 3/04/2011, Me wrote:
On 3/04/2011 10:50 a.m., N wrote:
On 3/04/2011, Me wrote:
On 2/04/2011 4:01 p.m., Die Wahrheit wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 15:26:28 +1300, wrote:

On 30/03/2011 12:17 a.m., Schneider wrote:

I went for a walk 'round town this morning, and I'm not sure how to
correct perspective in this shot.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50378866

By praying to all the Gods of the Universe that a city by the name of
christchurch which destroyed all the indigenous peoples, their
history, and
their culture should sink completely below the waves of the ocean next
time. Unfortunately, your impotent god didn't do a good enough job to
destroy itself. It'll need help next time.

Then and only then, will that photo have proper perspective.

Jeesh - you are truly very confused. The image is geotagged, but I
don't suppose that's enough to guide you back to planet Earth.

I think that one has been living under a rock.

Does scum oozed from primordial slime live under rocks?

I stayed in the Grand Chancellor, on the 25th floor, western side back,
in 2007 at the beginning of a photography tour with Capture New Zealand
Photography Tours.

http://www.capturenewzealand.co.nz/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2343/...d2390184_z.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2100/...767c0ea3_z.jpg

The sooner the building is demolished the better. That and several other
reasonably modern reinforced concrete high-rise buildings didn't survive
vertical ground motion very well (but at least they didn't collapse). It's
back to the drawing boards for engineers (and not just here), who assumed
that ground motion from a close quake should still be mainly horizontal. One
neighbour of mine had items stored on a garage floor jump up in the air and
land in boxes alongside. Overall the effect on his place wasn't a tidy-up.

The quake stirred up some interest in Chch - my Panoramio photos had 80,000
hits via Google Earth/Maps on 23 Feb, about 250,000 for the month, up from
usual average of about 40,000 / month.

So was the tour worthwhile?
I sometimes shoot with another photographer friend with me, but find it
sometimes a hindrance, not wanting to get in their way, nor wanting to steal
their shots.

I had a lot more hits on my Chch photos on Flickr during the days
following the quake too.

The tour was fabulous. This was the tour that I did in Nov/Dec 2007:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200...nt/view/56/64/

And here's Phillip's write up on our tour:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200...o.nz/news.html

There were 4 from UK, one from US and me from Sydney. Phillip is
extremely professional and well versed in the needs of a small group
tour.

From his current website, he doesn't appear to have had a lot of tour
work since the big bad GFC. I hope he's been making money from his
professional photography business.

SNIP

Would this be a good time to remind that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder?

On 4/2/2011 11:22 PM, Me wrote:


snip

I sometimes shoot with another photographer friend with me, but find it
sometimes a hindrance, not wanting to get in their way, nor wanting to
steal their shots.


I frequently go with friends. We often will point out different sights
to each other. None of us consider it stealing. Yes there is a basic
inspiration that we draw on each other.

We once had a member who, if anyone went near him on a trip, would
complain that they were stealing his shots. In response the then
President of our club held a "special competition." We all went to
essentially the same location and our competition was based upon images
shot at that location at that time. Needles to say there was a variety
of interpretations.

In February I won digital image of the month at our club with a picture
of two alligators. About ten members of our club were there at the time
and many took shots of the same alligators. the only difference was my
interpretation.


--
Peter

On 4/3/2011 9:13 AM, John A. wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 07:30:54 -0400, wrote:

SNIP

Would this be a good time to remind that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder?

Yeah, but how often will your party encounter one of those?

Beauties or beholders?

--
Peter

On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:05:21 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

In February I won digital image of the month at our club with a picture
of two alligators. About ten members of our club were there at the time
and many took shots of the same alligators. the only difference was my
interpretation.

Are you "Mothboy" by another name? He just linked to his shot of two
alligators.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 4/3/2011 6:55 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:05:21 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

In February I won digital image of the month at our club with a picture
of two alligators. About ten members of our club were there at the time
and many took shots of the same alligators. the only difference was my
interpretation.

Are you "Mothboy" by another name? He just linked to his shot of two
alligators.



G
I have no problems sharing it

--
Peter

On 29/03/2011 12:31, 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.

It gives a view that might or might not have a more pleasing symmetry. I
recall doing a skyscraper as a student working for an industrial
photographer where the client specified full correction and we took a
full set with a tilt lens including under compensated and exaggerated.

Despite having asked for perspective corrected they preferred the
exaggerated one and the final large print was made from that shot.

I generally prefer some correction of building perspective.

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.

The one thing that perspective correction is perfect for is taking a
copy of an image behind glass or using flash where you can better
control to some extent what is reflected off the target when shooting
slightly off axis. A black cloth hung in the right place and then
perspective correction to tidy up the digital image to square it up.

I often use this trick to copy old archive material that is too fragile
to unmount or present to a scanner.

Regards,
Martin Brown