If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Another nail in the view camera coffin?
Robert Feinman wrote:
Leaving aside film size, the two features that view cameras still have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and the plane of focus. By using a digital editor one can generate the same perspective effects from an image taken with a conventional camera afterwards. With a HUGE loss in quality. It resamples and "fills in the blanks" for the information that isn't there. I've been playing with this feature in Photoshop and have put up an additional tip about this on my web site. Have you tried doing it in camera and in photoshop, printed both and looked at the final results? I'm guessing not or you wouldn't have posted this. -- Stacey |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Another nail in the view camera coffin?
Robert Feinman wrote:
Leaving aside film size, the two features that view cameras still have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and the plane of focus. By using a digital editor one can generate the same perspective effects from an image taken with a conventional camera afterwards. With a HUGE loss in quality. It resamples and "fills in the blanks" for the information that isn't there. I've been playing with this feature in Photoshop and have put up an additional tip about this on my web site. Have you tried doing it in camera and in photoshop, printed both and looked at the final results? I'm guessing not or you wouldn't have posted this. -- Stacey |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Another nail in the view camera coffin?
Robert Feinman wrote:
Leaving aside film size, the two features that view cameras still have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and the plane of focus. By using a digital editor one can generate the same perspective effects from an image taken with a conventional camera afterwards. With a HUGE loss in quality. It resamples and "fills in the blanks" for the information that isn't there. I've been playing with this feature in Photoshop and have put up an additional tip about this on my web site. Have you tried doing it in camera and in photoshop, printed both and looked at the final results? I'm guessing not or you wouldn't have posted this. -- Stacey |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Another nail in the view camera coffin?
Ach, just another Burried Alive story. Boooring.
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Another nail in the view camera coffin?
Ach, just another Burried Alive story. Boooring.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Another nail in the view camera coffin?
Ach, just another Burried Alive story. Boooring.
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Another nail in the view camera coffin?
Now see, this is what is so disturbing about pixelographers. They find
a PS tool that more or less simulates good photography and they hail it as the replacement of good understanding of the way some things works. Lets start with the term "perspective," as Bob Solomon got tired of saying, perspective is how large the object looks depending on the focal length used, it is not the same as distortion of the image such as keystoning (the example in the web site). Anybody who knows how to use a view camera would have also applied back swing to correct the converging horizontal lines, not just a back tilt to correct keystonning or converging vertical lines. Even with the distortion correction applied in the website, it is clear the correction is still not accurate. Although the church face is corrected, the bell tower (or whatever this is) still appears to have some keystonning and what is even worse, by failing to correct converging horizontal lines it gives it an appearance of "leaning" out toward the right. Anybody striving to be an architectural photographer would have been laughed out of a client's office if they had shown this example. It is not another "nail" in the coffin, in fact it is the opposite. It reaffirms that the notion that "I can take a picture and later fix it with PS" is not the right approach and that some things still require knowledge and knowing when to apply that knowledge. Knowledge of photography that is, not of PS. Personally, I welcome these kind of "tips" and strident arguments for pixelography, they just make my photography look that much better...:-) Robert Feinman wrote in message . .. Leaving aside film size, the two features that view cameras still have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and the plane of focus. By using a digital editor one can generate the same perspective effects from an image taken with a conventional camera afterwards. I've been playing with this feature in Photoshop and have put up an additional tip about this on my web site. This one shows the creative uses the extreme perspective adjustments can yield. Just follow the tips link on my home page, if you are interested. I still haven't solved the plane of focus problem, however... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Another nail in the view camera coffin?
Now see, this is what is so disturbing about pixelographers. They find
a PS tool that more or less simulates good photography and they hail it as the replacement of good understanding of the way some things works. Lets start with the term "perspective," as Bob Solomon got tired of saying, perspective is how large the object looks depending on the focal length used, it is not the same as distortion of the image such as keystoning (the example in the web site). Anybody who knows how to use a view camera would have also applied back swing to correct the converging horizontal lines, not just a back tilt to correct keystonning or converging vertical lines. Even with the distortion correction applied in the website, it is clear the correction is still not accurate. Although the church face is corrected, the bell tower (or whatever this is) still appears to have some keystonning and what is even worse, by failing to correct converging horizontal lines it gives it an appearance of "leaning" out toward the right. Anybody striving to be an architectural photographer would have been laughed out of a client's office if they had shown this example. It is not another "nail" in the coffin, in fact it is the opposite. It reaffirms that the notion that "I can take a picture and later fix it with PS" is not the right approach and that some things still require knowledge and knowing when to apply that knowledge. Knowledge of photography that is, not of PS. Personally, I welcome these kind of "tips" and strident arguments for pixelography, they just make my photography look that much better...:-) Robert Feinman wrote in message . .. Leaving aside film size, the two features that view cameras still have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and the plane of focus. By using a digital editor one can generate the same perspective effects from an image taken with a conventional camera afterwards. I've been playing with this feature in Photoshop and have put up an additional tip about this on my web site. This one shows the creative uses the extreme perspective adjustments can yield. Just follow the tips link on my home page, if you are interested. I still haven't solved the plane of focus problem, however... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Another nail in the view camera coffin?
Now see, this is what is so disturbing about pixelographers. They find
a PS tool that more or less simulates good photography and they hail it as the replacement of good understanding of the way some things works. Lets start with the term "perspective," as Bob Solomon got tired of saying, perspective is how large the object looks depending on the focal length used, it is not the same as distortion of the image such as keystoning (the example in the web site). Anybody who knows how to use a view camera would have also applied back swing to correct the converging horizontal lines, not just a back tilt to correct keystonning or converging vertical lines. Even with the distortion correction applied in the website, it is clear the correction is still not accurate. Although the church face is corrected, the bell tower (or whatever this is) still appears to have some keystonning and what is even worse, by failing to correct converging horizontal lines it gives it an appearance of "leaning" out toward the right. Anybody striving to be an architectural photographer would have been laughed out of a client's office if they had shown this example. It is not another "nail" in the coffin, in fact it is the opposite. It reaffirms that the notion that "I can take a picture and later fix it with PS" is not the right approach and that some things still require knowledge and knowing when to apply that knowledge. Knowledge of photography that is, not of PS. Personally, I welcome these kind of "tips" and strident arguments for pixelography, they just make my photography look that much better...:-) Robert Feinman wrote in message . .. Leaving aside film size, the two features that view cameras still have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and the plane of focus. By using a digital editor one can generate the same perspective effects from an image taken with a conventional camera afterwards. I've been playing with this feature in Photoshop and have put up an additional tip about this on my web site. This one shows the creative uses the extreme perspective adjustments can yield. Just follow the tips link on my home page, if you are interested. I still haven't solved the plane of focus problem, however... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Another nail in the view camera coffin?
Robert Feinman wrote:
Leaving aside film size, the two features that view cameras still have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and the plane of focus. By using a digital editor one can generate the same perspective effects from an image taken with a conventional camera afterwards. You can also use rise and fall, and shifts. Consider the case of subject a nude woman holding a towel in front of her for modesty purposes. If you photograph her head on, you see her face, shoulders, knees, and feet. Also hands holding the towel. Let us place two photographers essentially next to one another and they both prepare the exposure. One thing the view camera user does is adjust the height of the camera to peek over the top edge of the towel and drops the front to frame the image as intended. The digital photographer not using a view camera cannot do that in the computer darkroom. Or let us say the two photographers need to photograph an antique mirror with no perspective distortion. Easily done: both could place their camerae directly in front of the mirror at the right distance to almost fill the frame and at the proper height. The view camera user might adjust the back tilt to correct for the mirror's leaning slightly forward from the wall, and the digital guy could fix that in the digital darkroom. But the view camera user would not stop there. Noticing his own image, and that of his camera, in the mirror, he instead moves the camera sufficiently to the right or left of the mirror so as not to appear in it, and then uses front and perhaps also rear shifts to take the picture with the proper perspective. How would the digital darkroom photographer get rid of the image of the camera and photographer from the mirror image and put whatever was behind the photographer and camera in? -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 17:25:00 up 5 days, 2:26, 6 users, load average: 4.27, 4.24, 4.49 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
View Camera magazine | Largformat | Large Format Photography Equipment | 4 | July 1st 04 10:26 PM |
View Camera discussion group | Largformat | Large Format Photography Equipment | 11 | June 23rd 04 08:38 PM |
Building a View camera to use Hassy or Kiev backs | Jim-Ed Browne | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 13 | May 7th 04 06:40 AM |
Finished making new view camera! | B A R R Y | Large Format Photography Equipment | 16 | March 15th 04 04:42 AM |