Drowning in photos

In article , That80sGuy
says...
In message , "John"
done wrote:

I would have put it through Photoshop and used "Edit / Transform /
Perspective" and stopped the building from falling away from the viewer.

How good an alternative is Photoshop to a true TS/PC lens?

The problem when you apply that kind of processing the upper image
pixels get stretched, while the bottom ones get squeezed, i.e. you end
up with an image which has more resolution in the lower part than in the
higher part.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...

Heavy vignetting, see he
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/66422763/medium

But probably nothing which can't be corrected in post-processing.

Yes, it is not a perfect picture but under the conditions I'm pretty happy
with it.

The vignetting doesn't disturb me. I hardly ever adjust for that and
sometimes it's looking nice. And I didn't correct the perspective either ;-)

With respect to being sharp or not, you can find a full resolution version
her http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/100269283/original. Only default noise
reduction is used in Lightroom.

Interesting discussion about a picture not even being in the folder I linked
to :-)

--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskruse.com, http://hans-kruse.blogspot.com/

"That80sGuy" wrote in message
...
In message , "John"
done wrote:

I would have put it through Photoshop and used "Edit / Transform /
Perspective" and stopped the building from falling away from the viewer.

How good an alternative is Photoshop to a true TS/PC lens?

It down to cost. I would not use a TS/PC lens enough to warrant buying one.

John.

In article , Hans Kruse
says...

Yes, it is not a perfect picture but under the conditions I'm pretty happy
with it.

The vignetting doesn't disturb me. I hardly ever adjust for that and
sometimes it's looking nice. And I didn't correct the perspective either ;-)

With respect to being sharp or not, you can find a full resolution version
her http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/100269283/original. Only default noise
reduction is used in Lightroom.

Hmmm... 3461 x 2602 Pixel - what happened with the remaining 3.7 MP?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...

Hmmm... 3461 x 2602 Pixel - what happened with the remaining 3.7 MP?
--
It was cropped, but the rest is in full resolution.

--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskruse.com, http://hans-kruse.blogspot.com/

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
By the way Hans, this image
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/66422763

Very nice, but why did you go up to ISO1600, with F2.8 and 1/15s? If me,
I would have shot this with a tripod at ISO 100 and F8.

Why didn't you mention these two instead?

http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/66422765/original
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/66422768/original

Both shot at iso 3200, f/2.8 and 1/15s, 1/10s respectively.

--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskruse.com, http://hans-kruse.blogspot.com/

John wrote:
"That80sGuy" wrote in message
...
In message , "John"
done wrote:

I would have put it through Photoshop and used "Edit / Transform /
Perspective" and stopped the building from falling away from the viewer.

How good an alternative is Photoshop to a true TS/PC lens?

It down to cost. I would not use a TS/PC lens enough to warrant buying one.

It's not simply usage. The cost has to balanced against the cost of
acheiving the same performance by different means. Using software
perspective correction tools loses you some image resolution. Suppose
for example at the kind of tilts you want you would lose 30%
resolution by doing the tilting in software. That won't matter if your
camera and lenses happen to give you 30% extra pixels to spare with
respect to the requirements of your final image. So if you were buying
a complete architectural photography kit from scratch you should
compare the cost of a tilt shift lens with the cost of buying enough
extra resolution to be able to get the same results from software
tilt-shifts.

Of course that doesn't apply if you also need to be able to tilt the
plane of focus, because that remains something that can only be done
optically.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In article , Hans Kruse
says...

Hmmm... 3461 x 2602 Pixel - what happened with the remaining 3.7 MP?
--
It was cropped, but the rest is in full resolution.

Corners cropped away? I actually wanted to have a look at the corners.

Regarding your ISO 3200 shots: didn't see them before, but they are very
nice.

I'll be on a trip in France at the end of the month and am planning to
carry a lightweight tripod permanently with me (so that in any situation
I can take a comfortable tripod shot at lowest ISO and small apertures
with optimal lens performance and high depth of field).

The overall weight of the camera pack will still be moderate, because
the camera is lightweight (the body of the Sony A350 weighs 600gr),
I'll carry only two lenses (around 500gr each) and the tripod weighs
only 900 gr.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:44:33 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Hans Kruse
says...

Hmmm... 3461 x 2602 Pixel - what happened with the remaining 3.7 MP?
--
It was cropped, but the rest is in full resolution.

Corners cropped away? I actually wanted to have a look at the corners.

No need to look at the corners in full resolution. You can see
vignetting in the upper corners in the reduced resolution image at:

http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/66422763

It's worse in the upper right than the upper left.

Steve

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...

Corners cropped away? I actually wanted to have a look at the corners.

I made a full resolution of the same picture you saw. But why is this so
interesting?

Regarding your ISO 3200 shots: didn't see them before, but they are very
nice.

I'll be on a trip in France at the end of the month and am planning to
carry a lightweight tripod permanently with me (so that in any situation
I can take a comfortable tripod shot at lowest ISO and small apertures
with optimal lens performance and high depth of field).

The overall weight of the camera pack will still be moderate, because
the camera is lightweight (the body of the Sony A350 weighs 600gr),
I'll carry only two lenses (around 500gr each) and the tripod weighs
only 900 gr.

When I'm on a serious photo trip I do bring a tripod along always, but not
when I'm on a trip like this to France. I still could make the photos and I
don't think they would have been visible that much better using a tripod.
But it depends, of course, on what you want to achieve. These pictures were
never meant for a gallery anyway :-)

But good luck with your trip and take some good pictures.

--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskruse.com, http://hans-kruse.blogspot.com/