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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
On 6/4/2016 11:41 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
I'm submitting three photographs for consideration for the 2017 calendar for Sanford, Florida. The requirement is a black and white photo of a historical building in the city. I shot several scenes and labored over which three to choose. This one didn't make the cut. A great deal Photoshopping was done (which is not banned by the rules) to make this work. There are trees obscuring the building from all angles. They had to be removed. https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...5-11-14-X3.jpg I think it looks great. My only concern is that the top of the tower looks wider than the first floor part, like it is overcorrected. It probably couldn't be avoided though in order to get the sides parallel. I like it. Tim |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 03:16:57 -0400, tconway
wrote: On 6/4/2016 11:41 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: I'm submitting three photographs for consideration for the 2017 calendar for Sanford, Florida. The requirement is a black and white photo of a historical building in the city. I shot several scenes and labored over which three to choose. This one didn't make the cut. A great deal Photoshopping was done (which is not banned by the rules) to make this work. There are trees obscuring the building from all angles. They had to be removed. https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...5-11-14-X3.jpg I think it looks great. My only concern is that the top of the tower looks wider than the first floor part, like it is overcorrected. It probably couldn't be avoided though in order to get the sides parallel. I like it. That's an optical illusion which can only be avoided by having the tower taper slightly towards the top. The tapering is desirable if you are going to view the image from relatively close up but is not really necessary if you view from a distance. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
On 2016-06-05 09:21:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 03:16:57 -0400, tconway wrote: On 6/4/2016 11:41 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: I'm submitting three photographs for consideration for the 2017 calendar for Sanford, Florida. The requirement is a black and white photo of a historical building in the city. I shot several scenes and labored over which three to choose. This one didn't make the cut. A great deal Photoshopping was done (which is not banned by the rules) to make this work. There are trees obscuring the building from all angles. They had to be removed. https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...5-11-14-X3.jpg I think it looks great. My only concern is that the top of the tower looks wider than the first floor part, like it is overcorrected. It probably couldn't be avoided though in order to get the sides parallel. I like it. That's an optical illusion which can only be avoided by having the tower taper slightly towards the top. The tapering is desirable if you are going to view the image from relatively close up but is not really necessary if you view from a distance. Yup! All bets are off for any sort of correction, or straightening with software (Upright or Adaptive Wide Angle Filter) due to the camera position relative to the walls. Not even a tilt-shift lens could have compensated for the parallel offset. The walls and the focal plane are so far from parallel that at 18mm (27mm FF) there was no way to have all vertical lines at 90º without a severe crop in the result. Tony has done a pretty good job considering the problems he had dealing with the trees from his shooting position. As it is the way Tony has taken the shot, along with his PP, the image has what I can only call an 'Escheresque' feel to it. There is something wrong with the perspective, but you cannot quite put your finger on it if you are a casual viewer. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
On 05/06/2016 14:59, Savageduck wrote:
https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...5-11-14-X3.jpg Yup! All bets are off for any sort of correction, or straightening with software (Upright or Adaptive Wide Angle Filter) due to the camera position relative to the walls. Not even a tilt-shift lens could have compensated for the parallel offset. The walls and the focal plane are so far from parallel that at 18mm (27mm FF) there was no way to have all vertical lines at 90º without a severe crop in the result. Tony has done a pretty good job considering the problems he had dealing with the trees from his shooting position. As it is the way Tony has taken the shot, along with his PP, the image has what I can only call an 'Escheresque' feel to it. There is something wrong with the perspective, but you cannot quite put your finger on it if you are a casual viewer. Looks good to me, and the strangeness is rather attractive. Only thing missing is a line underneath the "Erected 1902" saying "Demolished 1995" or whatever. I guess that at least some buildings of that era have been cleared for "modern" developments ....but not that one. Looks like it might still be in use. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
On Jun 5, 2016, David Taylor wrote
(in article ): On 05/06/2016 14:59, Savageduck wrote: https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...5-11-14-X3.jpg Yup! All bets are off for any sort of correction, or straightening with software (Upright or Adaptive Wide Angle Filter) due to the camera position relative to the walls. Not even a tilt-shift lens could have compensated for the parallel offset. The walls and the focal plane are so far from parallel that at 18mm (27mm FF) there was no way to have all vertical lines at 90º without a severe crop in the result. Tony has done a pretty good job considering the problems he had dealing with the trees from his shooting position. As it is the way Tony has taken the shot, along with his PP, the image has what I can only call an 'Escheresque' feel to it. There is something wrong with the perspective, but you cannot quite put your finger on it if you are a casual viewer. Looks good to me, and the strangeness is rather attractive. Only thing missing is a line underneath the "Erected 1902" saying "Demolished 1995" or whatever. I guess that at least some buildings of that era have been cleared for "modern" developments ....but not that one. Looks like it might still be in use. Just for the Hell of it I tried the Adaptive Wide Angle and Upright filters. The Adaptive Wide Angle filter does not work at all. However, using the Upright filter in the Camera RAW filter, with the ‘Full’ correction applied, all the verticals and some of the perspective distortion to the tower appear to be fixed, but not without the obvious area loss. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_141.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
On 6/5/2016 10:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 5, 2016, David Taylor wrote (in article ): On 05/06/2016 14:59, Savageduck wrote: https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...5-11-14-X3.jpg Yup! All bets are off for any sort of correction, or straightening with software (Upright or Adaptive Wide Angle Filter) due to the camera position relative to the walls. Not even a tilt-shift lens could have compensated for the parallel offset. The walls and the focal plane are so far from parallel that at 18mm (27mm FF) there was no way to have all vertical lines at 90º without a severe crop in the result. Tony has done a pretty good job considering the problems he had dealing with the trees from his shooting position. As it is the way Tony has taken the shot, along with his PP, the image has what I can only call an 'Escheresque' feel to it. There is something wrong with the perspective, but you cannot quite put your finger on it if you are a casual viewer. Looks good to me, and the strangeness is rather attractive. Only thing missing is a line underneath the "Erected 1902" saying "Demolished 1995" or whatever. I guess that at least some buildings of that era have been cleared for "modern" developments ....but not that one. Looks like it might still be in use. Just for the Hell of it I tried the Adaptive Wide Angle and Upright filters. The Adaptive Wide Angle filter does not work at all. However, using the Upright filter in the Camera RAW filter, with the ‘Full’ correction applied, all the verticals and some of the perspective distortion to the tower appear to be fixed, but not without the obvious area loss. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_141.jpg Wow! That does look good and I see what you all mean. Tim |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
On Jun 5, 2016, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ): On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 06:59:42 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-06-05 09:21:36 +0000, Eric said: On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 03:16:57 -0400, wrote: On 6/4/2016 11:41 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: I'm submitting three photographs for consideration for the 2017 calendar for Sanford, Florida. The requirement is a black and white photo of a historical building in the city. I shot several scenes and labored over which three to choose. This one didn't make the cut. A great deal Photoshopping was done (which is not banned by the rules) to make this work. There are trees obscuring the building from all angles. They had to be removed. https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...5-11-14-X3.jpg I think it looks great. My only concern is that the top of the tower looks wider than the first floor part, like it is overcorrected. It probably couldn't be avoided though in order to get the sides parallel. I like it. That's an optical illusion which can only be avoided by having the tower taper slightly towards the top. The tapering is desirable if you are going to view the image from relatively close up but is not really necessary if you view from a distance. Yup! All bets are off for any sort of correction, or straightening with software (Upright or Adaptive Wide Angle Filter) due to the camera position relative to the walls. Not even a tilt-shift lens could have compensated for the parallel offset. The walls and the focal plane are so far from parallel that at 18mm (27mm FF) there was no way to have all vertical lines at 90º without a severe crop in the result. Tony has done a pretty good job considering the problems he had dealing with the trees from his shooting position. As it is the way Tony has taken the shot, along with his PP, the image has what I can only call an 'Escheresque' feel to it. There is something wrong with the perspective, but you cannot quite put your finger on it if you are a casual viewer. There was a severe perspective distortion. Partly self-imposed. The photographs must be 8 x 10 and to get an interesting view I had to photograph from an angle that included the tower and the right side of the building. I took some straight-on shots, but didn't like them. Adjusting perspective caused the loss of part of the lower right of the scene and that was replaced by grabbing some plants from another shot of the same scene and Photoshopping them in. There are other Photoshop changes. As I said, this one is a reject. Fun to work with, but not one I'll submit. I knew early-on that this would be a reject, but it became a challenge to finish. I saw that it was going to be tough to get straight-on from your shooting position. Any correction was always just going to be a challeging exercise. ....and some fun with a bit more learned. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
On Jun 5, 2016, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ): On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 12:16:35 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jun 5, 2016, Tony Cooper wrote (in ): On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 06:59:42 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-06-05 09:21:36 +0000, Eric said: On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 03:16:57 -0400, wrote: On 6/4/2016 11:41 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: I'm submitting three photographs for consideration for the 2017 calendar for Sanford, Florida. The requirement is a black and white photo of a historical building in the city. I shot several scenes and labored over which three to choose. This one didn't make the cut. A great deal Photoshopping was done (which is not banned by the rules) to make this work. There are trees obscuring the building from all angles. They had to be removed. https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...5-11-14-X3.jpg I think it looks great. My only concern is that the top of the tower looks wider than the first floor part, like it is overcorrected. It probably couldn't be avoided though in order to get the sides parallel. I like it. That's an optical illusion which can only be avoided by having the tower taper slightly towards the top. The tapering is desirable if you are going to view the image from relatively close up but is not really necessary if you view from a distance. Yup! All bets are off for any sort of correction, or straightening with software (Upright or Adaptive Wide Angle Filter) due to the camera position relative to the walls. Not even a tilt-shift lens could have compensated for the parallel offset. The walls and the focal plane are so far from parallel that at 18mm (27mm FF) there was no way to have all vertical lines at 90º without a severe crop in the result. Tony has done a pretty good job considering the problems he had dealing with the trees from his shooting position. As it is the way Tony has taken the shot, along with his PP, the image has what I can only call an 'Escheresque' feel to it. There is something wrong with the perspective, but you cannot quite put your finger on it if you are a casual viewer. There was a severe perspective distortion. Partly self-imposed. The photographs must be 8 x 10 and to get an interesting view I had to photograph from an angle that included the tower and the right side of the building. I took some straight-on shots, but didn't like them. Adjusting perspective caused the loss of part of the lower right of the scene and that was replaced by grabbing some plants from another shot of the same scene and Photoshopping them in. There are other Photoshop changes. As I said, this one is a reject. Fun to work with, but not one I'll submit. I knew early-on that this would be a reject, but it became a challenge to finish. I saw that it was going to be tough to get straight-on from your shooting position. Any correction was always just going to be a challeging exercise. ...and some fun with a bit more learned. Keep in mind that what you did was correct the perspective in an image that had already been perspective corrected. The loss was greater in the first pass. I figured as much, so I was just playing. ;-) -- Regards, Savageduck |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 06:59:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2016-06-05 09:21:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 03:16:57 -0400, tconway wrote: On 6/4/2016 11:41 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: I'm submitting three photographs for consideration for the 2017 calendar for Sanford, Florida. The requirement is a black and white photo of a historical building in the city. I shot several scenes and labored over which three to choose. This one didn't make the cut. A great deal Photoshopping was done (which is not banned by the rules) to make this work. There are trees obscuring the building from all angles. They had to be removed. https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...5-11-14-X3.jpg I think it looks great. My only concern is that the top of the tower looks wider than the first floor part, like it is overcorrected. It probably couldn't be avoided though in order to get the sides parallel. I like it. That's an optical illusion which can only be avoided by having the tower taper slightly towards the top. The tapering is desirable if you are going to view the image from relatively close up but is not really necessary if you view from a distance. Yup! All bets are off for any sort of correction, or straightening with software (Upright or Adaptive Wide Angle Filter) due to the camera position relative to the walls. Not even a tilt-shift lens could have compensated for the parallel offset. The walls and the focal plane are so far from parallel that at 18mm (27mm FF) there was no way to have all vertical lines at 90º without a severe crop in the result. You could with the kind of cameras discussed in http://www.bearimages.com/Bear_Image...l_Cameras.html Tony has done a pretty good job considering the problems he had dealing with the trees from his shooting position. As it is the way Tony has taken the shot, along with his PP, the image has what I can only call an 'Escheresque' feel to it. There is something wrong with the perspective, but you cannot quite put your finger on it if you are a casual viewer. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
On Jun 5, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 06:59:42 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-06-05 09:21:36 +0000, Eric said: On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 03:16:57 -0400, wrote: On 6/4/2016 11:41 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: I'm submitting three photographs for consideration for the 2017 calendar for Sanford, Florida. The requirement is a black and white photo of a historical building in the city. I shot several scenes and labored over which three to choose. This one didn't make the cut. A great deal Photoshopping was done (which is not banned by the rules) to make this work. There are trees obscuring the building from all angles. They had to be removed. https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...5-11-14-X3.jpg I think it looks great. My only concern is that the top of the tower looks wider than the first floor part, like it is overcorrected. It probably couldn't be avoided though in order to get the sides parallel. I like it. That's an optical illusion which can only be avoided by having the tower taper slightly towards the top. The tapering is desirable if you are going to view the image from relatively close up but is not really necessary if you view from a distance. Yup! All bets are off for any sort of correction, or straightening with software (Upright or Adaptive Wide Angle Filter) due to the camera position relative to the walls. Not even a tilt-shift lens could have compensated for the parallel offset. The walls and the focal plane are so far from parallel that at 18mm (27mm FF) there was no way to have all vertical lines at 90º without a severe crop in the result. You could with the kind of cameras discussed in http://www.bearimages.com/Bear_Image...al_Cameras.htm l Except I thought we were talking about Tony’s image, and that PP, not what could be with cameras none of us are currently using. I am not even sure how many of us even own a tilt-shift lens or a specialized camera for such shots. Tony has done a pretty good job considering the problems he had dealing with the trees from his shooting position. As it is the way Tony has taken the shot, along with his PP, the image has what I can only call an 'Escheresque' feel to it. There is something wrong with the perspective, but you cannot quite put your finger on it if you are a casual viewer. -- Regards, Savageduck |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Reject | Bill W | Digital Photography | 0 | June 5th 16 04:53 AM |
it will reject handsome jugs, do you change them | Ronald | Digital Photography | 0 | May 5th 06 04:51 AM |
it will reject handsome jugs, do you change them | Ronald | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | May 5th 06 04:51 AM |
quincy! You'll believe printers. Just now, I'll reject the pitcher | Brian Mailman | Digital Photography | 0 | April 22nd 06 06:05 PM |
she'd rather receive amazingly than reject with Sam's humble unit | Peter J Ross | Digital Photography | 0 | April 22nd 06 02:18 PM |