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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:33:39 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:17*am, 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.

Much like making images more real(!) by using HDR. Sapping them of
any life is more like it.

Hopefully, HDR will go by the wayside eventually. At least how it is being
used today. Much like the popularity of garish posterization techniques in
the 60's and 70's that eventually died out. Everyone did it in the darkroom
just to see how it was done. They finally grew out of having a new toy to
play with. Now everyone with access to a computer and editing software has
an instant tilt-shift lens or view-camera to play with. They also need to
know that those who used them all last century to remove all perspective
were also wrong. Just as wrong as those who create badly done HDR images
today. They had a new toy to play with, and had to find as many ways to try
to justify the expense of it to their wives. That's not a compelling
argument for why they insisted on consistently destroying so many subjects
in their photos. "Just Because You Can Doesn't Mean You Should!"

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:38:46 -0400, Bowser wrote:

On 3/29/2011 11:17 AM, bugbear wrote:
Schneider wrote:
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?"

Awesome.

BugBear

Possibly the most creative BS I've seen in a while, even for a troll.
Hell, if more trolls were this damned funny, I'd reply to them all the time!

Has this character ever posted any pix?

What? You didn't see his photograph of a rare moth? Well, he claimed
it was a rare moth, but looking at the photo it was difficult to tell
if it was a rare moth or a plaster cast of a Yeti footprint with a
heavy Gaussian blur applied.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:04:39 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:38:46 -0400, Bowser wrote:

On 3/29/2011 11:17 AM, bugbear wrote:
Schneider wrote:
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?"

Awesome.

BugBear

Possibly the most creative BS I've seen in a while, even for a troll.
Hell, if more trolls were this damned funny, I'd reply to them all the time!

Has this character ever posted any pix?

What? You didn't see his photograph of a rare moth? Well, he claimed
it was a rare moth, but looking at the photo it was difficult to tell
if it was a rare moth or a plaster cast of a Yeti footprint with a
heavy Gaussian blur applied.

But according to you, this non-existent photo that is deeply burned into
the psychotic lobes of your miniscule mind was also stolen! So how could
that be proof of anyone's photography prowess?!

We're all still awaiting the day that you can prove that that image was
posted or even claimed to exist, by anyone other than you and the other
psychotic resident trolls.

I find it interesting in how much this proves the way that bull**** gets
spread exponentially on the net. One basement-living troll claims something
about another, then another basement-living troll takes that as fact, then
another, and another. Until in the end, only the most psychotic run around
with that flag full of holes in their hands. Waving it wildly at the world
at every opportunity to do so. All the while not realizing what a fool they
have been made of, and are now making an even bigger fool of themselves.

Peals of laughter unwittingly provided by more clowns than can fit in a
Volkswagen Bus.

One of them has even earned the rightful name of "Bozo in a Tank!" When his
claimed deep-sea dive photo was spotted to have telltale reflections in the
tank glass.

LOL!!!!! **** that was funny!

Now tell us again, you useless OFF-TOPIC TROLL ... what does your post have
to do with geometric perspective-correction errors.

LOL!!!!!!!!

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

Its not the right hand one with the slight barrel distortion. That's
enough to upset anyone.


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."

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:22:58 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

Its not the right hand one with the slight barrel distortion. That's
enough to upset anyone.

Precisely why I chose this building to demonstrate. The different angles
caused by the stories as they rise, the sides of the building's
architecture also being at different angles to the viewer, lends to very
effective optical illusions as to what are and are not a proper perspective
and geometric corrections. It became even difficult for me to decide on
which building-line to strike a vertical in the two edited panels to make
it appear vertical. I removed most of the barrel distortion in the right
frame. (Which became more magnified the more I corrected for perspective
correction. Middle frame needed a setting of -4.0. Right frame I used a
setting of -5.5 in my editor. Though -6.0 or -6.5 might have been better.)

Most of the barrel distortion you see is mostly in your mind.

I refer you to these demonstrations as to what you think you are seeing.

http://www.bu.edu/lite/vision-flash10/applets/Form/DistortedGrid/DistortedGrid.html
http://www.bu.edu/lite/vision-flash10/applets/Form/Hering/Hering.html


There's a reason that the designers of the Parthenon tilted the columns as
they did and made them gently curve inward in diameter toward the top.
Perfectly symmetrical structure caused too much imperfection in the
viewer's mind. They were artists aware of the quirks of human perception.
You are not.




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."

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:22:58 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

Its not the right hand one with the slight barrel distortion. That's
enough to upset anyone.

Precisely why I chose this building to demonstrate. The different angles
caused by the stories as they rise, the sides of the building's
architecture also being at different angles to the viewer, lends to very
effective optical illusions as to what are and are not a proper perspective
and geometric corrections. It became even difficult for me to decide on
which building-line to strike a vertical in the middle panel to make it
appear vertical. I removed most of the barrel distortion in the right
frame. (Which became more magnified the more I corrected for perspective
correction. Middle frame needed a setting of -4.0. Right frame I used a
setting of -5.5 in my editor. Though -6.0 or -6.5 might have been better.)

Most of the barrel distortion you see is mostly in your mind.

I refer you to these demonstrations as to what you think you are seeing.

http://www.bu.edu/lite/vision-flash10/applets/Form/DistortedGrid/DistortedGrid.html
http://www.bu.edu/lite/vision-flash10/applets/Form/Hering/Hering.html


There's a reason that the designers of the Parthenon tilted the columns as
they did and made them gently curve inward in diameter toward the top.
Perfectly symmetrical structure caused too much imperfection in the
viewer's mind. They were artists aware of the quirks of human perception.
You are not.




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."

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.

That's harsh! I'd say if someone wanted to see their building as it looks with
no perspective, say like it was taken from a higher height or something, it
would be a valid request to compare it to the blueprints...

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.

I never bother to "fix" photos for perspective. I like buildings to look like
they look... I wonder if people correct the perspective of tall people?


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

The one on the left is a photo making a statement... the building leaning away
makes it more distant, imposing... the middle one suits me though, the right one
of course looks technically perfect, and if no one had a comparison, it would be
an OK photo. Knowing that it's been 'bent' might bias ones opinion of the
photo...

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."

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 21:02:29 -0500, Schneider
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:22:58 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

Its not the right hand one with the slight barrel distortion. That's
enough to upset anyone.

Precisely why I chose this building to demonstrate. The different angles
caused by the stories as they rise, the sides of the building's
architecture also being at different angles to the viewer, lends to very
effective optical illusions as to what are and are not a proper perspective
and geometric corrections. It became even difficult for me to decide on
which building-line to strike a vertical in the two edited panels to make
it appear vertical. I removed most of the barrel distortion in the right
frame. (Which became more magnified the more I corrected for perspective
correction. Middle frame needed a setting of -4.0. Right frame I used a
setting of -5.5 in my editor. Though -6.0 or -6.5 might have been better.)

Most of the barrel distortion you see is mostly in your mind.

Bull****. Its in your image and has nothing to do with perspective
other than being possibly an artifact of the method you used to
correct the perspective. Or it may be that you never even noticed it?
I'm even open to the suggestion that you included it deliberately to
support your claims about the evils of correcting perspective.

I refer you to these demonstrations as to what you think you are seeing.

http://www.bu.edu/lite/vision-flash10/applets/Form/DistortedGrid/DistortedGrid.html
http://www.bu.edu/lite/vision-flash10/applets/Form/Hering/Hering.html

Rubbish. There is no pattern of radial lines to create that illusion.



There's a reason that the designers of the Parthenon tilted the columns as
they did and made them gently curve inward in diameter toward the top.
Perfectly symmetrical structure caused too much imperfection in the
viewer's mind. They were artists aware of the quirks of human perception.
You are not.

You should also have mentioned the vertical curvature of the steps.
Frm memory they are some 15" higher in the middle than the ends.




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."


Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:33:13 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 21:02:29 -0500, Schneider
wrote:


Most of the barrel distortion you see is mostly in your mind.

Bull****. Its in your image and has nothing to do with perspective
other than being possibly an artifact of the method you used to
correct the perspective. Or it may be that you never even noticed it?
I'm even open to the suggestion that you included it deliberately to
support your claims about the evils of correcting perspective.

I refer you to these demonstrations as to what you think you are seeing.

http://www.bu.edu/lite/vision-flash10/applets/Form/DistortedGrid/DistortedGrid.html
http://www.bu.edu/lite/vision-flash10/applets/Form/Hering/Hering.html

Rubbish. There is no pattern of radial lines to create that illusion.


I was right. You ARE blind. I think you should go give DUDley some
photography tips.

"Bowser" wrote in message
...
[]
Wow, that's stupid...

Please don't feed the trolls.

David