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

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


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 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.

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


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."

The one on the right, even though the sides are vertical in the frame,
looks like a ice cream cone, because, as you say, the correction is
abnormal.

I don't correct for perspective, but I make an effort to have the
camera pointing horizontal when the composition allows.

Full frame, uncorrected.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2054/...89f0c923c4.jpg

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:31:56 +1100, N wrote:


The one on the right, even though the sides are vertical in the frame,
looks like a ice cream cone, because, as you say, the correction is
abnormal.

I don't correct for perspective, but I make an effort to have the
camera pointing horizontal when the composition allows.

Full frame, uncorrected.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2054/...89f0c923c4.jpg


And it looks nice and natural, as it should.

When the building's sides are within believable (realistic perspective)
angles, then the mind tends to completely ignore the straight vertical
sides of the image's frame to compare it against. Even when an edge is
right up next to the side of the frame, as in the left side of your image.
You don't even notice that the building's sides are tilted in a bit until
you specifically go to look for it. The mind tends to ignore that which is
unimportant and instead focuses on that which is the most relatable,
identifiable, natural, and realistic looking.

On 3/29/2011 7:17 AM, Schneider wrote:

I don't take much architectural photography...snip

Then what makes you the expert?

I prefer straight building sides to the "leaning over" look. So sue me.
And any customers who wanted their building shot wanted straight sides.
Right or wrong, they wanted them and they pay the bill.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:52:50 -0400, Bowser wrote:

On 3/29/2011 7:17 AM, Schneider wrote:

I don't take much architectural photography...snip

Then what makes you the expert?

Because I have an eye for all aspects of photography. 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?"

Easy, it's called "art".

I've also done interior design for close friends in the distant past, but
not without a lot of coaxing on their part because I find it too tedious
and simple. Visiting their homes years later and I had found they didn't
move even one piece of furniture from where I first decided it needed to
be.


I prefer straight building sides to the "leaning over" look. So sue me.

Nobody's going to sue you. I'll just tell you, IT'S WRONG.

And any customers who wanted their building shot wanted straight sides.
Right or wrong, they wanted them and they pay the bill.

I never let another's money dictate my art or what I know to be right.
That's why they have to pay so much when they do. I set the price and
decide how it should be done, they don't. They're not artists, they're
dismissible pawns with too much money who don't know how things should be.

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:30:26 -0500, Schneider wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:52:50 -0400, Bowser wrote:

On 3/29/2011 7:17 AM, Schneider wrote:

I don't take much architectural photography...snip

Then what makes you the expert?

Because I have an eye for all aspects of photography. 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?"

Easy, it's called "art".

I've also done interior design for close friends in the distant past,
but not without a lot of coaxing on their part because I find it too
tedious and simple. Visiting their homes years later and I had found
they didn't move even one piece of furniture from where I first decided
it needed to be.


I prefer straight building sides to the "leaning over" look. So sue me.

Nobody's going to sue you. I'll just tell you, IT'S WRONG.

As you mentioned, it's art. What's 'right' for you may not be what's
right for me - it's art. According to you, art would be rather the same
and quite stifling.



And any customers who wanted their building shot wanted straight sides.
Right or wrong, they wanted them and they pay the bill.

I never let another's money dictate my art or what I know to be right.
That's why they have to pay so much when they do. I set the price and
decide how it should be done, they don't. They're not artists, they're
dismissible pawns with too much money who don't know how things should
be.

On 3/29/2011 9:30 AM, Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:52:50 -0400, wrote:

On 3/29/2011 7:17 AM, Schneider wrote:

I don't take much architectural photography...snip

Then what makes you the expert?

Because I have an eye for all aspects of photography. 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?"

Easy, it's called "art".

Holy crap, this is the finest steaming pile of BS I've read in quite a
while! Tons of brag with no facts whatsoever to support it!

BRAVO!!!!!


I've also done interior design for close friends in the distant past, but
not without a lot of coaxing on their part because I find it too tedious
and simple. Visiting their homes years later and I had found they didn't
move even one piece of furniture from where I first decided it needed to
be.


I prefer straight building sides to the "leaning over" look. So sue me.

Nobody's going to sue you. I'll just tell you, IT'S WRONG.

And any customers who wanted their building shot wanted straight sides.
Right or wrong, they wanted them and they pay the bill.

I never let another's money dictate my art or what I know to be right.
That's why they have to pay so much when they do. I set the price and
decide how it should be done, they don't. They're not artists, they're
dismissible pawns with too much money who don't know how things should be.


Wow, that's stupid...

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?

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:49:02 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 6:17:20 AM UTC-5, 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.

Man, you're going to hate me. I correct perspective in Photoshop in
my snapshots sometimes.

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


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.

There you go. Yes, I've learned that experimentally, starting with an
Olympus 24mm shift lens that I bought to take to England in 1987 (my
"castle and cathedral" lens; they kept building those huge things in
the middle of towns, making it very hard to get back to photograph
them!).

Pushing to absolutely flat projection very rarely looks best IMHO.
Huh, maybe you won't hate me; maybe we kind of agree on the boundary
between "use" and "abuse" of this tool.

'Zactly!

I've got over a century of perspective-correction abuse to try to undo in
one post. It needs to be a little emphatic.


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.)

There's room for lots of opinions around.

I find the original disturbing because it seems tilted to the left.

Yes, it is. That's why I mentioned that needs correcting. It was cropped
from the side of an image and had it's own off-kilter tilt to it. I didn't
spend a lot of time on this, just wanted to throw together something
quickly for an example. It already took too long trying to find a useful
image for a demo.