A Reject

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 15:59:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Probably none of us own such a camera and many of us never have. I was
responding to "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,

Eric Stevens

On 2016-06-06 09:25:31 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 15:59:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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 TonyÂ’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.

Probably none of us own such a camera and many of us never have. I was
responding to "there was no way to have all vertical lines at 90º
without a severe crop in the result.".

Except for the fact that we were talking about the one image in
question which had already been captured.

BTW: I doubt that even a good technical camera or with a tilt-shift
lens could have dealt with the offset of Tony's shooting position to
the plane of the walls.




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

On 05/06/2016 19:57, Tony Cooper wrote:
[]
The county recently sold the building to a company that will renovate
it and convert it to commercial office space. The county's budget is
too strained to continue the cost of upkeep as a museum. The new
owner has agreed to preserve certain historical aspects of the
building and not tear it down completely.

Thanks, Tony. That's goo to know. Fingers crossed it works out as
intended.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 6/5/2016 2:59 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip

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.


Been there many times.



--
PeterN