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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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