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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
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 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.". 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A Reject
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 |
|
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 |