No need for a tilt shift lens.

In article , Chris Brown
writes
In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Chris Brown writes:

As you point out, the effects of shift can be accomplished through
resampling in a Pantools-type application.

Tilt, however, is a completely different matter. Here's what you can do with
tilt:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/Tilt.jpg

Now *that's* scary! I'm fairly comfortable with shift, and can
stumble through simple little tilts, but these extremes still impress
me. That's just *weird*!

Should have seen the way the tripod legs were splayed, almost at the
horizontal, and the rather uncomfortable way I had to lay across them, head
practically under the floor, with the dark cloth sort of sitting atop like a
dead jellyfish. Most undignified. ;-)


Especially after testing the props....
--
David Littlewood

In article , Joseph Meehan
writes
Scott W wrote:
I have read from a number of people the LF cameras have a large
advantage over other cameras because they can shift the lens and
thereby avoid perspective distortion that a camera with a fix lens
would suffer.

But with today's panoramic tools this seems like much less of an
issue.
This is what a very wide angle photos looks like without shifting the
lens in software.

I had to comeback and check. You did only say shift and not shift tilt
that others seem to have picked up. Good, as no digital tools are going to
take care of tilt. :-)

Digital tools do a good job, and I believe good enough for most uses.
However for those who are really serious there is still a real difference in
the final result when comparing both results where both have been well done.
The stretched parts just are not the same as a good shifted result. Of
course lenses are not all the same and there are many factors to consider.

Back in the old days we use to do much of this kind of thing in the
darkroom buy tilting the paper holder.

But, unless you had a tilting lens panel and could use Scheimpflug, you
must have had to stop down a *lot* (and thus lose a lot of resolution).

David
--
David Littlewood

Chris Brown writes:

In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Chris Brown writes:

As you point out, the effects of shift can be accomplished through
resampling in a Pantools-type application.

Tilt, however, is a completely different matter. Here's what you can do with
tilt:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/Tilt.jpg

Now *that's* scary! I'm fairly comfortable with shift, and can
stumble through simple little tilts, but these extremes still impress
me. That's just *weird*!

Should have seen the way the tripod legs were splayed, almost at the
horizontal, and the rather uncomfortable way I had to lay across them, head
practically under the floor, with the dark cloth sort of sitting atop like a
dead jellyfish. Most undignified. ;-)

Yeah, well, ya gotta expect to suffer for you art!

This of course is one of the places where digital wins; I just plug
the firewire cable in between my laptop and the camera, and sit
comfortably in a chair seeing on the screen the results of the latest
test shot.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

In article . com, Scott
W writes
I am glad to see that this has gotten interest.
As many have pointed out it is hard to do tilt with digital tools, but
tilt is a pretty limited adjustment and only works for some cases.

As to correcting for shift panoramic tools have a huge advantage, a
shift lens needs a very large field of view. When shooting the photos
to be stitched you can use a long focal length, what you are basically
after is high angular resolution. Once you have a date base of pixels
for any given angle you can reconstruct what the image would look like
with any give camera configuration.

Here is a wide angle shot of a building using panoramic stitching, yes
I know the lighting was terrible, but I think the building did not come
out too bad.

http://www.pbase.com/camping05/image/50543206/original

Scott

I'm not sure how this proves your point. It looks to me more of a way
around not having a lens with a large enough FoV, rather than a shift
issue. As such, it appears (in a small web image) to be well done, but
shift it is not.

Am I missing something?

David
--
David Littlewood

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Lorem Ipsum
writes
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
news
They are very common among FF Digital shooters who do architecture and
product photos. Canon make three different models.

True, and they represent fine technology. However, they are such a bear to
use, so fussy, so lacking in depth-of-focus (not to be confused with
depth-of-field) that one has to be a saint-of-precision to use them
properly.


Not true - and I speak as one who takes about 15-20% of my photos using
Canon TS-E lenses, mostly the 24mm, and mostly in shift-only mode.

But you know that shift is trivial compared to swings and tilts.

Tilt is, I agree, slightly more involved, and is probably best done on a
tripod (though I have done it hand held).

More than slightly more involved, and it takes a long time to make them
intuitively clear.

I think you are missing the point when you say that depth of focus is a
problem. It is precisely no problem at all when using shift - it is
exactly as for a normal lens.

It should be clear I was not talking about shift alone.

The short focal lengths of small cameras compound depth-of-focus issues,
make swings and tilts enormously fussy.

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
news
In article , Bob
Salomon writes
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:

I could probably
have got the tops looking sharp as well if I'd stopped down to f/64

You would also have been well into diffraction with that lens at f64.

Well, with any lens at f/64.

And when shooting 8x10 film, the degree of diffusion at F/64 with a
(nominal) normal lens is not even worth considering.

In article , Lorem Ipsum
writes
"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Lorem Ipsum
writes
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
news
They are very common among FF Digital shooters who do architecture and
product photos. Canon make three different models.

True, and they represent fine technology. However, they are such a bear to
use, so fussy, so lacking in depth-of-focus (not to be confused with
depth-of-field) that one has to be a saint-of-precision to use them
properly.


Not true - and I speak as one who takes about 15-20% of my photos using
Canon TS-E lenses, mostly the 24mm, and mostly in shift-only mode.

But you know that shift is trivial compared to swings and tilts.

Which I think I said, see below. Also, please note the OP's question was
about shift.

Tilt is, I agree, slightly more involved, and is probably best done on a
tripod (though I have done it hand held).

More than slightly more involved, and it takes a long time to make them
intuitively clear.

Not really, for one degree of freedom (of lens relative to image plane).
I agree it gets much worse with a view camera with two

I think you are missing the point when you say that depth of focus is a
problem. It is precisely no problem at all when using shift - it is
exactly as for a normal lens.

It should be clear I was not talking about shift alone.

No, you simply mentioned architecture and product photography. I do
quite a lot of architecture, but rarely use tilt (I don't like the
geometry it produces). I understand it is much used in product
photography, but I don't do this.

The short focal lengths of small cameras compound depth-of-focus issues,
make swings and tilts enormously fussy.


Not my experience. YMMV.

David
--
David Littlewood

In article , Lorem Ipsum
writes
"David Littlewood" wrote in message
news
In article , Bob
Salomon writes
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:

I could probably
have got the tops looking sharp as well if I'd stopped down to f/64

You would also have been well into diffraction with that lens at f64.

Well, with any lens at f/64.

And when shooting 8x10 film, the degree of diffusion at F/64 with a
(nominal) normal lens is not even worth considering.


Diffusion?
--
David Littlewood

In article ,
David Littlewood wrote:

In article ,
Bob Salomon writes
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:

I could probably
have got the tops looking sharp as well if I'd stopped down to f/64

You would also have been well into diffraction with that lens at f64.

Well, with any lens at f/64.

I don't know about that.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

David Littlewood wrote:
In article , Joseph
Meehan writes
Scott W wrote:
I have read from a number of people the LF cameras have a large
advantage over other cameras because they can shift the lens and
thereby avoid perspective distortion that a camera with a fix lens
would suffer.

But with today's panoramic tools this seems like much less of an
issue.
This is what a very wide angle photos looks like without shifting
the lens in software.

I had to comeback and check. You did only say shift and not
shift tilt that others seem to have picked up. Good, as no digital
tools are going to take care of tilt. :-)

Digital tools do a good job, and I believe good enough for most
uses. However for those who are really serious there is still a real
difference in the final result when comparing both results where both
have been well done. The stretched parts just are not the same as a
good shifted result. Of course lenses are not all the same and there
are many factors to consider.
Back in the old days we use to do much of this kind of thing in
the darkroom buy tilting the paper holder.

But, unless you had a tilting lens panel and could use Scheimpflug,
you must have had to stop down a *lot* (and thus lose a lot of
resolution).

I did have a tilting lens stages and I also used an enlarger that had a
tilting negative stage.


David

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit