Weird. I "see" the verticals diverging, even though I can check that they are parallel to the frame. I guess my brain detects that I am looking upwards, and so insists on the fact that the verticals "should" diverge.
This is an interesting discussion: is it a good idea to allow a slight convergence in order not to look diverging to our brain?
except for architects who seem to prefer geometrical accuracy over a wrong perspective.
That's an interesting observation. What do architects do when they sketch, distort the perspective, or offer themselves the imaginary luxury of an ideal point of view?
Perspective means that same size structures that are further away are depicted smaller. So a straight facade of a building is equally wide at the base and at the rooftop, but only when viewed from half height.
...although in fact the straightness is also an approximation, since the centre will then be close than the top and the bottom... and barrel "distortion" would correspond with what is seen, unless the viewer is floating at half height and infinite distance.
However I can well understand that if you come from a technical drawing background, you probably don't want to see a subjective view of the building, but that Platonic "idea" of the building that is in the mind of the architect and in the plans (well, the elevation, to be correct!).
That's how I used to draw motorcycles when I was 10 :)
That's an interesting observation. What do architects do when they sketch, distort the perspective, or offer themselves the imaginary luxury of an ideal point of view?
Guillermo: the pillar looks fine, maybe because of the absence of undersides of terraces to remind me I'm looking up. The door next to that pillar looks a bit peculiar, but what really caught my eye was the "lighting fixture" at the right... was it hanging unequally, or is that a perspective artifact?