Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: budjames on May 15, 2011, 08:25:14 pm
-
I longed for the benefits of a tilt-shift lens to use on my Canon 1Ds MkIII and 5D MkII bodies, but until last week I resisted due to the high cost. However, after reading the review of the Canon 17mm TS f4 lens on DigLloyd's blog and then watching tutorials on OnOne Software's web site featuring UrbEx and HDR photography, I took the plunge. $2,400 later, I'm the proud owner of a new Calon 17mm TS lens.
I received the lens Friday afternoon from B&H Photo. Saturday was overcast with intermittent drizzles. A perfect opportunity for some cool HDR architecture photography. Historic Doylestown, PA is a 15 minute drive from my home. I headed out and got some cool shots. Check them out on my web site at: http://www.budjamesphotography.com/Bud_James_Photography/Portfolios/Pages/Doylestown.html#0 (http://www.budjamesphotography.com/Bud_James_Photography/Portfolios/Pages/Doylestown.html#0).
The images were collected in Lightroom 3.3. HDR processing was done in NIK Software's HDR Efex Pro.
Please post your comments either here or on my web site.
Cheers.
Bud
http://budjamesphotography.com (http://budjamesphotography.com)
-
Wonderful images - a special composition and perspective 'tricks' gained by UWA shift lens.
But, in my opinion, processing is terrible like a school-yards point-ad-shooting;-(
You shoot in cloudy overcast day and i can't believe that canon full-frame sensor cannot handle contrast (needed to recover via HDR tools).
Sorry
-
QWZ,
So, I guess you don't like my HDR renditions. Oh well. A board member of the museum loved them. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Cheers.
Bud
-
I would go back and reprocess the images. HDR should be banned by optometrists for damaging eyes.
-
I would have thought a 17mm (tilt or no tilt) would really distort the images. I can see how the ts could be a great addition to my toy list. As to the hdr, I happen to like your treatments. It is an obvious hdr to me but not so far pushed to be blatantly strange. About the only thing I would have changed is dialing back the exposure on the ceilings because it calls too much attention to its rough textures at the expense of the other parts of the image.
-
How much visible distortion you get with the lens is largely dependent on how you use it. Here are three, the first of which was my first image with this lens, taken about a year and a half ago. The second is an exterior of Anderson School of Business UCLA, as part of a brochure I was doing for them and the third is the library at Anderson, shot with the 17 as a horizontal then shifted up and down and stitched - a shot that would have been very difficult before this lens existed. This lens alone is a game changer. I don't use it all the time but I'm sure glad I have it when I need it.
-
The colour effect is the effect, and one likes or dislikes it; what disturbs me is the apparent shift in geometry of the constructions. I get the distinct impression that somewhere along the line, the lens was tilting upwards or downwards and, infact, a bit of both across exposures.
It doesn't look real.
Rob C
-
Saturday was overcast with intermittent drizzles. A perfect opportunity for some cool HDR architecture photography.
Not sure why you'd think that. High dynamic range photography is a useful tool for taming dynamic ranges beyond the sensor's capabilities, dull overcast days don't give that sort of problem, often the reverse.
The photos look like they were fairly reasonable before PP, although as Rob says there's something not quite right about the perspective of some of them.
However the post processing looks horrible and has removed any suggestion that they were take with high quality equipment. Frankly at the size you've presented them, most could have been taken with a phone.
It's curious as on your web site most of the images presented are straight, decent photographs, you really shouldn't need to resort to such gaudy PP tricks as this.
Paul
-
How much visible distortion you get with the lens is largely dependent on how you use it. Here are three, the first of which was my first image with this lens, taken about a year and a half ago. The second is an exterior of Anderson School of Business UCLA, as part of a brochure I was doing for them and the third is the library at Anderson, shot with the 17 as a horizontal then shifted up and down and stitched - a shot that would have been very difficult before this lens existed. This lens alone is a game changer. I don't use it all the time but I'm sure glad I have it when I need it.
Very nicely done! I've used the lens in a similar manner, it really is a game changer!! Jim
-
What happened to the other two images I posted? Hmmm. Well, here's the first.
-
and the second from Anderson
-
Hi Bud -- there's nothing wrong with using HDR for these applications. The slight issue with your images is that they are left with halos from filter artifacts in tonemapping. In an almost-anything-goes area of photography, this is the one thing that would be deleterious to the effect you're trying to achieve. Using the right amount of light smoothing, for example, in Photomatix, would alleviate those issues. A little more refinement in your HDR technique would go a long way here. In other respects, your client has every reason to be pleased with the images.
-
What happened to the other two images I posted? Hmmm. Well, here's the first.
That's a beauty!
B/W still has a lot going for it, too.
Rob C
-
I should add that the image I posted of the library at Anderson, although nominally a three image stitch, is actually around twenty-four or so image total being blended - first for exposure and then for stitch. There were probably eight images per that I blended manually, never liking any of the automatic routines that various software solutions have. Personally I like a more natural look, but that's just me. The basic blend and stitch took about half an hour, then a couple more hours fine tuning. This is actually not even the final, but it's what I had on my laptop.
As far as the original poster's HDR is concerned, I think that for some applications it's probably fine - where you want to create a particular mood or tell a certain story, like in a CD or book cover or magazine editorial, but for general architecture, it's something that might not wear over time, but if the client likes it, go for it.
-
QWZ,
So, I guess you don't like my HDR renditions. Oh well. A board member of the museum loved them. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Cheers.
Bud
Well seen, but for me the shots look like 3D models rendered with WagnerMan (bad joke, referring to Wagner’s bombastic music style). Subtlety preferred by this viewer. Beethoven or Mozart even? ;)
-
Wow this is a tuff crowd.
I'm not a fan of HDR either but I do have a 17 and love it. Both of them can be used to create drama and take some time to master.
Maybe a good direction would be to enjoy your new lens and see what you can create just shooting without HDR and then post here for some feedback.
I've been shooting professionally for over 30 years and I find myself learning every time I shoot with the 17, FWIW.
-
Personally, I think architecture should be left to medium to large format. 35mm with a 17mm lens leaves so much to be desired when field of view is put into play. I see so many photographers shooting with ultra wide tilt shifts and they end up with completely unnatural looking images. Slap a 45mm t/s on a 35 and back up so your perspective looks more natural. And as for HDR, I can take it or leave it but mostly leave it.
-
Personally, I think architecture should be left to medium to large format. 35mm with a 17mm lens leaves so much to be desired when field of view is put into play. I see so many photographers shooting with ultra wide tilt shifts and they end up with completely unnatural looking images. Slap a 45mm t/s on a 35 and back up so your perspective looks more natural. And as for HDR, I can take it or leave it but mostly leave it.
You have a point, but then a lot depends on intended usage. For many outlets a pretty dramatic perspective, with good verticals, can really add something to a subject. I can see a lot of travel publiction useage for things like that, stock etc. as well as some estate agents fighting to show a facade in these crowded tourist zones, but I wonder if architects themselves are all that keen. I have no idea about that, I just wonder what they think about it. I would certainly like such a lens. Being Nikon, I can safely say that and know I'm not going to have to do anything about it!
Rob C
-
Personally, I think architecture should be left to medium to large format. 35mm with a 17mm lens leaves so much to be desired when field of view is put into play. I see so many photographers shooting with ultra wide tilt shifts and they end up with completely unnatural looking images. Slap a 45mm t/s on a 35 and back up so your perspective looks more natural. And as for HDR, I can take it or leave it but mostly leave it.
But that is silly. You can just as easily put an ultra-wide lenses on a large format view camera or medium format and get exaggerated perspective and field of view.
I agree that over use of extreme wide angle lenses is a problem and IME is the particular issue with newbies, BUT there is nothing unique about DSLRs in this regard.
-
Personally, I think architecture should be left to medium to large format. 35mm with a 17mm lens leaves so much to be desired when field of view is put into play. I see so many photographers shooting with ultra wide tilt shifts and they end up with completely unnatural looking images. Slap a 45mm t/s on a 35 and back up so your perspective looks more natural. And as for HDR, I can take it or leave it but mostly leave it.
I think this has nothing to do with the format, besides you have more extreme lenses to choose from.
I am shooting architecture as well with a 35mm and sometimes use a lens with an angle of over 100 degrees that still looks natural.
It all depend on the subject and the way you use the lens. I agree that there are limits to what you can do, but frontal views can look natural- even when shot with a 100 degrees lens.
natural landscapes have usually no problem at all.
-
about HDR- I use it all the time- but with my own special photoshop treatment. I always fight against halos and unnatural looking images. In this case I think it is typically over the edge.
-
How is that silly? A 17mm 35mm equivalent field of view on a 645 medium format is approx (I know not exactly) a 35mm lens so you get 35mm distortion levels with a 21mm (35mm equivalent) field of view. On 4x5 it's approximately a 45/50mm lens. Slap my 24mm on my 35mm and take a full body shot up close gives unnatural distortion. Slap a 45mm on my 645 and get the same shot/framing and it looks much more natural despite the same field of view and distance to subject. Bringing tilt/shift into a 17mm lens on 35mm just looks outrageous. Yes, there's a time and place for it, but not for any type of accurate representation.
-
Those are some good points for usage which I had not thought of. I just tend to prefer a more natural looking image. I cringe when I see 17 tilt shift images like those posted. Just my preference. If it's used with deliberate intention that's different than using it simply because it subjectively looks cool ;-).
You have a point, but then a lot depends on intended usage. For many outlets a pretty dramatic perspective, with good verticals, can really add something to a subject. I can see a lot of travel publiction useage for things like that, stock etc. as well as some estate agents fighting to show a facade in these crowded tourist zones, but I wonder if architects themselves are all that keen. I have no idea about that, I just wonder what they think about it. I would certainly like such a lens. Being Nikon, I can safely say that and know I'm not going to have to do anything about it!
Rob C
-
I agree that over use of extreme wide angle lenses is a problem and IME is the particular issue with newbies, BUT there is nothing unique about DSLRs in this regard.
Thumbs up
-
How is that silly? A 17mm 35mm equivalent field of view on a 645 medium format is approx (I know not exactly) a 35mm lens so you get 35mm distortion levels with a 21mm (35mm equivalent) field of view. On 4x5 it's approximately a 45/50mm lens. Slap my 24mm on my 35mm and take a full body shot up close gives unnatural distortion. Slap a 45mm on my 645 and get the same shot/framing and it looks much more natural despite the same field of view and distance to subject. Bringing tilt/shift into a 17mm lens on 35mm just looks outrageous. Yes, there's a time and place for it, but not for any type of accurate representation.
Ok thats your opinion, understand I made my living with a 4x5 and 6x9 view cameras shooting film on architecture for 30 years (and continue now with digital) and am very aware of what super wide lenses do on various formats, and also know that some of the top architectural photographers in the world routinely use that 17 lens on a DSLR quite effectively-not as a "go to" lens but a problem solver. It has a great reputation with APs, which my own tests bear out. Newbies get seduced by the super wide angle "look" which becomes a "too" easy and ultimately saccharin compositional tool-regardless of how the image relates to the architecture.
I think it is likewise silly to make a blanket statement about a piece of equipment for a whole genre of photography based on some amateur pics.
Personally I don't own the 17, but have tested a couple. If I had a surplus of cash I would buy it, but can't justify it in this economy as little as I would use it. I solve the same problem with a simple flat stitch with the 24 II T/S. But I own and use a 47XL for use on my 4x5. Such lenses are very useful when you are backed into a corner and can't use a more normal lens.
-
Some info on this lens - see discussion about corner softness when tilting:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1020683
-
If thats a design problem it is unfortunate, but I am wondering how much you really need tilt on that lens? I rarely need it on my 24 and the 17 will have substantially more DoF than my 24 at a given aperture.
-
My take on the photos is that the geometry doesn't look quite right, but I think it's the lens's native geometry, not tilts or shifts. (I've used 28mm and 35mm shift lenses in film days and shot architecture with 4x5 so I know about shifts and tilts). It's like there's some lens distortion in there that hasn't been cleaned up (barreling? complex waveform?) It just looks a little odd. (I'm not familiar with this lens, so don't know its native geometry) I am not an HDR fan, so won't comment on the overall look of the photos, to each his own....
-
If thats a design problem it is unfortunate, but I am wondering how much you really need tilt on that lens? I rarely need it on my 24 and the 17 will have substantially more DoF than my 24 at a given aperture.
I am often amazed at how little tilt is needed to correct even large differences in near/far focus distances. For both my 17 and 24 mk 2's I have yet to use more than one "notch" on the lens marking (I believe in using very technical terms when I can...). Also, of course, this allows extreme OOF shots if that's what you want. These are incredible lenses and compare extremely well with the R's and S's. If you don't believe me, try it and be amazed.
-
But that is silly. You can just as easily put an ultra-wide lenses on a large format view camera or medium format and get exaggerated perspective and field of view.
I agree that over use of extreme wide angle lenses is a problem and IME is the particular issue with newbies, BUT there is nothing unique about DSLRs in this regard.
Hi Kirk,
I absolutely agree. The trouble is that most newbies (and even a fair number of old farts) do not grasp that the issue is not really in the lens. Whether one uses a DSLR with a short focal length, or a DSLR with a longer FL with stitching, or a view camera, makes no difference for the 'look' if one captures an identical field of view and uses a rectilinear projection on the resulting image plane.
The (ultra)wide-angle 'look' comes from viewing the resulting image from a distance that's too far away for the focal length used. For a 'natural' look, one needs to view the image from a distance that's proportional to the FL used to record it (and from the bottom of the image in case of high buildings). That may require a wide angle shot to be viewed at an uncomfortably short distance, thus we tend to view it from farther away, and there the cognitive unease is created.
As an example, the shots with a 17mm FL on a 36mm wide sensor array, need to be viewed at a 300mm / 17mm = 17.65x output magnification if we want to view it from 300mm for an identical projection as our lens. So our output needs to be something like 36mm x 17.65 = 635 mm (25 inches) on the long side for normal reading (300mm) distance viewing. When we look at a smaller version on a web page, e.g. 7 inches (177.8 mm) on the long side, we'd need to look at it from an even more uncomfortable 84mm distance to keep the projection identical to the lens/sensor projection. Because we look at it from farther away, the vanishing points from the viewing position don't agree with the projection anymore. That's where the wide-angle 'look' comes from.
The 17mm (or equivalent FLs on other formats) is helpful if confronted with tight spots, or when one deliberately wants to exagerate the spaciousness, because the output will almost always be viewed from 'too far away' for the projection used to look natural.
The same principle of anamorphic projection perspective applies to e.g. signs painted on the road, or street drawings, they need to be viewed from exactly the correct (projection) position to look natural. Any deviation from the ideal position and things start looking 'unnatural'.
Cheers,
Bart