Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Guillermo Luijk on September 20, 2019, 03:02:28 pm
-
Corrected:
(http://guillermoluijk.com/misc/paisajemabusero.jpg)
Original:
(https://canonistas2-vigapeinteractiv.netdna-ssl.com/galerias/data/501/Lago_web.jpg)
Regards
(http://"https://www.canonistas.com/galerias/showphoto.php?photo=432804&title=en-un-lugar-tranquilo&cat=501")
-
Keystone correction helps.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Depends on the desired effect.
Take for instance the above image. If the desired effect is a sense of tranquility, then yes.
If, however, the desired effect is dynamism, then getting even lower and closer to the boats, exaggerating the perspective, and putting trees closer to the edge would also work, without straightening them.
-
Depends on the desired effect.
Take for instance the above image. If the desired effect is a sense of tranquility, then yes.
If, however, the desired effect is dynamism, then getting even lower and closer to the boats, exaggerating the perspective, and putting trees closer to the edge would also work, without straightening them.
The author of the picture chose the title: "In a peaceful place" ("En un lugar tranquilo"). I pointed him the same as you did regarding the type of picture. He didn't correct the keystone effect, I did.
Regards
-
Nice shot. One thing. The docks and tied-up boat on the right are tilting to the right due to the wide angle lens and ought to be corrected too. One of the reasons I like 28mm over 24mm. The latter tends to keystone where you really notice it. At least on by Sony RX100iv.
-
When we shot slides, no one much cared if some of the elements in an image were tilted or distorted. We only cared if it was a good image and took it for granted the distortion was a result of POV or the lens itself. Also note in the corrected image you lost some of the space between the boat and the edge of the frame. So correcting distortion is not always better.
JR
-
When we shot slides, no one much cared if some of the elements in an image were tilted or distorted. We only cared if it was a good image and took it for granted the distortion was a result of POV or the lens itself. Also note in the corrected image you lost some of the space between the boat and the edge of the frame. So correcting distortion is not always better.
Not always better, but there have been Tilt/Shift lenses in use for a log time, to manage the projection distortion effect (either exaggerate or neutralize to a certain degree).
Cheers,
Bart
-
When we shot slides, no one much cared if some of the elements in an image were tilted or distorted. We only cared if it was a good image and took it for granted the distortion was a result of POV or the lens itself. Also note in the corrected image you lost some of the space between the boat and the edge of the frame. So correcting distortion is not always better.
JR
I agree with Bart above. ALso, if you're going to correct the left side, you ought to correct the right wide as well. Otherwise just leave it the way it was.
-
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
In this example, I think it would have been feasible to avoid pointing the camera down, thus avoiding the perspective "effect".
As for the slide use back in the day, I shot plenty of it, and since I had no money for TSE lenses, I tried to keep the camera level when I did not wnat the effect.
-
On the corrected image the horizon seems nearly horizontal, however the dock still isn’t. This aspect strikes me most from this very nice image.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
On the corrected image the horizon seems nearly horizontal, however the dock still isn’t...
I think your expectations are wrong in both cases:
1. With lakes and rivers with uneven shores it is almost impossible to determine proper level unless you use a leveled camera
2. The dock is at the edge of the frame and suffers an additional perspective distortion. The best way to illustrate what I mean is wirh railroad tracks. The planks will remain perfectly horizontal only if you stand in the middle and keep the tracks in the middle of the picture. If the tracks are on the side, planks will we tilted.
-
+1 for Slobodan- good explanation
-
Hi Slobodan,
Thanks for taking the time to explain, much appreciated! I still don’t quite get it, although I ‘think’ to know a few things about perspective. But let me explain:
With reference to your first image we clearly see that the wooden beams, which are in parallel to the frame, continue to be in parallel and do not bend near the frames’ edges. I would expect this to be equal to the dock. I think your second image does not apply here.
Additionally, I’m pretty sure my 21mm wide angle lens does not have this kind of distortion.
Any possibility to enlighten me, are we talking here about linear perspective or barrel type lens distortion? If it's lens distortion causing the dock to bend than all is clear to me.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
... With reference to your first image we clearly see that the wooden beams, which are in parallel to the frame, continue to be in parallel and do not bend near the frames’ edges. I would expect this to be equal to the dock. I think your second image does not apply here...
It would be equal to the dock only if you are standing in the very middle of the dock, having the camera perfectly leveled, pointed toward the vanishing point.
Not sure why you think the second image doesn’t apply? It clearly shows what happens when the above isn’t the case, i.e., when the objects are placed at the edges. It gains a second vanishing point. Perhaps if I flip the image to mimic the dock placement it is clearer? And no, it isn’t the barrel distortion, just perspective.
-
I believe that keystoning happens on the horizontal plane just like it does on the vertical plane when you aim a camera up and the tops of buildings seem to converge. That's why it's hard sometimes to get the horizon level.
-
Slobodan is correct. However, I think the original question is a bit silly. Here is my visual argument:
-
Slobodan is correct. However, I think the original question is a bit silly. Here is my visual argument:
Is this near Chernobyl? :)
-
Perfectly straight.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5753/30384230346_9b9e525b83_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NhX87s)Stumps 2 (https://flic.kr/p/NhX87s) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
-
Is this near Chernobyl? :)
Nope. All in New England.
-
Perfectly straight.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5753/30384230346_9b9e525b83_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NhX87s)Stumps 2 (https://flic.kr/p/NhX87s) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
Thanks, Alan.
Those are clearly my kind of straight trees. :D
-
Plumb straight. :)
-
On the corrected image the horizon seems nearly horizontal, however the dock still isn’t. This aspect strikes me most from this very nice image.
The only valid horizon we can find in a landscape is the sea (or a sufficiently large lake) horizon, and still is a straight approximation of what actually is a curve; unless you are a terraplanist, then it is exact.
Regarding the dock is like Slobodan explained. You are assuming the camera was oriented orthogonally to the dock's end, and in that case the dock's end would be parallel to the horizon (which we don't have BTW). In case the camera was oriented in any other direction, the dock's end would never be parallel to the (non-existent) horizon.
However, I think the original question is a bit silly. Here is my visual argument:
I assume you are just making fun Eric. In case you don't, the original image has a good bunch of trees which in average tend to grow straight. Statistically it's highly unlikely that all those trees made some arrangement to grow for years inclined towards a specific direction in order to fool us today. So it's quite safe to conclude that the distortion was caused by camera tilting and can easily be reverted.
Regards
-
Guillermo and Slobodan,
Thank you both for explaining. You've convinced me and I have seen the light ;D
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Trees do not always naturally grow straight. I'm no expert, but trees will adapt to the conditions to keep their centre of balance but also deal with other natural impacting conditions - this type of reaction is known as a tropism. While would normally expect tree trunks to be fairly vertical this can be changed by other stimuli other than gravity.
According to Webster's Dictionary: involuntary orientation by an organism or one of its parts that involves turning or curving by movement or by differential growth and is a positive or negative response to a source of stimulation.
For example:
Phototropism: Trees in shaded conditions (such as dense forests or areas shaded by terrain) may well grow at an angle to reach light
Anotropism: Tree bend low to the ground, away from prevailing winds, to reduce the impact of high winds - often seen on coastal or high mountain areas.
-
Human vision is as much “mental” as it is “physical/technical.” E.g. why is it that converging vertical “bother us” in the vertical (i.e. buildings converging when looking up), and yet we “expect” to see RR tracks converging in the horizontal. It makes no rational sense. In photography, I think it comes down to what “feels right” in an image to portray what the photographer intends. (As has been well stated by SB.) I’ll often fudge the “actual horizon” by a few increments of a degree because in the image is renders better in 2D what the 3D reality was.
Rand
-
Human vision is as much “mental” as it is “physical/technical.” E.g. why is it that converging vertical “bother us” in the vertical (i.e. buildings converging when looking up), and yet we “expect” to see RR tracks converging in the horizontal. It makes no rational sense. In photography, I think it comes down to what “feels right” in an image to portray what the photographer intends. (As has been well stated by SB.) I’ll often fudge the “actual horizon” by a few increments of a degree because in the image is renders better in 2D what the 3D reality was.
Rand
When I look at at photo, the engineer in me like to see wall buildings on the vertical (as opposed to those receding in perspecti ve) and horizontals horizontal, and not tilted slightly (as opposed to a Dutch Tilt where the effect is obviously intended). All those years of training are hard to kick... ::)
-
Trees do not always naturally grow straight.
Correct but irrelevant to the topic. Please look at the image. It's clear that the trees in it are not straight, not because of any natural growing effect but because of the camera being slightly tilted down. That's what the discusion is about, not about biology matters.
Regards
-
Apologies if I caused offense! :-[ From your response, it is clear that you were referring specifically to your photo, but the title did not specify that, in fact it is quite general and I answered it in that context.
My point was that trees will not necessarily be naturally vertical in landscape photography. I have taken photos in wind-blasted environments where ALL the trees have grown at an angle because of anotropism. Below I have offered a stock image showing this exact phenomena.
Photo exanple of multiple trees not naturally vertical (https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=1MPHVq5m&id=DDE3B7A391C2500C162EC167C3BA78A3BC26845E&thid=OIP.1MPHVq5mZl3K4OHvRSm6QQHaDF&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.d4c3c756ae66665dcae0e1ef4529ba41%3Frik%3DXoQmvKN4usNnwQ%26riu%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.geologywales.co.uk%252fstorms%252f0312100.jpg%26ehk%3D3RfXDjhKK0hzE6cZPsEbBjX5sn7fNbSbyxQhZ5pjutM%253d%26risl%3D%26pid%3DImgRaw&exph=266&expw=640&q=trees+bent+by+the+wind&simid=608051757301909116&ck=A3BD176999E081934821DCE58990846C&selectedindex=16&form=IRPRST&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0&vt=0&sim=11)
For me, the thing that should be horizontal in your photo is the water.
-
Correct but irrelevant to the topic. Please look at the image. It's clear that the trees in it are not straight, not because of any natural growing effect but because of the camera being slightly tilted down. That's what the discusion is about, not about biology matters.
Regards
Tronhard's answer was entirely correct, as the wording of the original question made no reference to the photograph, and was stated in complete generality.
-
Tronhard's answer was entirely correct, as the wording of the original question made no reference to the photograph, and was stated in complete generality.
I agree
-
Going back to the original photo, another way to evaluate a tilted horizon is to look at reflections in the water. Someone else (Slobodan?) pointed out this trick long ago, and I have found it occasionally useful. In this image, even though the water is choppy, reflections are clear enough to show tilt which should be corrected. No need to rely on trees :)
-
Going back to the original photo, another way to evaluate a tilted horizon is to look at reflections in the water. Someone else (Slobodan?) pointed out this trick long ago, and I have found it occasionally useful. In this image, even though the water is choppy, reflections are clear enough to show tilt which should be corrected. No need to rely on trees :)
Yes. But my camera won't make those nice yellow lines from plant to reflection. ;D