Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: trevarthan on August 14, 2014, 09:27:48 am
-
I own the 24mm PC-e and the 85mm PC-e. For product photography (something I admittedly don't do a lot of), I love the 85mm. For landscape photography, I find myself using the 24mm almost exclusively. Here's an example of a scene taken with both lenses (on different days with vastly different light):
Here's the 24mm:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3884/14859035416_7f29a4c92e_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oD3rxN)
Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Aquarium at Sunset 24mm (https://flic.kr/p/oD3rxN) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/), on Flickr
And here's the 85mm:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5582/14852770976_d653e14857_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oCukmd)
Glass Pedestrian Bridge (person merged out) (https://flic.kr/p/oCukmd) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/), on Flickr
Let me be clear: I'm absolutely NOT interested in the miniature effect. I see a lot of reviews around the net written by people who seems to think the only reason to buy a tilt shift lens is the miniature effect. I view the miniature effect a lot like over processed HDR: meh. I would use this lens to place the focal plane in line with my subject at f5.6, expanding what is in focus, not isolating it. I'll be using this lens exclusively on a tripod with a D810 and live view. I don't understand why everyone wants to hand hold these things.
Anyway, I picked these two focal lengths back in 2010 because I loved the way they lied to me. 24mm is wide and exaggerates the foreground and expands space. 85mm is telephoto and exaggerates the background, compressing space. 45mm is just normal. I've found a few scenes recently where I can't take the shot without 45mm. 24mm is too wide to be interesting, and with 85mm I don't have enough room. Sitting here typing, I realize maybe I could do an 85mm panorama, but the light changes so fast after sunset and the exposures are so long, I'm not sure how that would work.
I mostly want to take cityscapes and landscapes. Should I bite the bullet and buy the 45mm PC-e, or not? What's your opinion?
-
it’s a nice focal length to have, i wish canon would update theirs as it’s so poor (i sold mine) i make do with 24+1.4x converter to get 33mm
it’s also great for getting your verticals straight ;)
-
it’s a nice focal length to have, i wish canon would update theirs as it’s so poor (i sold mine) i make do with 24+1.4x converter to get 33mm
it’s also great for getting your verticals straight ;)
I've got a 50mm 1.4 AF-D too. I've never used it for landscapes. I might use it sometime once the D810 SDK comes out and I can do focus stacking with helicon remote. I guess that's my hang up. Do I really need to spend $2k for a focal length I already have?
-
Not sure what body you are shooting with your PC-E lenses. I've got the same combo and use them in the studio and field on my D800s.
Here's another idea…
When I use the 24 PC-E on the D800, I've got three lenses-in-one with the three the three crops--24mm with 36x24, 29mm with 30x20 (1.2x) and 36mm with 24x16 (DX).
When I need a little more reach, I use my self-modified TC-14E on the 24. This now gets me a 36mm on FX, 43.2mm on 30x20 (1.2x), almost the same as the 45mm PC-E and now the bonus of a 50mm equivalent on the 24x16 (DX). One lens, different crops. I started using this combo years ago on my film cameras and my 85-PC-E quite successfully.
Of course the D800 has enough res that you could also crop to get the same FOV as the 45mm.
Give this a try (or rent one) and see if it works for you!
-
Not sure what body you are shooting with your PC-E lenses. I've got the same combo and use them in the studio and field on my D800s.
Here's another idea…
When I use the 24 PC-E on the D800, I've got three lenses-in-one with the three the three crops--24mm with 36x24, 29mm with 30x20 (1.2x) and 36mm with 24x16 (DX).
When I need a little more reach, I use my self-modified TC-14E on the 24. This now gets me a 36mm on FX, 43.2mm on 30x20 (1.2x), almost the same as the 45mm PC-E and now the bonus of a 50mm equivalent on the 24x16 (DX). One lens, different crops. I started using this combo years ago on my film cameras and my 85-PC-E quite successfully.
Of course the D800 has enough res that you could also crop to get the same FOV as the 45mm.
Give this a try (or rent one) and see if it works for you!
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm a purist though. Digital zoom just bugs me. I am intrigued by the teleconverter idea, but I think I'd rather just buy the 45mm lens than compromise. I just don't think 36mm would be enough. I might change my mind if I had a teleconverter to play with. Hrm.
-
... Here's an example of a scene taken with both lenses...
Isn't one of the main purpose of those lenses to get verticals straight?
-
Isn't one of the main purpose of those lenses to get verticals straight?
Ouch. Maybe I should have used some shift. I'm bad about that. I mainly use tilt for increasing DOF.
When I need a little more reach, I use my self-modified TC-14E on the 24. This now gets me a 36mm on FX
I'm reading about the TC-14E II now. It says it gains 40% focal length. I didn't realize it would be so much. Is the attached image a good idea of how much focal length I would gain over 24mm? (I put .6 x .6 into the custom crop tool in lightroom to do this) Because that might actually work for me.
-
I'm actually seeing people say it's a bad idea to use a teleconverter with a wide. I guess a DX body or the 45mm are my only options.
-
... I mainly use tilt for increasing DOF....
In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF.
-
... I'm reading about the TC-14E II now. It says it gains 40% focal length. I didn't realize it would be so much...
The 14 in the name stands for 1.4x. That would be a dead giveaway ;)
-
In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF.
Are you being serious?
-
Are you being serious?
Yes.
-
Yes.
That's twice you've posted information that is not helpful on my threads. This was the first time: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92153.msg749440#msg749440
I don't appreciate it.
-
i dont think SB is trying to get personal, just that there are railings close to the camera and mountains at infinity, so tilting has given you the tops of buildings OOF in the long lens shot and the tops of the railings. to get more depth of field and have the top to bottom sharp railings and buildings you would have no tilt and just stop down or use focus stacking. this way you would have more areas in focus and ‘greater depth of field’ although you could argue that having the nearest part of a railing even just a tiny bit at the bottom and the mountains was technically more depth of field by distance.
i think this is where the difference of opinion lies ???
-
I wasn't the first, nor the only one pointing out the futility of your approach in that thread.
-
i dont think SB is trying to get personal, just that there are railings close to the camera and mountains at infinity, so tilting has given you the tops of buildings OOF in the long lens shot and the tops of the railings...
Exactly.
It is known as Scheimpflug principle. You can have only one plane of focus in focus, either horizontal or vertical, not both.
-
Back on topic. The Nikon PC-E lenses suffer from sample variation. My experiences with the 24 & 45 demonstrated this very well as I tried several copies of each. Since you already have the 24 and if you are happy then the 45 should suit you perfectly. At least the 45 has better corners than the 24.
-
I wasn't the first, nor the only one pointing out the futility of your approach in that thread.
Futility according to whom? You? Who are you and why should I care?
-
Back on topic. The Nikon PC-E lenses suffer from sample variation. My experiences with the 24 & 45 demonstrated this very well as I tried several copies of each. Since you already have the 24 and if you are happy then the 45 should suit you perfectly. At least the 45 has better corners than the 24.
I just went out and shot some test shots with my 50mm. I do think the 45 would be a nice addition. I'd like to know more about using a teleconverter with a 24 though. My test shots indicate I would also enjoy a focal length between 50mm and 24mm. Why do people say using a teleconverter with a wide is a bad idea? I can't seem to find much information about that on google. Maybe I'm not looking properly.
-
you are enlarging the centre of the lens so any flaws are going to show and you need a high quality converter. i use the latest canon one and it is a big improvement on the previous 1.4x, a little barrel distortion that is easily fixable, i find its best to use the optimum apertures for the lens you are using with it. it’s still better than my copy of the 45 which was poor, i will buy a 45 tse as soon as canon produce a new version that is as good as the 17, 24 and 90. however if i had a very good 50mm i would consider using that and correcting in photoshop (would test to see which gave the best results)
i only ever use the 1.4x/24 combo when i have to.
-
I used to use a Canon TC1.4XII with my 17TS. The results were exceptional, barely any degradation. Now I use (rarely needed) the same TC with my 24TSII. Same thing, it works as a charm.
Eduardo
-
... why should I care?
Only if you want to learn something. And you can't learn if you only listen to those who agree with you (hint: they are just confirming what you already think, or know, or think you know - also known as a confirmation bias).
-
Can you explain why? Because of the railings?
Eduardo
In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF.
-
Can you explain why? Because of the railings?
See reply #13 by MrSmith.
-
When I need a little more reach, I use my self-modified TC-14E on the 24. This now gets me a 36mm on FX
As I'm a Nikon guy, this interests me. Is your 24 a PC-e? Is the TC-14E the original or a II? I'm also wondering if the soon to be released TC-14E III would work with my 24 PC-E: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-Teleconverter-TC-14E-1-4x/dp/B00KBC1WUY
i find its best to use the optimum apertures for the lens you are using with it.
That makes sense because the lens is sharpest at that aperture. In my case, the sharpest spot for the 24mm PC-E is f5.6. This would be... f7.84 with a 1.4x converter, right? Does that mean it suffers from diffraction the same as f8, but with a 5% degradation on top of that from the additional glass?
Only if you want to learn something. And you can't learn if you only listen to those who agree with you (hint: they are just confirming what you already think, or know, or think you know - also known as a confirmation bias).
I think you're being too literal. Take the tilt shift article on this very site, for example: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/focusing-ts.shtml
Here's a quote: "For example, by tilting the lens forward by the right distance, a photographer is able to adjust the plane of focus to run along the ground, giving a vastly increased apparent depth of field, even with the lens wide open!"
So when you said "In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF." I think you meant that the DOF doesn't actually change with tilt, which is almost true (it does become wedge shaped on the end away from the camera, which can help), but also extremely literal and obtuse, because that's not how people generally describe WHY we tilt the lens in the first place.
Am I wrong? Did you actually mean something else?
-
... "For example, by tilting the lens forward by the right distance, a photographer is able to adjust the plane of focus to run along the ground, giving a vastly increased apparent depth of field, even with the lens wide open!"
So when you said "In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF." I think you meant that the DOF doesn't actually change with tilt, which is true, but also extremely literal and obtuse, because that's not how people generally describe WHY we tilt the lens in the first place.
Am I wrong? Did you actually mean something else?
The key word is in bold above "along the ground." In your OP examples, you have not just the ground, but also vertical structures, railings and building, that run perpendicular (i.e., not along) the ground. As MrSmith pointed out, the tops of railings and buildings are thus inevitably OOF.
Perhaps my use of "DOF" in this context was confusing, so let's just say "no amount of tilt would result in keeping everything in focus."
As you can see from the illustration of the Scheimpflug Principle, there is ony one plane of focus (along the ground):
-
Perhaps my use of "DOF" in this context was confusing, so let's just say "no amount of tilt would result in keeping everything in focus."
Thanks, Captain Obvious. I never would have figured that out without your help.
-
I think you are in conflict here between your technical issues and your artistic merits. Your questions are fine but your examples are not because of the reason I just mentioned.
No amount of tilt would get everything in focus because of the railings in those bridge pictures. The railings are too close to the camera. It doesn't matter with objects too far like mountains for example.
And yes, I think Mr. Blagojevic is not too helpful either. He even confused at first, and I've been a pro for more than 30 years. Not all people rise every morning with the right foot, I think.
Eduardo
As I'm a Nikon guy, this interests me. Is your 24 a PC-e? Is the TC-14E the original or a II? I'm also wondering if the soon to be released TC-14E III would work with my 24 PC-E: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-Teleconverter-TC-14E-1-4x/dp/B00KBC1WUY
That makes sense because the lens is sharpest at that aperture. In my case, the sharpest spot for the 24mm PC-E is f5.6. This would be... f7.84 with a 1.4x converter, right? Does that mean it suffers from diffraction the same as f8, but with a 5% degradation on top of that from the additional glass?
I think you're being too literal. Take the tilt shift article on this very site, for example: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/focusing-ts.shtml
Here's a quote: "For example, by tilting the lens forward by the right distance, a photographer is able to adjust the plane of focus to run along the ground, giving a vastly increased apparent depth of field, even with the lens wide open!"
So when you said "In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF." I think you meant that the DOF doesn't actually change with tilt, which is almost true (it does become wedge shaped on the end away from the camera, which can help), but also extremely literal and obtuse, because that's not how people generally describe WHY we tilt the lens in the first place.
Am I wrong? Did you actually mean something else?
-
...No amount of tilt would get everything in focus..
And yes, I think Mr. Blagojevic is not too helpful either. He even confused at first, and I've been a pro for more than 30 years...
What was I confused about? You just said exactly the same thing (above) I said earlier. And what you being a pro has to do with me being "confused"?
-
I meant me, sorry, my bad. I missed inadvertingly some typing. I meant: "He even confused ME at first".
What was I confused about? You just said exactly the same thing (above) I said earlier. And what you being a pro has to do with me being "confused"?
-
I think you are in conflict here between your technical issues and your artistic merits. Your questions are fine but your examples are not because of the reason I just mentioned.
No amount of tilt would get everything in focus because of the railings in those bridge pictures. The railings are too close to the camera. It doesn't matter with objects too far like mountains for example.
At 24mm, it really doesn't bother me. Viewed fullscreen, the image is rather pleasing. At 85mm, it's pretty annoying. Both of these images were accepted by Shutterstock, which was my goal (as opposed to satisfying you lot). But I admit I was surprised they took the 85mm shot. Perhaps the reviewer found it interesting, or perhaps all they care about is that a certain percentage of the image is sharp, in which case the tilt served it's purpose. The 24mm shot has sold at least once already, which is always a good sign. I just shot it this past weekend.
Nobody asked me, but I personally think either of these shots would be better using focus stacking. At least in theory. Unfortunately, Nikon hasn't released the bloody SDK yet for my D810, so I can't DO focus stacking, unless I want to do it manually, which I certainly do not.
None of the above is on topic. Whether I'm an idiot or not because of how I choose to use my tilt shift lenses doesn't matter, and frankly it's a highly opinionated topic. Your opinions are different than Shutterstocks, and I care about their opinions more because they're how I intend to make money. Clearly, Shutterstock wants sharper images all the way through too. But if they'll take it and it sells and the customer is happy, that's sufficient.
-
First, you are not an idiot nor I think so, believe me. Also, I don't think I defer from Shutterstock but who knows.
You are free to use your tilts however it gets your kicks. Seriously.
Maybe I'm the one that rose this morning with the wrong foot. LOL!
Eduardo
At 24mm, it really doesn't bother me. Viewed fullscreen, the image is rather pleasing. At 85mm, it's pretty annoying. Both of these images were accepted by Shutterstock, which was my goal (as opposed to satisfying you lot). But I admit I was surprised they took the 85mm shot. Perhaps the reviewer found it interesting, or perhaps all they care about is that a certain percentage of the image is sharp, in which case the tilt served it's purpose. The 24mm shot has sold at least once already, which is always a good sign. I just shot it this past weekend.
Nobody asked me, but I personally think either of these shots would be better using focus stacking. At least in theory. Unfortunately, Nikon hasn't released the bloody SDK yet for my D810, so I can't DO focus stacking, unless I want to do it manually, which I certainly do not.
None of the above is on topic. Whether I'm an idiot or not because of how I choose to use my tilt shift lenses doesn't matter, and frankly it's a highly opinionated topic. Your opinions are different than Shutterstocks, and I care about their opinions more because they're how I intend to make money. Clearly, Shutterstock wants sharper images all the way through too. But if they'll take it and it sells and the customer is happy, that's sufficient.
-
Good luck with that.
:)
-
I own the 24mm PC-e and the 85mm PC-e. For product photography (something I admittedly don't do a lot of), I love the 85mm. For landscape photography, I find myself using the 24mm almost exclusively. Here's an example of a scene taken with both lenses (on different days with vastly different light):
Let me be clear: I'm absolutely NOT interested in the miniature effect. I see a lot of reviews around the net written by people who seems to think the only reason to buy a tilt shift lens is the miniature effect. I view the miniature effect a lot like over processed HDR: meh. I would use this lens to place the focal plane in line with my subject at f5.6, expanding what is in focus, not isolating it. I'll be using this lens exclusively on a tripod with a D810 and live view. I don't understand why everyone wants to hand hold these things.
Anyway, I picked these two focal lengths back in 2010 because I loved the way they lied to me. 24mm is wide and exaggerates the foreground and expands space. 85mm is telephoto and exaggerates the background, compressing space. 45mm is just normal. I've found a few scenes recently where I can't take the shot without 45mm. 24mm is too wide to be interesting, and with 85mm I don't have enough room. Sitting here typing, I realize maybe I could do an 85mm panorama, but the light changes so fast after sunset and the exposures are so long, I'm not sure how that would work.
I mostly want to take cityscapes and landscapes. Should I bite the bullet and buy the 45mm PC-e, or not? What's your opinion?
"At 24mm, it really doesn't bother me. Viewed fullscreen, the image is rather pleasing. At 85mm, it's pretty annoying."
First off, you don't need the PC lenses to "lie" to you, any lens will do that.
Secondly, I think your objective was to bring all elements into focus without using focus stacking. It seems you did not understand the limitations of the lenses, namely not being able to bring the vertical objects into focus top and bottom.
You asked us for our opinions. Not only do I think you should NOT bite the bullet for yet another pc lens, but should probably sell the 2 you have and save some money.
PS, just because someone is willing to buy something doesn't make it good. Look at Walmart!
-
Good luck with that.
I'll need it, right? :)
-
"At 24mm, it really doesn't bother me. Viewed fullscreen, the image is rather pleasing. At 85mm, it's pretty annoying."
Secondly, I think your objective was to bring all elements into focus without using focus stacking. It seems you did not understand the limitations of the lenses, namely not being able to bring the vertical objects into focus top and bottom.
You're not listening. My objective was to pass the shutterstock filters and sell photos. It worked. I do understand the limitations of the lens, what you don't understand is that I don't care that the top part of the frame is out of focus so long as people buy it. I understand that offends you on some purist level. It bugs me a little too, but only because I'm curious how to create a sharper image, technically, not because I think the image is bad as it is. It certainly doesn't bother me enough to take the photo off shutterstock. Someone less educated in the art of photography might just find it interesting and buy it.
You asked us for our opinions. Not only do I think you should NOT bite the bullet for yet another pc lens, but should probably sell the 2 you have and save some money.
It really bugs you seeing the top of the image out of focus, huh? Like, OCD level frustration. I hope someone buys it and puts it up on a billboard right in front of your house.
-
It really bugs you seeing the top of the image out of focus, huh? Like, OCD level frustration. I hope someone buys it and puts it up on a billboard right in front of your house.
WOW
-
WOW
Too much? It sounded pretty funny in my head at the time. You did just tell me to give up and go home. You kinda deserved it.
-
Too much? It sounded pretty funny in my head at the time. You did just tell me to give up and go home. You kinda deserved it.
Give up on those lenses, or learn how to use them. Go home?, No.
FWIW... I have spent my whole career, starting in 1970 using large format view cameras. Countless hours in back breaking positions tweaking an 8X10 to achieve perfect focus. Close to 40 years of doing this.
posts like yours come off as smart a** and uncaring to the profession I spent my career in. I give a dam about using proper terminology. About LEARNING how to use equipment and not be so flippant about the trade.
I don't know you from Adam but I feel you are missing out on getting better with your craft. For me, it's not about who buys my work. It's about pride in craftsmanship. The will to find out how to do a job right, even if you can "get away" with less. In the end it's not about selling, it's about learning and growing in a craft you have chosen.
I wish you the best
-
... as opposed to satisfying you lot)
From a dictionary: "lot - a group or a person of a particular kind (generally used in a derogatory or dismissive way): an inefficient lot, our town council | he was known as a bad lot | you lot think you're clever, don't you?"
Well, you came here and asked "us lot" a question. We tried to help. As they say, "you can take a horse to water..."
...Whether I'm an idiot or not because of how I choose to use my tilt shift lenses doesn't matter... if they'll take it and it sells and the customer is happy, that's sufficient
While you might get lucky otherwise occasionally, it generally helps to know what you are doing. There will be times when you'll desperately need it.
-
Give up on those lenses, or learn how to use them. Go home?, No.
FWIW... I have spent my whole career, starting in 1970 using large format view cameras. Countless hours in back breaking positions tweaking an 8X10 to achieve perfect focus. Close to 40 years of doing this.
posts like yours come off as smart a** and uncaring to the profession I spent my career in. I give a dam about using proper terminology. About LEARNING how to use equipment and not be so flippant about the trade.
I don't know you from Adam but I feel you are missing out on getting better with your craft. For me, it's not about who buys my work. It's about pride in craftsmanship. The will to find out how to do a job right, even if you can "get away" with less. In the end it's not about selling, it's about learning and growing in a craft you have chosen.
I wish you the best
What do you shoot now? Camera and lens. I'm just curious.
I'm 32. I'll probably always come off as a smart ass to you. Too much of an age difference. Presuming I'm not interested in learning how to excel with the equipment I own would be a mistake. That's not how I operate. However, don't presume I agree with your own internal standards of quality either. I might come around to your way of thinking eventually, but I reserve the right to think for myself. If there is a rule book for this stuff, I haven't seen it. It's all good, better, best, and the judge is the viewer.
-
... I'll probably always come off as a smart ass to you. Too much of an age difference....
Apparently, we ("us lot") are not young enough to know everything, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde ;)
-
Apparently, we ("us lot") are not young enough to know everything, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde ;)
Nobody knows everything.
-
What do you shoot now? Camera and lens. I'm just curious.
I'm 32. I'll probably always come off as a smart ass to you. Too much of an age difference. Presuming I'm not interested in learning how to excel with the equipment I own would be a mistake. That's not how I operate. However, don't presume I agree with your own internal standards of quality either. I might come around to your way of thinking eventually, but I reserve the right to think for myself. If there is a rule book for this stuff, I haven't seen it. It's all good, better, best, and the judge is the viewer.
I shoot a Nikon D810, 700 before that. I use a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 glass. I wish I could afford to go the TS lenses (for the shift not so much for the tilt) but it is not possible right now. I shoot Architecture and landscapes.
When I was starting out, being an assistant was the route to take. Go to school to learn the basics and then go to work for someone who's work knocks your socks off. I understand the world is much different today and functions at a break neck speed.
Standards are standards. Most of the time the viewer has no clue. I find I need to "educate" the viewer constantly.
Thinking for yourself is good.
If your interested in a rule book, maybe ask Kirk for some help. He is an excellent Architectural photographer and educator. He commented here on this thread. Of course he is very busy.
Again, best to you
-
In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF.
I believe you are correct Slobodan. Tilt will work fine to get the flat walkways into focus (flat planes = plane of focus).
-
I shoot a Nikon D810, 700 before that. I use a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 glass. I wish I could afford to go the TS lenses (for the shift not so much for the tilt) but it is not possible right now. I shoot Architecture and landscapes.
Thanks. Useful info. Why wouldn't you use the tilt?
-
Thanks. Useful info. Why wouldn't you use the tilt?
"Tilt will work fine to get the flat walkways into focus (flat planes = plane of focus)."
When I'm shooting buildings I want the top and bottom in focus, which the tilt function does not supply. So, If I have a tall building in the background and a foreground of importance the if I use the tilt I will have the top of the building and the foreground focused, but the base of the bldg will be out of focus.
With Landscapes, I shoot a lot of scenes with trees close by. To use tilt to get background and foreground in focus, I would lose the base of the tree/trees.
So I rely on Hyperfocal distance and depth of field mostly. On an occasion, manual focus stacking.
There are situations I would love to use the tilt function, but alas, can't afford it right now.
-
"Tilt will work fine to get the flat walkways into focus (flat planes = plane of focus)."
When I'm shooting buildings I want the top and bottom in focus, which the tilt function does not supply. So, If I have a tall building in the background and a foreground of importance the if I use the tilt I will have the top of the building and the foreground focused, but the base of the bldg will be out of focus.
With Landscapes, I shoot a lot of scenes with trees close by. To use tilt to get background and foreground in focus, I would lose the base of the tree/trees.
So I rely on Hyperfocal distance and depth of field mostly. On an occasion, manual focus stacking.
There are situations I would love to use the tilt function, but alas, can't afford it right now.
Also excellent answers. Thank you. If you don't mind my asking, who are your customers for architectural work? Do you sell through a marketplace, or direct?
-
I have got all the three PCE-lenses: the 45mm is a very good lens.
you can use it almost fully shifted the longway (landscape LR) at d8. If you are a purist and use it shifted you have about a 28mm lens.
It has no difficulty in finding the right focus distance ( as the 24mmPCE does) it is just focus and shoot.
the distortion is in between the 24mm and the 85 - the latter has NO distortion.
At d5,6 it is best when not shifted. I like the unsharpness as well.
Ok good luck with your choice...
-
Also excellent answers. Thank you. If you don't mind my asking, who are your customers for architectural work? Do you sell through a marketplace, or direct?
You're welcome.
My customers vary quite a bit. I deal directly with Architects, Interior Designers. Commercial clients that make home/business products, ie flooring roofing lighting etc etc.
I also have a home magazine I shoot for as the exclusive photographer.
When I first started out I shot on speculation and then approached the architect. Surprising;y, I had a bit of success gaining clients doing that.
-
You're welcome.
My customers vary quite a bit. I deal directly with Architects, Interior Designers. Commercial clients that make home/business products, ie flooring roofing lighting etc etc.
I also have a home magazine I shoot for as the exclusive photographer.
When I first started out I shot on speculation and then approached the architect. Surprising;y, I had a bit of success gaining clients doing that.
You're the first professional architectural photographer I've had the pleasure of talking to. Thank you for answering my questions. I've always wondered what equipment you guys used and who you worked with.
We clearly have different clientele (if you can even call it clientele on my end), and I can't help but wonder if the rules you work by matter at all for me. Mostly, stock is used for advertising. I certainly wouldn't ever have referred to myself as an architectural photographer. If anything, I might refer to myself as a travel photographer (once I actually get to the traveling). It wouldn't hurt to know the rules of architectural photography though. Do you have a book you could recommend? I learn well from books.
One important thing I've taken away from this conversation is that you don't use tilt, and most of the others who have chimed in don't use tilt. Tilt seems to be like ND Grads: Kind of a dinosaur.
Also, when I use tilt in a way that causes vertical objects to look unnatural, you guys seem to get all riled up. Again, I'm not sure how much attention I should pay to that, since you're not my customer, but I'm not ignoring it. I'm considering it.
I'll tell you one thing though... I don't really want to lug around more than two lenses and a single body. Lugging my 24mm and my 85mm is fine. I'm going to be a little annoyed lugging a 24, 45, and 85. Probably I'd just leave the 85 at home most days. It must be nice using those pro zooms and having all the focal lengths covered. I have the 70-200mm 2.8 also, but I mostly use it for people. I can see why lugging a 14-25 and a 24-70 would be handy. Lots to think about.
-
Hello Walt,
If you have not tried this yet, DoF stacking may be an interesting tool to add to your shooting tool kit. I have found HeliconFocus 6.0 to be easy to use and deliver great results.
When using the 14-24 f2.8, it would enable you to shoot at a wider aperture, such as f6.3, which would result in much better micro-detail.
Depending on the focal length, 3-5 images focused at the right location would enable you to pretty much secure infinite DoF with great micro-detail.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Hello Walt,
If you have not tried this yet, DoF stacking may be an interesting tool to add to your shooting tool kit. I have found HeliconFocus 6.0 to be easy to use and deliver great results.
When using the 14-24 f2.8, it would enable you to shoot at a wider aperture, such as f6.3, which would result in much better micro-detail.
Depending on the focal length, 3-5 images focused at the right location would enable you to pretty much secure infinite DoF with great micro-detail.
Regards,
Bernard
Bernard, thanks for the recommendation. Something I've thought about, and have looked into HF briefly. I will look more intently in September when my schedule opens up more.
-
Bernard, thanks for the recommendation. Something I've thought about, and have looked into HF briefly. I will look more intently in September when my schedule opens up more.
Yeah, again, helicon remote doesn't support the d810 yet as Nikon hasn't released the SDK. Otherwise I would have used it to take these shots and not gotten myself into this tilt discussion in the first place.
-
Well, I did some research this evening and decided to hold off on the 45mm PC-E. I also won't be buying a teleconverter. Instead, I'm going to focus on some focus stacking (manually, until that SDK comes out) and see what kind of results I can get under various working conditions.
Ultimately, I might end up buying a 35mm 1.4g instead of the 45 PC-E. I considered the 16-35mm f4, the 17-35mm f2.8, and the 14-24mm f2.8, but I think I'll use a 35 more than the 14-23 range, and I can always buy that later if I decide I need it. When it comes down to it, I just prefer primes, I guess.
Thanks for all the input. This went in a much different direction than I expected, but I think it's the right one.
-
"Mostly, stock is used for advertising."
FYI stock is mostly used small for website banners, brochures, books and a lot of editorial. Any press advertising sales will be a tiny proportion. Advertisers usually want bespoke unique imagery and often to buy an exclusive stock image costs more than commissioning.
Technically a 100x25 pixel banner is 'advertising' but as far a photographer is concerned 'shooting an ad' means press, adshel or billboard etc.
-
Your opinions are different than Shutterstocks, and I care about their opinions more because they're how I intend to make money.
Both of these images were accepted by Shutterstock, which was my goal (as opposed to satisfying you lot). But I admit I was surprised they took the 85mm shot. Perhaps the reviewer found it interesting, or perhaps all they care about is that a certain percentage of the image is sharp, in which case the tilt served it's purpose.
If you really want to make money, the most effective way would be to convert the D810 and the TS lenses into cash, and for $500 buy a refurbished D5100 with a 35mm or 50mm prime. Many bestselling stock images were taken with a 6MP D70 or D40. Putting $7-$10K into SS shares might be a better investment than spending it on equipment with hope to pay for it with 25cents per image.
By reading on MSG forum the posts from experienced contributors you will learn that the SS acceptance doesn't always necessarily correlate with the technical image quality, even when taken with a TS lens. Main thing is to keep trying, sometimes you get lucky.
-
If you really want to make money, the most effective way would be to convert the D810 and the TS lenses into cash, and for $500 buy a refurbished D5100 with a 35mm or 50mm prime. Many bestselling stock images were taken with a 6MP D70 or D40. Putting $7-$10K into SS shares might be a better investment than spending it on equipment with hope to pay for it with 25cents per image.
By reading on MSG forum the posts from experienced contributors you will learn that the SS acceptance doesn't always necessarily correlate with the technical image quality, even when taken with a TS lens. Main thing is to keep trying, sometimes you get lucky.
I'm a software engineer for a living. In the back of my mind, I'm always thinking about making my own stock site someday. I play the game not just for money, but understanding and experience.
-
funny thing about photography… unlike some other forms, it's rather easy to take a good picture or two, then buy some snazzy gear… take another good pic or two.. and by God, what do you know… you're at least semi-pro
before you know it, you're giving advice, asking questions… and when you don't get the answer you want (even when it's from folks who have been doing it longer than you've been alive) arrogance and insult emerge, because after all, you're almost a Pro.
gotta love the remark about lenses lying to you.. they do… worse than a wayward woman. One minute it's a great lens… rendition, color, depth of focus… WOW. Then it snaps and it's like waiting for her to call back…
TS-lenses…? Got a Canon TS-24 and Man, I was styling. Heck that Zeiss 21 couldn't hold a candle… then, oh, wait…. TS lenses are a bytch if you want them to really do their thing. Sure, Scheimfplug… whatever… everyone knows that. Just a little tilt and… oh, wait, not quite… hmmmm, maybe 1/2 deg more… oh, no, wrong direction… back and forth.. Geeezz, this lens doesn't work. I got it to _____ (fill in your blank), and it seemed to do it, but now I can't quite get it
So you ask, and you find out all those scales and diagrams are fine, but now that you're out here, unless you have a decade or two of experience, it's cut and try… and try and cut… oh darn… it's not working…!!!
Better ask… and the response is, "sorry mister, you don't yet understand it and in any case you're using it wrong"… your ears turn red, your voice cracks. Who does this guy think he is telling me that I don't know? I'm a ______ engineer, I know just about everything
Psst… I got a couple TS lenses to sell ya cheap. I think I like my 21, or my 50 stopped down better anyway
cheers
-
Actually, I have shot scenes where I dearly wished to try tilt. The idea is so straightforward, the pronunciation (Sch-Sch-Sch...) and execution so hard. I am an amateur and shot 135 when I shot film.
Solution to TS-GAS: Rent one for a weekend and just shoot with it and fiddle with the controls all day all weekend. Does it work for you? Yes? proceed to cash register. No? you scratched that itch and saved yourself money and time.
-
The best way to learn how to use T/S lenses may be to use a 4x5 camera?
An image shot with the Betterlight Super-6K HS on the Ebony 45SU yesterday.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5559/14923377205_f00710d20a_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
funny thing about photography… unlike some other forms, it's rather easy to take a good picture or two, then buy some snazzy gear… take another good pic or two.. and by God, what do you know… you're at least semi-pro
before you know it, you're giving advice, asking questions… and when you don't get the answer you want (even when it's from folks who have been doing it longer than you've been alive) arrogance and insult emerge, because after all, you're almost a Pro.
gotta love the remark about lenses lying to you.. they do… worse than a wayward woman. One minute it's a great lens… rendition, color, depth of focus… WOW. Then it snaps and it's like waiting for her to call back…
TS-lenses…? Got a Canon TS-24 and Man, I was styling. Heck that Zeiss 21 couldn't hold a candle… then, oh, wait…. TS lenses are a bytch if you want them to really do their thing. Sure, Scheimfplug… whatever… everyone knows that. Just a little tilt and… oh, wait, not quite… hmmmm, maybe 1/2 deg more… oh, no, wrong direction… back and forth.. Geeezz, this lens doesn't work. I got it to _____ (fill in your blank), and it seemed to do it, but now I can't quite get it
So you ask, and you find out all those scales and diagrams are fine, but now that you're out here, unless you have a decade or two of experience, it's cut and try… and try and cut… oh darn… it's not working…!!!
Better ask… and the response is, "sorry mister, you don't yet understand it and in any case you're using it wrong"… your ears turn red, your voice cracks. Who does this guy think he is telling me that I don't know? I'm a ______ engineer, I know just about everything
Psst… I got a couple TS lenses to sell ya cheap. I think I like my 21, or my 50 stopped down better anyway
cheers
I give as much respect as I get. If someone had said "In most landscape photography and architectural photography we don't use tilt in this situation because the verticals end up fuzzy." I would have said "Thanks, I understand that. I took the photo anyway because I wanted to do something a little different and I don't think it looks terrible." I would have been respectful in kind. Unfortunately, a few members on this forum are so jaded and passive aggressive that they have to talk down to others to make themselves feel good. You are now included in this list.
I realize that it bugs you that anyone can just buy a camera today. I realize it bugs you that not everyone has your experience and not everyone looks up to you as the demo-god of photographic knowledge that you KNOW you are.
However, I'm not here to kiss dinosaur asses. I'm here to learn something. Give respect and you'll get it. Treat me like a sub human and you'll be treated in kind.
-
I give as much respect as I get. If someone had said "In most landscape photography and architectural photography we don't use tilt in this situation because the verticals end up fuzzy." I would have said "Thanks, I understand that. I took the photo anyway because I wanted to do something a little different and I don't think it looks terrible." I would have been respectful in kind. Unfortunately, a few members on this forum are so jaded and passive aggressive that they have to talk down to others to make themselves feel good. You are now included in this list.
I realize that it bugs you that anyone can just buy a camera today. I realize it bugs you that not everyone has your experience and not everyone looks up to you as the demo-god of photographic knowledge that you KNOW you are.
However, I'm not here to kiss dinosaur asses. I'm here to learn something. Give respect and you'll get it. Treat me like a sub human and you'll be treated in kind.
you do have me wrong
I'm neither a dinosaur or a semi-Pro. Just a guy who's been where you are and gotten over myself enough to know when it's best to listen and learn than act like I know what I'm doing, or doing the wrong thing anyway and claiming it's "art".
no idea what you mean about "sub-human". if you think this sub-human you were raised all wrong, sorry.
if it bugged me that anyone could buy a camera today it would be quite an awful world, no?
If you are here (or anywhere else to actually "learn"), keep this in mind;
the Good Lord gave you two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, two arms and legs and so on… but only one mouth. Now, what do you think that is…?
-
you do have me wrong
I'm neither a dinosaur or a semi-Pro.
Well, that makes two of us then. I've never claimed to be a Professional Photographer or a Semi Professional Photographer. If I had to classify myself, I'd say I'm a rich amateur. I do own a photography business, but it doesn't supply a substantial portion of my income. Check your assumptions at the door.
-
Well, that makes two of us then. I've never claimed to be a Professional Photographer or a Semi Professional Photographer. If I had to classify myself, I'd say I'm a rich amateur. I do own a photography business, but it doesn't supply a substantial portion of my income. Check your assumptions at the door.
if you re-read you will see that I wasn't speaking of you
In any case, conversation with you is battling it out with the Tar Baby… good thing you're "rich" though…
cheers
-
"I'm here to learn something"
I find the best way is to listen to those who have been doing what you want to learn about for years day in day out to put food on the table and who's purchasing/tool choices come about from necessity not whim, sentiment or an itchy finger over the buy button.
I appreciate this method will not work for everyone.
-
if you re-read you will see that I wasn't speaking of you
In any case, conversation with you is battling it out with the Tar Baby… good thing you're "rich" though…
cheers
It's a technical term. I'm not rich. I just prioritize my spending differently than most people. So yeah, the quotes are appropriate.
-
if you re-read you will see that I wasn't speaking of you
Really? You replied to me. Who were you talking to?
-
"I'm here to learn something"
I find the best way is to listen to those who have been doing what you want to learn about for years day in day out to put food on the table and who's purchasing/tool choices come about from necessity not whim, sentiment or an itchy finger over the buy button.
I appreciate this method will not work for everyone.
I agree. Unfortunately, sometimes those people aren't so good at communication, and the internet tends to muddle things even further.
-
there are encoding errors, but I found that decoding errors are far more common
-
there are encoding errors, but I found that decoding errors are far more common
Ya think? ;D
-
... Your opinions are different than Shutterstocks, and I care about their opinions more because they're how I intend to make money...
Careful! You might need a new piggy bank for all those quarters ;)
-
Given the apparent interest, looks like a high time for a new addition to the "... for Dummies" book series.
Working title: "T/S Lenses for Dummies." Possible sub-title: "How to Shift a Dummy's Perspective on Tilt." ;)
-
First off, my subject material on a professional level is exclusively landscape. I like a slightly wide focal length (45mm or 40mm). I don't use the tilt function, only the shift. I shift for stitching and will shoot all three shift positions if a given composition calls for a wider, nearly distortion-free perspective. It was a 17-35 zoom and a 60mm prime that helped confirm my preference for the 40-45 range in a PC-e configuration. I would recommend to get something like a 24-70 zoom and shoot whatever subject you enjoy and see what angle suits your needs best. Maybe you need all three (24, 45, 85). Why let anyone talk you into one or the other? It is all about you, after all. Right?
-
At 24mm, it really doesn't bother me. Viewed fullscreen, the image is rather pleasing. At 85mm, it's pretty annoying. Both of these images were accepted by Shutterstock, which was my goal (as opposed to satisfying you lot). But I admit I was surprised they took the 85mm shot. Perhaps the reviewer found it interesting, or perhaps all they care about is that a certain percentage of the image is sharp, in which case the tilt served it's purpose. The 24mm shot has sold at least once already, which is always a good sign. I just shot it this past weekend.
Nobody asked me, but I personally think either of these shots would be better using focus stacking. At least in theory. Unfortunately, Nikon hasn't released the bloody SDK yet for my D810, so I can't DO focus stacking, unless I want to do it manually, which I certainly do not.
None of the above is on topic. Whether I'm an idiot or not because of how I choose to use my tilt shift lenses doesn't matter, and frankly it's a highly opinionated topic. Your opinions are different than Shutterstocks, and I care about their opinions more because they're how I intend to make money. Clearly, Shutterstock wants sharper images all the way through too. But if they'll take it and it sells and the customer is happy, that's sufficient.
It seems you are investing a lot of money in order to make money on stock photography. I'm just stunned that you think you will make money on stock photography. Sorry, no offense, but stock photography has been a downhill slide in terms of prices for the last 5 years that is unprecedented. Besides that in my opinion shooting for stock photography is a killer for any real interest in photography. You say you are an IT professional...well you can make a LOT more money in that field. At least if you are good at it. I know from experience.
This is an advice: You are in my opinion walking down the wrong road.
-
It seems you are investing a lot of money in order to make money on stock photography. I'm just stunned that you think you will make money on stock photography. Sorry, no offense, but stock photography has been a downhill slide in terms of prices for the last 5 years that is unprecedented. Besides that in my opinion shooting for stock photography is a killer for any real interest in photography. You say you are an IT professional...well you can make a LOT more money in that field. At least if you are good at it. I know from experience.
This is an advice: You are in my opinion walking down the wrong road.
Thanks Hans. I'll keep that in mind.
-
Shortly prior to the crash of '08, I was approached by a firm that was interested in my floral images - then the lady replied back that they were "rethinking" their approach.
I suspect that was the beginning of the unprecedented slide Hans has referred to.
Glenn
-
Wow those images must be really something! To think they alone could have saved the stock image industry from meltdown.
::)
-
Wow those images must be really something! To think they alone could have saved the stock image industry from meltdown.
::)
Exactly! In a few years after I left Kodak, they went bankrupt. You do the math. ;D
-
Exactly! In a few years after I left Kodak, they went bankrupt. You do the math. ;D
the Fools could have saved their collective arses if they'd have just given you what you asked for…
Sic semper...
-
Wow those images must be really something! To think they alone could have saved the stock image industry from meltdown.
::)
The point of course was that there is little or no money in it. ::)
-
There is very little money left in stock. A mate of mine was doing about $250.000 a year in sales in the past. That has now eroded to about $8000 a year.