I don't understand that mindset. While I agree that there is often an optical illusion of building tops diverging when they are perfectly straight... I haven't met a single professional architectural photographer that would overcompensate.
Hi Chris,
Not sure I follow, there is not a mindset, just plain geometric distortion. The
visual distortion starts when we look at the rectified image capture from the wrong perspective position (center of the image instead of from the bottom, and from too far away for achieving the original perspective). It's like the road signs painted on the road surface. They only look correct/legible if viewed from a shallow angle.
Here and
here are some more exciting examples that need to be viewed from a single perspective point, or they will look
very wrong.
There is no over-compensation, but rather under-compensation by using <100% correction for upward viewing directions. Percentages larger than 100% can be useful for very high vantage points, to create more realistic depth perspective.
I've changed my C1 Pro Keystone Correction default to 100%.
As would probably be more common for shots of interiors, but not necessarily for outdoor shots of facades or high structures which were taken from a very (too) close position.
Also, I'd agree that correcting small distortions is often best done in Photoshop with Transform>Distort. You can get absolutely exact with it, where you often can't with perspective correction.
I'm curious why you'd want to use Distort for perspective corrections, which does something completely different. Perspective correction changes the projection plane (a 3-dimensional change on a flat plane), distort just distorts unlike the lens projection on a flat plane does.
Cheers,
Bart