Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: How do you choose Canon TS, 17mm or 24mm, for interior, cathedral, palace, etc.  (Read 14493 times)

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8295

Hi Bart,
I'm not sure what the problem is. I use Distort quite often. The Perspective control (in Free Transform) just seems to apply equal degrees of distortion on both sides of the image, but in opposite directions. Some images require a greater degree of distortion correction on one side, as Erik's image does.

Hi Ray,

The issue may be one of adding yet another asymmetrical distortion to image elements that should be imaged square (not trapezoid), or circular (not egg) shaped. Stacking distortions upon distortions is not my idea of correcting a situation. I'd rather remove the core distortion, as much as possible or still pleasing.

Correct perspective correction mostly takes care of all of that with a single control. Even if under-corrected, the under-correction is uniform. Also remember that these type of shots often have a one sided shift applied, which amplifies the projection distortion which is further amplified by 100% keystone correction. That's why such high buildings can look overly stretched towards the top, but less so if somewhat under-corrected.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto

Hi Ray,

Absolutely OK to use my image, I would not shared it if that was not the case!

Just to make it clear. It is a composite of two images. Camera was horizontal according to dual spirit levels. The two images were shot using different amount of shift and merged in Lightroom using rectangular projection. "Upright" was applied to the image after stitch. The lens used was a Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII on a Canon 5D3.

Best regards
Erik



Hi Bart,
I'm not sure what the problem is. I use Distort quite often. The Perspective control (in Free Transform) just seems to apply equal degrees of distortion on both sides of the image, but in opposite directions. Some images require a greater degree of distortion correction on one side, as Erik's image does.

In the attached, modified version of Erik's image, hope you don't mind, Erik  ;) , I used Distort, Warp and Context-Aware fill, in Photoshop. It's not perfect but it looks less distorted, doesn't it?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10082

Hi Ray,

Absolutely OK to use my image, I would not shared it if that was not the case!

Just to make it clear. It is a composite of two images. Camera was horizontal according to dual spirit levels. The two images were shot using different amount of shift and merged in Lightroom using rectangular projection. "Upright" was applied to the image after stitch. The lens used was a Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII on a Canon 5D3.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,
Yes. I understood it was a composite of 2 images. I do this sort of thing quite often, but not with a Tilt & Shift lens because I guess I'm not keen on the extra stuffing around in the field.

For wide-angle shots I use the Nikkor 14-24. If it's not wide enough, I'll take a couple of shots for stitching. However, more frequently nowadays, when I happen to have, say, my 24-120/F4 zoom attached to the camera, and I want a shot that is wider than 24mm, then instead of going to the trouble of changing lenses I'll just take a couple of shots at 24mm, and later 'Photomerge' them in Photoshop.

I understand you will be limited in Lightroom for such purposes. However, I find that stitching programs are so good nowadays, even in Photoshop, that it's very rarely that I have difficulty in not being able to get a realistic result, especially after applying to the stitched image the range of options in Free Transform, such as Distort, Warp and Content-Aware fill, when necessary.

In Photomerge there are a number of stitching options, such as Auto, Perspective, Cylindrical, Spherical etc. 'Reposition' is at the bottom of the list and I suspect it is often ignored, yet I find that Reposition often produces the best result with no requirement to apply any Distortion or Warp later.

The attached 4 images show the different results I get from 2 images stitched vertically, with camera hand-held, horizontally. I have not made any alterations to the results from the Photomerge process. I'm merely demonstrating here that one should try all the options if the first 'auto' option doesn't produce a realistic result.

In these examples, the Reposition option definitely produces the most accurate and realistic result which also requires virtually no further processing, apart from cropping or the application of Content-Aware fill, if preferred.

The top of the unusually-shaped rock in the Reposition stitch, matches very closely the upper shot before it was stitched. All the other stitches in these examples are abominable distortions that would need lots of 'distortion and warp' correction in Free Transform, before they would be acceptable.


Logged

pfigen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
    • http://www.peterfigen.com

Auto and Reposition are the two modes I use the most. If Auto doesn't work, then Repo almost always does. Easy enough to try different modes for the best one.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8295

Aesthetics over mathematics :)

Hi Paul,

I agree, but that means rather a subtle under-correction instead of a mathematically perfect removal of key-stoning. :)

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265

Yesterday, I tested a lens to see to what extent, if any, it exhibits linear distortion. So I took a picture of a banal condo building. The lens is a good performer.

I used a tech camera so the building wouldn't look like it was falling backwards. The camera/lens combo did what it is supposed to do: render the building so all of the vertical lines are 90 degrees.

I realize the photo is by no means a shining example of architecture photography. But looking at it on the screen, I notice it looks sort of unreal. Yesterday, I played around with the perspective adjustment in PS to see if a bit of distortion would make it look more real. I wasn't successful. I think I'll revisit it and try using the distort function. Without a doubt, nuance is the name of the game.

The weird thing about human vision is the way the brain constantly compensates for the raw data it is fed. As I sit in my easy chair, I look around the room and "see" how my mind works to make the floor, walls, furniture, etc. appear orthogonal. If I try this with a camera, the pictures will come out wacky.

I've already posted this picture on a few other forums (sorry for the redundancy). Being that it is longer than it is high, to what extent should it be "distorted."
« Last Edit: December 30, 2015, 12:11:09 am by BobDavid »
Logged

alatreille

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 412
    • Between the Buildings

Hi BobDavid,

Nice shot, good selection of point of view and location for the tripod. 

Whether it is a superb piece of Architecture or not is not the question.  At this point, it describes the make up, volume and language of the building very well. 

I am guessing that if you shot this in the most flattering light possible for this building (you're not far off, I think in a month or two with the sun a little further west it would be stunning) the Architect and Developer would be delighted with this image and composition if it was a building they wanted to market further as an example of their work they would get a lot of mileage out of it.

IMO

Andrew
Logged
Between the Buildings
http://www.andrewlatreille.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto

Hi,

This is an interesting demo of an interesting issue on which it seem opinions are very split.

Best regards
Erik



Yesterday, I tested a lens to see to what extent, if any, it exhibits linear distortion. So I took a picture of a banal condo building. The lens is a good performer.

I used a tech camera so the building wouldn't look like it was falling backwards. The camera/lens combo did what it is supposed to do: render the building so all of the vertical lines are 90 degrees.

I realize the photo is by no means a shining example of architecture photography. But looking at it on the screen, I notice it looks sort of unreal. Yesterday, I played around with the perspective adjustment in PS to see if a bit of distortion would make it look more real. I wasn't successful. I think I'll revisit it and try using the distort function. Without a doubt, nuance is the name of the game.

The weird thing about human vision is the way the brain constantly compensates for the raw data it is fed. As I sit in my easy chair, I look around the room and "see" how my mind works to make the floor, walls, furniture, etc. appear orthogonal. If I try this with a camera, the pictures will come out wacky.

I've already posted this picture on a few other forums (sorry for the redundancy). Being that it is longer than it is high, to what extent should it be "distorted."
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Craig Magee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
    • www.craigmagee.co.uk

Of the two I prefer the 24mm for the majority of work. I do a lot of stitching with it, 4 images diagonally @ 30deg, gives around a 20mm across the long edge. The 17mm is great for tight spaces but like mentioned, you need to be careful it doesn't impose to much of a SW effect.

You could always use the 17mm with the 1.4x tc to get a 24mm when needed, results are pretty good from that combo. I use the tc with the 24mm to get a 35mm now and then.

I used to use the 17-40 at the 17mm end and crop, but when I got the 24mm tse found it was pleanty wide enough as the movements got the framing I wanted without cropping.

Hire both, plus the tc and have a play and see what you prefer.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2527
    • Pieter Kers

...
This is an interesting demo of an interesting issue on which it seem opinions are very split.
...
Erik

you can say that.... again... :)
Logged

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 726
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer

My widest and most frequent used travel lens is 25mm. I like to shoot interior architecture such as place, cathedral, etc. Even shooting the exterior used a lot of wide angle. But I feel I want it wide, such as 17mm or 15mm.

But this is about the plain lens.

Now I want to get a Canon TS lens, but not sure 17mm or 24mm.

How do you choose between TS 17 or TS 24? if you have experience on both.

I know I want plain 17mm over plain 25mm, does this implies I should get the TS of the same length? or get the TS one step up  (24mm)?
 


For the experienced user who has to choose between the two, it is a matter of personal preference. However, if the subject matter is primarily architecture, experienced architectural specialists would most likely choose the 24mm, and that is the staple focal length for architectural photographers, even when they have wider focal lengths at their disposal. If the subject matter is landscape, I think that it is possibly more open as to which one.

For the novice user, whether for landscape or architecture, I would strongly recommend the 24mm. The extreme wide angle of the 17mm presents more problems with respect to volume anamorphosis distortion (stretching effect toward the edges), which is much more pronounced at this focal length, and thus requires much more care with respect to composition.

In any case, I suspect the focal lengths your are tending to use now would be a reasonable guide, bearing in mind that, with them, you are losing field of view when making perspective corrections with software, meaning you are effectively using longer focal lengths (with a corresponding loss of some image quality) than the actual focal length of the lens when working that way.

Also, as some have mentioned, with some kinds of subjects, you can use shift lenses and stitching to effectively create a wider angle lens, with a corresponding increase in maximum image quality (via an increase file size and assuming proper technique).
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375

How do you choose between TS 17 or TS 24? if you have experience on both.

I know I want plain 17mm over plain 25mm, does this implies I should get the TS of the same length? or get the TS one step up  (24mm)?
 

I have never owned a T&S lens though I have shot with them a little and drooled for one alot.

My recommendation would be the 24mm for full frame because it is easier to control.  I might be tempted to try the 17mm though considering I shoot both FX and DX cameras.

With respect to the distortion correction discussion, sometimes the problem can be fixed or minimized behind the camera.  I consider myself an amateur and can't justify the cost of every cool tool so I look for creative ways to deal with problems on scene.  Recently, I shot the Cotton Candies Mardi Gras Krewe and one of the images they wanted was at the corner face of historic building with a group on the ground and groups on the 2nd and 3rd floor balconies.  I knew distortion was going to be an issue so I was lucky to have a metal garbage can holder across the street.  I was able to throw a piece of plywood over it and get the camera another 4 foot (9ft total) above the ground. This minimized the amount of correction required.  My wife hates when she turns around and finds me hanging in the tree or on the light pole or something.

The other thing I learned is that you don't always have to have the whole damn thing in the image to tell the story.  An isolated piece of the whole sometimes does the trick. 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2016, 07:11:33 pm by dwswager »
Logged

JaapD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239


I've changed my C1 Pro Keystone Correction default to 100%.

-CB


Hi Chiss, I asked PhaseOne Support and they told me that the default Keystone Correction setting of 80% could not be changed in Version 8. Could you please tell me how you changed this default setting?

Thank you!
« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 02:42:38 am by JaapD »
Logged

aboudd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 175
    • Aboud Dweck - A Body of Work

I have both lenses. Given the height of most cathedral interiors I would recommend the 17MM. I've attached three images of the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. that I took with these lenses.
Cathedral front elevation: 17MM
Flag: 24MM
Stained light: 17MM
Logged
A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer in your pants.
www.dweckgallery.com

Ghibby

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72

It's a tough choice, the 17mm provides a unique angle of view when shifted, there really is nothing like it. However it is more difficult to get used to and create great images as you learn how use it effectively. The 24mm on the other hand does give a more natural field of view with less obvious distortion. If you use filters a lot the 24 is a better choice, however there is an adaptor for the 17mm with Lee filters. It's pricey and limits how much you can shift the lens before vignetting becomes a problem but very useful for landscapes.

Be aware that the 17 does have a few little optical characteristics caused by reflection in that big front element. The odd rainbow like artefact and flare with point light to the frame edge etc. Not as much of an issue with the 24.

In cathedral interiors it's the 24 every time. To much shift on high ceilings with the 17 makes them look like they are more like walls due to distortion. The 24 is more than wide enough for big spaces like cathedrals. The 17 can work nicely in the chapels and for exterior shots though.

For me I do find the 17 more fun to use but in practice the 24 is probably the one I really couldn't live without. I got the 24 first, the 17 followed a couple of years later. For architecture you need both in my opinion.
Logged

alan_b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 282
    • West Coast Architecture + Interiors Photographer

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.

I've changed my C1 Pro Keystone Correction default to 100%.

Hi Chiss, I asked PhaseOne Support and they told me that the default Keystone Correction setting of 80% could not be changed in Version 8. Could you please tell me how you changed this default setting?

I'm running into this again - anyone know how to change this default to 100%?  I understand the reasons for 80%, I have reasons for needing my verticals to be... vertical!
Logged

bwana

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 295

yes, well you have successfully made the horizontals horizontal in addition to keeping the verticals vertical. But there is still a splinter in my brain because the two towers with the conical 'hats' should be equal height but are not.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2527
    • Pieter Kers

Even in that case you can get a vanishing perspective on both ends, as our vision really works. As long as you sacrifice the straight lines:

Guillermo ;
I agree that an rectilinear projection is something we (want to) make in our minds ( and with most lenses)  but is not actually true;
Are you saying that the 'truth' is a equirectangular projection...or a cylindrical? (I believe the first)
...
Also my believe is that most Architectural photographers just gamble the right proportions with transform and distort.
It took me some time to find the right way to correct it myself. It cannot be done automatically in photoshop or any other program for it depends on your position in the field.
PK
« Last Edit: May 17, 2016, 01:27:25 pm by kers »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up