Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer  (Read 119055 times)

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #180 on: December 10, 2009, 06:18:14 pm »

OK, as requested I went back this afternoon around 3:30, sun is setting here around 5:35, and shot the condo again with suggestions of framing the building in mind.

Shot with the D5MkII, 24mm TS-E II lens, f/11, 1/250
The tilt was centered, but lens shifted up to max - building top still appears to be wider than base of rise.

I was under the impression the TS-E would prevent this type of effect - the tripod/camera were perfectly level.
Need to define best way to avoid or fix this issue.

Here is what I got:
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 06:31:19 pm by Lust4Life »
Logged
Jack

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #181 on: December 10, 2009, 06:41:43 pm »

The composition is cleaner, there still seems to be some distortion to top of building. I think it's the wide FOV; unless you're squared-up to the building for a 1-point perspective, this kind of thing may be unavoidable if your subject gets anywhere near the edges of the frame. And for anything other than a 1-point perspective, you may find it difficult if not impossible to completely correct this kind of distortion in post processing.

I have a feeling backing up a little bit and shooting with a slightly longer lens would improve things.

(edited- I originally thought it was shot with the 17 TS-E, but on re-reading I see it was actually the 24)
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 07:00:49 pm by JeffKohn »
Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

rsmphoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 127
    • http://www.rsmphoto.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #182 on: December 10, 2009, 06:58:18 pm »

next post
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 09:07:27 pm by rsmphoto »
Logged

rsmphoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 127
    • http://www.rsmphoto.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #183 on: December 10, 2009, 07:05:14 pm »

Quote from: Lust4Life
Question:
When shooting AP exterior of a building/structure, are you "normally" placing the building as the main object in the viewfinder OR how it fits into the setting - landscaping, trees, adjacent buildings, etc?

Jack

One suggestion to consider: Think simply about the "massing" of shapes within the frame. There is always a balance you want to strike between subject (in this case the building), sky, foreground & surrounds. Different with each shot, but the context (and how it's placed) is equally as important as the subject.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 07:27:10 pm by rsmphoto »
Logged

Pedro Kok

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #184 on: December 10, 2009, 08:50:57 pm »

Jack

Both shots are around 0.5 degrees off in rotation. That might seem negligible, but it's enough to be perceivable.  
Personally, with this type of photograph, I frame for precise parallels, then tilt the camera up just a tiny bit. You'll get slight convergence, but the building will look more natural, and ultimately the viewer won't feel as if something is wrong with it.

Cheers,
Pedro
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #185 on: December 10, 2009, 09:01:56 pm »

Here is one of the adjacent condo, shot with the 17mm TS-E lens, on 5DMkII, RAW developed in LR3Beta then tweaked in CS4.
It is "Tone Mapped" in Photomatrix, 1 stop over, 0, and one stop under.

Very little parallax in this image - shot further back from the building with less rise on the lens.

(Note for all of your "Yankees" buried in SNOW, temp today was about 82 degrees, and that's above Zero!)
Pedro - you were right - check this image and it was .4 off, corrected it, should be correct now.  I sure missed that - will check in future on all images as my RRS pan head must be off by just a weeee bit.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 10:10:45 pm by Lust4Life »
Logged
Jack

CBarrett

  • Guest
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #186 on: December 10, 2009, 10:10:37 pm »

Quote from: Lust4Life
Here is one of the adjacent condo, shot with the 17mm TS-E lens, on 5DMkII, RAW developed in LR3Beta then tweaked in CS4.
Very little paralax in this image - shot further back from the building with less rise on the lens.

(Note for all of your "Yankees" buried in SNOW, temp today was about 82 degrees, and that's above Zero!)
Pedro - you were right - check this image and it was .4 off, corrected it, should be correct now.  I sure missed that - will check in future on all images as my RRS pan head must be off by just a weeee bit.


That's nice damn light, Jack.  And yeah, it's like 10 deg here right now.  I was born and raised in Louisiana and I do not take kindly to Chicago winters!
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4073
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #187 on: December 11, 2009, 12:53:52 am »

Quote from: Lust4Life
(Note for all of your "Yankees" buried in SNOW, temp today was about 82 degrees, and that's above Zero!)

And your point?  You'll never experience going 50 mph down a mountain side on two skies where you're at, such a shame, so much fun.  

On a technical note, there seems to be a decent amount of noise (or something) in the sky, is that just from downsizing?
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 09:48:58 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Huib

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
    • http://www.huibnederhof.nl
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #188 on: December 11, 2009, 04:27:35 am »

Quote from: Lust4Life
OK, as requested I went back this afternoon around 3:30, sun is setting here around 5:35, and shot the condo again with suggestions of framing the building in mind.

Shot with the D5MkII, 24mm TS-E II lens, f/11, 1/250
The tilt was centered, but lens shifted up to max - building top still appears to be wider than base of rise.

I was under the impression the TS-E would prevent this type of effect - the tripod/camera were perfectly level.
Need to define best way to avoid or fix this issue.

Here is what I got:

You can correct this afterwards very well with PTlens / perspective vertical.
Logged
----------
[url=http://www.huibnederhof.

Harold Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #189 on: December 11, 2009, 11:43:24 am »

Quote from: Lust4Life
OK, as requested I went back this afternoon around 3:30, sun is setting here around 5:35, and shot the condo again with suggestions of framing the building in mind.

Shot with the D5MkII, 24mm TS-E II lens, f/11, 1/250
The tilt was centered, but lens shifted up to max - building top still appears to be wider than base of rise.

I was under the impression the TS-E would prevent this type of effect - the tripod/camera were perfectly level.
Need to define best way to avoid or fix this issue.

Here is what I got:

The camera has been perfectly aligned vertically, but as you say the building still looks wider at the top. I think this is psychological, the image processor in our head expects some convergence when viewing a tall building from a close distance.

Next time when you shoot, try one perfectly aligned, then tip the camera back a little and do another exposure. You will find that you soon develop a feel for what looks right.
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #190 on: December 11, 2009, 11:58:29 am »

Quote from: Harold Clark
The camera has been perfectly aligned vertically, but as you say the building still looks wider at the top. I think this is psychological, the image processor in our head expects some convergence when viewing a tall building from a close distance.

Next time when you shoot, try one perfectly aligned, then tip the camera back a little and do another exposure. You will find that you soon develop a feel for what looks right.


yes this is psychological and somehow a bit basic knowledge if shooting architecture that high buildings have to converge a bit to look natural. many rendering companies do it bad also ......
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #191 on: December 11, 2009, 01:33:41 pm »

Quote from: Harold Clark
The camera has been perfectly aligned vertically, but as you say the building still looks wider at the top. I think this is psychological, the image processor in our head expects some convergence when viewing a tall building from a close distance.
While I know what you're talking about and agree that sometimes having just a little bit of convergence will look more natural, I don't think that's the case here. The top of the building really is distorted; not from perspective, since the camera was level; but rather from the rectilinear projection of the lens. It's not just an illusion, if you take the image into PS and overlay a grid you can see the distortion.

With a really wide FOV, rectilinear projections cause stretching into the corners. The closer an object is to the edge or corner of the frame, the more it will be distorted. You can clearly see that the right side of the building is pretty straight, but the upper left part (where it's closer to the corner of the image) is distorted. Tilting the camera up a bit might not help much, because in this case the distortion is uneven between the left and right sides of the building. It might help some since you'd get the building further away from the edge of the image circle. Other potential solutions would be to back up and use a longer lens, or change to a 1-point perspective.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 02:44:02 pm by JeffKohn »
Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #192 on: December 11, 2009, 01:54:05 pm »

Quote from: JeffKohn
While I know what you're talking about and agree that sometimes having just a little bit of convergence will look more natural, I don't think that's the case here. The top of the building really is distorted; not from perspective, since the camera was level; but rather from the rectilinear projection of the lens. It's not just an illusion, if you take the image into PS and overlay a grid you can see the distortion.

With a really wide FOV, rectilinear projections cause stretching into the corners. The closer an object is to the edge or corner of the frame, the more it will be distorted. You can clearly see that the right side of the building is pretty straight, but the upper left part (where it's closer to the corner of the image) is distorted. Tilting the camera up a bit might not help much, because in this case the distortion is uneven between the left and right sides of the building. It might help some since you'd get the building further away from the edge of the image circle. Other potential solutions would be to backup up and user a longer lens, or change to a 1-point perspective.

It needs 1 point, I think.  Or a lift.
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #193 on: December 11, 2009, 06:29:16 pm »

Please define, not sure what you're saying.
Jack


Quote from: TMARK
It needs 1 point, I think.  Or a lift.
Logged
Jack

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #194 on: December 11, 2009, 06:37:13 pm »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%...int_perspective

1-point perspective shooting straight-on, with the camera not only level but also squared up with the front of the building.  2-point perspective is what you've shot, with the camera level but facing the building at an angle. 3-point would be if camera was also pointing up or down.
Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #195 on: December 11, 2009, 10:59:16 pm »

Quote from: Lust4Life
Please define, not sure what you're saying.
Jack

What Jeff said.  I don't shoot this stuff, but assisted my father in shooting his buildings and large outdoor art installations when I was a kid.  Maybe getting some height would work, then the top of the building wouldn't be forced, less shift and farther from the IC edge, so less forced perspective from the lens..
Logged

MNG

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
    • www.ngfoto.com
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #196 on: December 16, 2009, 08:05:43 pm »

I have been following this thread for a while and am curious to how people deal with unsuitable weather conditions on architectural shoots away from your home town or country? A client asked how I would charge for bad weather days but I assume everyone would be checking weather forecasts before and advising the client of the contingency plan if the weather became unsuitable. This would not be a major problem if you lived locally but hotels and expenses do add up fast.

The other question is how do you charge working in different country's? Would you for example; swop the US$ rate for Euros if you were shooting a project in Europe or vice versa? I assume most advertising photographers work with agency's and the agent negotiates on behalf of the photographer,  but I think most architectural photographers would work direct with their clients.

Regards
Michael
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4073
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #197 on: December 16, 2009, 08:22:12 pm »

Never had to travel that far, but I did read of a story where one architectural photographer want to the Bahamas 4 times on the expense of Architectural Digest because the first three times just did not have the right light.  Would have liked to been her!

You could always charge a rain delay fee covering your assistant's time plus half of what you would get for a day of shooting (outside digital capture fees) for bad weather days.  If the weather seems to be a wash, I guess just cancel and reschedule for another time making sure you get your kill fee and reimbursement for canceled tickets.  I have been lucky so far when it comes to travel have had to not explain the meaning of a rain delay fee (I do tell my clients about it before hand but when it comes to money...?).
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4073
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #198 on: December 23, 2009, 05:52:06 pm »

Shot this image yesterday and I am looking for any feedback about the light.  I got to fool around with some colored gels and think that I got a nice pairing of color.  I flooded the room with a tota through a 32 in white umbrella along with a couple in the hallway.  Then used 4 420 watt peppers with double weight scrims.  One pepper hit the chairs with no gel.  Another two hit the table and chest with a Lee Nectarine gels in them.  The forth hit the glass door and window with a cold steel blue gel in it.  

What do you think?  



Also, been thinking of making a silk with a hole in the middle of it for the lens to go through and to use as a very soft "ring" flash.  Think this would work well?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 05:55:43 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4073
Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer
« Reply #199 on: December 23, 2009, 07:36:31 pm »

Quote from: Yelhsa
Sounds like you when to a lot of effort here.

Who's the image aim at i.e. who's going to buy it and what do they need it for?

Cheers
Ashley.
It is for the designer for their marketing.  Not to much effort (or at least I am not thinking of it that way); I had gotten (in addition to color correction gels) some theatrical color gels and had been looking for a way to use them.  This image only required tungsten lighting and the subject matter made it seem like a good shot to use them for.  The designers also told me that they wanted some semi-abstract shots.  
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 07:38:30 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Up