Even if it was possible to adjust without any loss of detail or field of view, I can't see why you would want to trade one minutes of camera adjustment for half an hour or more of computer fiddling. If it's how can you shoot shoot on a budget without buying shift lenses or technical cameras it might have a place, but for the dedicated shooter the right tools have got to be at the front end of the job.
Hi Kevin,
In this thread I notice a few people, not necessarily you, trying to defend their vested interests (or whatever ulterior motive they may have) by declaring that the OP is (in my own words) out-of-touch with reality. However, they are missing out on an opportunity to broaden their skill set. As always, for the best results one needs to know ones tools inside out. What if we are forced to operate in less than optimal conditions, how confident are we that we can still deliver the shot that the client needs? Do we postpone the search for solutions till then, or do we come to the battlefield prepared? I for one prefer the latter.
Knowing the limits of a certain approach will allow us to either compensate for them if possible, or cope with them in the best way we can (which, to mean anything, requires knowledge and experience). I applaud the OP for kicking off this thread for that purpose.
As for loss of detail due to resampling, people tend to forget that shooting a digital capture already involves sampling. When doing perspective corrections in software, there are in general two possible methods. One method involves interpolation, stretching/widening the top of the image of a building to correct for the keystoning. However, often overlooked, one can also shrink/resample the width at the bottom of the image, thus effectively super-sampling the pixels, which at the same time allows to reduce aliasing (provided one uses better software than PS). This is just one example of where expanding one's knowledge will pay-off, and entrenching doesn't.
Cheers,
Bart
