Violameister wrote:
Thanks for the hints. I know that if your shot were done with a camera capable of lens displacement, the resultant image would not have a bulbous patio top as your corrected image has. Is there any transform available anywhere that could properly simulate a lens shift in PP?
Photoshop's Lens Correction does the exact same geometric changes as a view camera would do. The bulbous shape of the entrance canopy in my edit is caused by being too close to the subject. It is a good example of where only a partial perspective correction might be aesthetically preferable.
architect wrote:
Photoshop's Lens Correction does the exact same geometric changes as a view camera would do. The bulbous shape of the entrance canopy in my edit is caused by being too close to the subject. It is a good example of where only a partial perspective correction might be aesthetically preferable.
Thanks. Can you suggest a good reference on architectural photography?
Violameister wrote:
Thanks. Can you suggest a good reference on architectural photography?
I learned by following around professional architectural photographers and watching them work photographing my designs. Camera and Lens - The Creative Approach by Ansel Adams 1970 is good for a basic understanding of view cameras and how the lens setting affect the image. Plus there are lots of tutorials on the internet on using editing hardware if you do not have a view camera or a shift/tilt lens. Julius Shulman, Architecture and Its Photography is a good book.
architect wrote:
......As for different programs cropping more than others, I doubt that.......
I can remember a thread from a while back that was about the water feature monument at Ground Zero. The poster wanted perspective corrections but didn't want to lose any of the water feature (which had been shot quite tight). Several of us offered perspective correction edits which all left the water feature a bit cramped, but somebody else (sorry - can't remember who) did an edit using something more than just a perspective correction tool, and his edit left the water feature with noticeably more room.
Sorry I can't remember more details than that, but my point is I've seen the difference myself.
On occasion you can use the perimeter of the original image if that is not distorted to fill in around the corners where most of the loss occurs. Just open both in PS and use the clone stamp tool to fill it in. I used that for some cathedral shots in Cologne. Always best to back off as far as you can from the main subject (if possible) before taking wide angle shots of subjects you know will be distorted.
R.G. wrote:
I can remember a thread from a while back that was about the water feature monument at Ground Zero. The poster wanted perspective corrections but didn't want to lose any of the water feature (which had been shot quite tight). Several of us offered perspective correction edits which all left the water feature a bit cramped, but somebody else (sorry - can't remember who) did an edit using something more than just a perspective correction tool, and his edit left the water feature with noticeably more room.
Sorry I can't remember more details than that, but my point is I've seen the difference myself.
I can remember a thread from a while back that was... (
show quote)
Because correcting perspective often causes desirable content to be cropped, one very effective way of adding content back in the missing areas is to use Photoshop's Edit/ Fill/ Content aware feature. That will make an attempt to add, by automatic cloning, the appropriate content based on the adjacent areas. Often that will be all that is needed. But sometimes a bit of additional cloning is needed.
If you know you will be correcting the perspective with a subject, shoot a wider angle than you normally would so you can keep the desirable pieces at the edges when you crop.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.