cdayton

I recently took some aerial photos of the Maine coast (Sony a6000, if it matters). Both images are of the Pemaquid Point lighthouse. The first clearly shows the cliffs going down to the water but the second has lost the perspective. Any suggestions on how to correct this with post processing?

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

That is what we need to learn. The camera does about 90% of the picture WE NEED TO SEE THE PICTURE.
It is not just the rule of thirds it's putting the "picture" together.
I don't know how to give you a fix. It's a case of learning by trial and error and you are on the way by knowing "It needs to be better"

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Some perspectives just don't work and are not really fixable without major surgery. In that case, it is usually best to just delete the image and forget that it ever existed. Or simply accept it as it is if you don't want to part with it.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Actually, the pair are a very interesting optical illusion! IMO - it is the color and linear aspect of the rock that is the problem in the second shot.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

If you want to play crop around the Light House complex and look at it. It will be about 1/6th the size of your picture now.

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

Flip the second one vertically. Might work, might not. Next time post with download.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Wouldn't know whether or not you'd have the option, but if possible, re-shoot the scene later in the day. Having the light granite cliff wall in shadow --rather than it being as brightly lit as it is-- would allow it to 'recede' a little, and would produce a better visual depth that would aid in the perspective you probably want.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Here's the problem, which some here deny, to problems such as this: long lenses distort perspective. So, shooting solutions have to revolve around this. Using a shorter lens, and getting closer.

The first pic distorts perspective, bringing the far rocks closer, but it is not so noticeable because of the camera angle. The second pic can be fixed, somewhat, in post processing. The quick and dirty example attached: in Photoshop, saved the lighthouse area to a new layer, distorted the cliff and water from the left, added, distorted, and cloned some of the original where the previous distortion had left a blank.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I don't claim to be an expert, but I can't think of a way to help the second shot.

krashdragon

Perspective is a point of view.
Photos are flat. It's all about the angles

Jerry G Loc: Waterford, Michigan and Florida

The problem is the way we perceive images, our mind is not use to seeing items that should be on the bottom of an image on top. The cliffs are going down the higher in the image you go, it confuses the mind.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I like the first image because the cliff face mirrors the upward thrust of the light house itself.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I don't think there is anythg wrong with either image. Perhaps you are looking for trouble that does not exist. Here's the simplification. I have done a extensive amount of aerial photography, mostly in the military for cartography and surveillance purposes. I have also done this kind of work for advertising, real estate projects and othere general usages. The unadulterated simple concept to realize is that scenes look very different from what we usually perceive as normal perspective form very high vantage points.

An extreme example occurs in a VERTICAL aerial shot where the camera is aimed straight downward and there is no visible horizon and, of course, everything looks like a road map or a relief map at best- you have a FLAT image and there is no perspective or relative scale. In an OBLIQUE aerial image, for example at about 45 degrees, where there is a visible horizon, things begin to look more "normal" or as we normally perceive them. Thing is, in between 45 degrees and a straight downward vertical image, there are many nuances and increments and some angles will be "flatter" than others.

Aside from this business of perception from high vantage points, all the other elements of photography kick in as well. Perspective is influenced by distance so the use of various focal lenghts at various distance will indeed produce differet perspectives. If you really want to knock yourself out, there is also the addition variable of viewing distance of the final image.

Then, just like shooting from ground level, lightg direction provides separation, rendition of texture and separation form one element or plane from another. Again, it takes a little while to asses the lightg from up in the sky adn there are certain times of day that will provide better separation and texture than others, thus the flight plan is very important.

Then there IS the basic concepts of composition. I certainly don't believe in hard and fast "RULES" but there are some basics to use as starting points. When shooting from an aircraft, TIME is a factor- you have a limited amount of flight time and if you are just a passenger on a flight and shooting casually, you have to act quickly and get you shots in. If you are flying specifically for the purpose of photography you must communicate with pilot. I am usually working for a fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter with the doors off and it get noisey so I have a headset so I can ask the pilot to circle over an area where I can find various points of view as I would when working on the ground. There there are various altitudes as well. Again, time is a factor and sometimes there is little time for experimentation so I do suggest sticking to certin compositional rules and the making variations as time permits.

OK- now for the TECHNOBABBLE. I am going to attach a link that explains the relationship of focal length and altitude. The critical factor here is SCALE. Specialized aerial cameras are equipped with lenses that are carefully calibrated and designed to produce proper scale without distortion. The link will explain the math and give you a better feel for focal length choices as per point of view and altitude.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geomatics/satellite-imagery-and-air-photos/national-air-photo-library/about-aerial-photography/concepts-aerial-photography/9687

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Having been to this lighthouse many times, I'm astonished at the perspective. Even in the image that someone so generously photoshopped for you, it still doesn't look like itself. I hope you had a chance to see that lighthouse from the ground and took advantage of the reflective puddle in the rocks below.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes. I had to look at it for a while to figure it out. It's just off a bit as a useful photo. I like the first on, though.