Perspective Issue (Page 3): Yes, the Composition of #1 image is much more apealling to the Eye, not really sure if correction is possible in #2,...Maybe...

Silverrails

cdayton wrote:

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?

Yes, the Composition of #1 image is much more apealling to the Eye, not really sure if correction is possible in #2,...Maybe

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

artBob wrote:

Here's the problem, which some here deny, to probl... (show quote)

I'm with artBob here. I agree with his explanation of the cause of the problem with the second image and how he partially fix it or at least made it a bit better to read. His Ps skills are a bit beyond mine at least in this case with someone else's image. I've played with Transform controls on a single layer but not working with two. Good idea and work Bob.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

I don't think you can "fix" #2, but you can adjust it.
Take the lighthouse complex, add a little HDR to make it more vibrant, 3d and closer. Just a little.
Take the rocks and darken the shadows. Just a little. Stretch the width a mite.
Get a picture of an obvious large boat, shrink it to the size pf the light house roof, and stick it in the upper middle left water, to give the illusion of distance and scale. All the parts blend in too well.

#1- The little red building on the left adds scale and perspective to the lighthouse complex. Which gives perspective and scale to the cliffs, then to the water. ie: The first lighthouse building looks like a 3 story, compared to the red one; the lighthouse is @ 2x taller than that building; the cliffs are 5 - 6x the lighthouse.
#2- the complex is bland and flat, the rocks are seriously foreshortened, the water is flat. Model trainset.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

TomV wrote:

Bob, I bought a Tamron 45mm lens. I think this was because it may be a bit closer to what our FOV is. Do you think that was the reason Tamron made this lens?

TomV

Tom, I'm not a lens expert, but theoretically that should be very close to our human field of view.

griffzky

The first image from the water looking in at the lighthouse is gorgeous. Don't obsess on the second one, it adds absolutely nothing that the first one doesn't capture. Great shot!

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I still like the second one also. It works for me as sort of an interesting optical illusion that one has to look at closely to figure out how it works.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

There is no perpective problem, perspective is not involved.
Both pictures are fine, thanks for showing.
It is the height of the camera taking pictures which is what you try to question.
The higher you go the cliff will become less and less recognizable.
From the high altitude the cliff disappears and the grass around the lighthouse will be "touching" the ocean.
Cheers!

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Paul J. Svetlik wrote:

There is no perpective problem, perspective is not involved.
Both pictures are fine, thanks for showing.
It is the height of the camera taking pictures which is what you try to question.
The higher you go the cliff will become less and less recognizable.
From the high altitude the cliff disappears and the grass around the lighthouse will be "touching" the ocean.
Cheers!

Sorry to contradict, but that is WRONG: https://fstoppers.com/architecture/how-lens-compression-and-perspective-distortion-work-251737

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

Thank you Bob
for your lead you sent me just to prove, that yes indeed, there is NOT a perspective problem on the pictures displayed. Both of them are fine - but that you are obviously not quite clear what is the wide lens distortion as opposed the tele lens compression.
Happy shooting!

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Paul J. Svetlik wrote:

Thank you Bob
for your lead you sent me just to prove, that yes indeed, there is NOT a perspective problem on the pictures displayed. Both of them are fine - but that you are obviously not quite clear what is the wide lens distortion as opposed the tele lens compression.
Happy shooting!

ANY lens other than ca. 50mm distorts. The article explains why, but clearly, not to you. I suggest more research on your part. The distortion of perspective is used quite a bit by really good photographers, as a means of expression, but if you are unaware of it, you photography will suffer.

You could also shoot the same subject a wide, normal, and tele lengths. Make each a layer, matching the nearest vertical in each. Use transparency to see the difference between them. That is what a photographer normally does, i.e. fill the frame with the subject he wants.

However, even if you do the "suggested" comparison of shooting something from the very same spot with each of those lenses, then reduce or blow up images on a common middle to distant distant object, match a common vertical in each, you will still see distortion, especially at a near or far distance.

If you do a real-world experiment on your own, and find that I have misled you and the other shooters here, post your results.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Paul J. Svetlik wrote:

There is no perpective problem, perspective is not involved.
Both pictures are fine, thanks for showing.
It is the height of the camera taking pictures which is what you try to question.
The higher you go the cliff will become less and less recognizable.
From the high altitude the cliff disappears and the grass around the lighthouse will be "touching" the ocean.
Cheers!

That is perspective! And the photos are different perspectives. That does not make them bad or good.

Perspective: the appearance to the eye of objects in respect to their relative distance and positions

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

frankraney wrote:

That is perspective! And the photos are different perspectives. That does not make them bad or good.

Perspective: the appearance to the eye of objects in respect to their relative distance and positions

Not a complete definition. (I taught perspective in a college, and all respected sources would agree your definition is incomplete.) You did not include "relative sizes" or "relative scale," as in this, from Google:
"per·spec·tive
/pərˈspektiv/
noun
1.
the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other when viewed from a particular point."

Check the attached simple illustration for clarification.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

artBob wrote:

Not a complete definition. (I taught perspective i... (show quote)

Yes, not complete, very basic, but shows he's basically wrong...... Your definition is more thorough.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

frankraney wrote:

Yes, not complete, very basic, but shows he's basically wrong...... Your definition is more thorough.

👍 Thanks

Cathy vinci

I love both pics the way they are. It makes you think of what it looks like from that angle.They are both fun to look at..