Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

Many editing programs such as Photoshop and Affinity Photo have what is called Perspective control (and WARP). You can stretch, condense, move, pull pixels until you get what you want. Do a search for Perspective Controls in Photoshop or Perspective controls in Affinity Photo and you'll get some videos on the technique. Good luck.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

It's such a cool optical illusion that I actually like it! It would be one of those that would make viewers turn upside down trying to figure out!

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

It's almost an optical illusion. I can see it correctly after staring at it for a while, but not right off the bat.

ecurb1105

Reshoot from a helicopter, use a normal lens and go lower.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

The only difference I see in the 2nd image is the need to crop it closer to the sea to match the depth that is present in the first one. My eyes are drawn to the rocks and not the Lt. House and it throws off my expectations . I would try to crop it inward a little more to get the eye's view closer to the ground level perspective.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

ecurb1105 is right.

Most essentially: "use a normal lens"

Tele lenses and wide angle lenses DISTORT PERSPECTIVE. Fixing photos thus shot is somewhat possible, but ridiculously time-consuming. Do not believe any claims (and they exist here on UHH and even in publications) that lenses, other than ca. 50mm, do not distort.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Nothing is wrong with either image it's just a different perspective. I think what you made me referring to is the first image you're looking into the cliffs and it looks natural the second photo you're looking over the lighthouse and over the cliff nothing wrong with that it's a good picture just a different perspective. They both are good, just different View.

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

The first one was taken from the water side. The second one was taken on the other side.

It appears that some of the rocks are actually higher than the lighthouse and that's what is prominent in the second shot.

Two different shots taken from different locations, that, I believe is the major difference.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

No, they are both distorted by the long lens, especially the distance, which is one appears to be more "off" than the other.

bobbyjohn Loc: Dallas, TX

I think the 2nd shot is really cool. I love optical illusions, it appears that the water is high up and about to flow over to the house. Sometimes you take a picture which is not what you intended, but it comes out better. Enjoy your mistake...you earned it!

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

There are a few issues pertaining to the original poster's images and the question that require clarification.

Perhaps I misunderstand- I have a few questions for the OP and others. Please bear with me!

Firstly, when you are shooting on land or from an aircraft with whatever camera or focal length, did you not see the images in the viewfinder and not realize that you were not satisfied with perspective- the composition or whatever? Why were you surprised at the results? Perhaps I missed something, but did you specify the focal length you selected?

There are special aerial cameras that use non-optical viewfinders that just define the field of view and would not reveal distortion that would only become apparent when viewing the images on a monitor or a print.

Just a note: the classic aerial photography lens, specifically designed for the specialty, is the KODAK AERO EKTAR f2.5 178mm (7 inches) lens which was first produced for the K- Series aerial cameras that had a 5x5 film format. That is definitely in the NORMAL lens range. Ansel Adams, in his early edition of "The Camera" wrote that the best perspective for landscape photography, as the eye perceives perspective, is a lens of slightly longer than normal. On a full-frame digital camera, that would be about 60mm.

For the folks that wrote that the images were "distorted", what kind of distortion are you perceiving- linear distortion, compression, or foreshortening of structures? When you shot down a vertical structure with any focal length you can foreshorten it and if there is no visual method of relative scale, how can you expect to perceive a lighthouse as a tower as you would see it from ground or water level? If you can't see or recall the actual scene from the same altitude and vantage point, how can you determine the degree of distortion?

Even if there is distortion, compression or foreshortening, how can those kinds of the issue be addressed in post-processing? Certain degrees of keystoning can be easily corrected but how can you decompress an image or correct for foreshortening that results from shooting down at a structure?

Just trying to clarify things in my own mind.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Excellent points. I can answer your last question: with great difficulty! Here's how I did it, without refinements: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609052-1.html#10472916

The “distortion" tool I used was Photoshop's "Transform," compressing the farthest area in various ways.

TomV Loc: Annapolis, Maryland

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

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

That's a gallant try to fix this picture, but it still doesn't look right. I'd throw this picture away and keep the first one!

BebuLamar

Get a better pilot!