US Custom House

[Dave Humphries]

Yep that's it; (I think) much better.

I was going to say it looks really imposing, but Mike beat me to it.

Cheers, Dave

[Manfred M]

Sam - when I drop some vertical guides onto your second image. the perspective issues are fairly clear.




A touch of perspective adjustment (I used Photoshop's Skew tool") gets things even closer.

[Mike Buckley]

This scene is an example for me of when a bit of perspective distortion is advantageous because it adds to the sense of height and to the sense of the viewer looking up.

[Manfred M]

This scene is an example for me of when a bit of perspective distortion is advantageous because it adds to the sense of height and to the sense of the viewer looking up.

I should have stretched the image a touch. The correction technique I used tends to "shorten" the building a tad, as it makes it a bit wider at the top. I can also see being a bit conservative and letting the building have a bit of distortion, but I don't find the "collapsing inward" look usually works for me. I guess that's why I shoot a lot of my architectural shots with a Perspective Correcting (shift / tilt) lens.




This shot has been stretched vertically.

[Mike Buckley]

A note on stretching buildings: I remember stretching an image years ago of a building in Rome's Forum. A person who was knowledgeable of the style of architecture immediately recognized that he felt I had stretched it too much. If I remember correctly, he explained that the apparent convergence of parallel lines when looking up was already built into the architectural design of the buildings of that time. So, I was in effect doubling the effect by stretching the image during post-processing.

If I was going to make a point of doing exterior architectural photography in this style, I would take the time to learn the details of this.

[Sam W]

Thanks for showing me an alternative Manfred. I'm learning that there is a lot to consider in architectural photography. The information you shared will certainly help me recognize and appreciate good architectural photographs. I think it will be a while before I purchase a tilt/shift lens...perhaps a camera bag or a tripod might be a higher priority. :-) I appreciate your comments. Best regards- Sam

[Sam W]

Your second version draws me into the scene; I literally feel as if I'm standing on the street looking up at the building. It also makes the building seem more imposing, more dramatic. Love it!

Thanks Mike - I got a lot of help from the feedback here. Best regards - Sam

[kdoc856]

This scene is an example for me of when a bit of perspective distortion is advantageous because it adds to the sense of height and to the sense of the viewer looking up.

That's a point I'd also like to make: it may simply be a matter of personal preference in some cases, and perhaps it just doesn't appeal to some folks to have any distortion, but sometimes it just seems to work to not correct everything to plumb and square. I thought this was one of those examples.

[MrB]

Perspective is not a difficult concept, but it can be difficult to get it looking right in a two dimensional image. The principle is simple - things that are further away from the eyes seem to be smaller than those that are nearer. For me, that explains why the 'corrected' images in posts 22 and 24 do not feel comfortable to view. The camera position is low down in the scene, so simple geometry tells us that the top of the building is further away from the viewpoint than is the bottom. Therefore the top should be smaller in the image, meaning that the verticals should still not be perfectly vertical - there should still be some convergence - after the correction of any perspective distortion in the original image.

Cheers.
Philip

[Sam W]

Perspective is not a difficult concept, but it can be difficult to get it looking right in a two dimensional image. The principle is simple - things that are further away from the eyes seem to be smaller than those that are nearer. For me, that explains why the 'corrected' images in posts 22 and 24 do not feel comfortable to view. The camera position is low down in the scene, so simple geometry tells us that the top of the building is further away from the viewpoint than is the bottom. Therefore the top should be smaller in the image, meaning that the verticals should still not be perfectly vertical - there should still be some convergence - after the correction of any perspective distortion in the original image.

Cheers.
Philip

I think #22 & #24 help explain Manfred's points but I tend to agree with your assessment. Best regards - Sam

[Manfred M]

Perspective is not a difficult concept, but it can be difficult to get it looking right in a two dimensional image. The principle is simple - things that are further away from the eyes seem to be smaller than those that are nearer. For me, that explains why the 'corrected' images in posts 22 and 24 do not feel comfortable to view. The camera position is low down in the scene, so simple geometry tells us that the top of the building is further away from the viewpoint than is the bottom. Therefore the top should be smaller in the image, meaning that the verticals should still not be perfectly vertical - there should still be some convergence - after the correction of any perspective distortion in the original image.

Cheers.
Philip

Let's agree to disagree on that one Philip, as will the other users of PC (perspective correction) lenses.

Our brain / eye combination corrects for those perspective differences all the time. A camera lens (other than the PC ones) or a view camera do not. Check out any architect's picture portfolio and guess what they want in the renderings of their projects.They will want vertical lines to be vertical.

[Mike Buckley]

Check out any architect's picture portfolio and guess what they want in the renderings of their projects.They will want vertical lines to be vertical.

About 25 years of my sales career was with architects as primary clients. Lots and lots of photos of their projects displayed converging lines. As in the case of any image, the style that one chooses depends on what is intended to be conveyed; sometimes converging lines are desired and sometimes not.

I don't know what the latest style is, as these considerations definitely go in and out of style.

EDIT: I just now checked the website of an architectural firm with an international portfolio whose former partners and one current partner are friends of mine. All were former customers. Yep, they display some images with converging lines.

[MrB]

Let's agree to disagree on that one Philip

Manfred, it matters not to me whether anyone agrees or disagrees. There is nothing in the description in post 29 that needs any correction.

Cheers.
Philip

[IzzieK]

So much nicer. I will remember this shot when shooting buildings...Thank you for sharing.

Dave - this helps a lot and the more nit-picky the better. Now I know to pay more even attention to verticals and shoot wider. At the time I was not aware of PP adjustments for distortion...also because of the setting and lens, I think this was a wide as could go.

I attempted to address your comments in the update below except extending the canvas and cloning more sky. So I'll have to live with the image being constrained. Thanks again for your time and help. Best regards -Sam

[Manfred M]

EDIT: I just now checked the website of an architectural firm with an international portfolio whose former partners and one current partner are friends of mine. All were former customers. Yep, they display some images with converging lines.

My experience was a bit different than yours Mike. I spent much of the last 15 year working with architects (both our staff architect and architectural firms that were hired for specific projects). I'll have to admit, I was looking at technical documents, renderings and photographs, rather than marketing materials, so that could be the difference.

Most of the documents were standard isometric projection drawings. Some were conceptual renderings or images from other projects. I honest can't say I ever saw a drawing or photograph where the vertical lines were anything but vertical. The companies I dealt with with regional and national players; I really don't know if they had international portfolios, but some of the larger ones undoubtedly did.

Regardless, all of the documents and photos I saw were meant to clearly portray design concepts and how the concepts were to be executed.

[Mike Buckley]

Regardless, all of the documents and photos I saw were meant to clearly portray design concepts and how the concepts were to be executed.

The intended outcomes of that are very different from a portfolio of photos that you initially mentioned and very different from the artistic aspect of photography that makes it appealing to consider a building or tenant the architect has designed. As such, it's also very different from the intended outcomes of the photography displayed here at CiC.

I firmly believe there is always a case to be made for displaying converging lines or not, depending on what is hoped to be conveyed.

[Manfred M]

Absolutely correct Mike. The importance is to understand how to execute the image that you want and the advantages / disadvantages of the approach you have chosen.

[Loose Canon]

Hi Sam!

Quite the conversation-provoking shot you have here! Very nice conversion btw and perfect for this building.

As regards the perspective? A lot of factors enter the equation. Such as how far away you are from the building? How tall the building. Looking up, looking down, or centered on the building? End use just for starters.

As a quickie example and without adding a bunch of caveats, if you are standing below a skyscraper shooting pretty much straight up, you probably wouldn’t want to correct to dead vertical. Conversely, if you are shooting a single story building, convergence is not desirable. In fact, it is pretty much agreed (at least by those who make and pay big money doing it big time) that in most cases verticals should be vertical.

In the case of your original shot, some correction would be desirable and you have done so. Here’s why I think that. The building, in my opinion, is not tall enough not to correct, at least to some degree. Also, and this is a biggie, there is considerably more “lean” on the camera right side of the building and the shot has a very pronounced lop-sided look. Not good at all! Whether you cropped from the left I couldn’t say but typically, the closer to the side of the frame the more the distortion. The top corner vertical (to camera right of the word “House”) is almost vertical yet it is not even close to the center of the image. The center is where verticals should be closest to vertical before any correction decisions and they are not in the original. Still yet another indication that correction should be performed and why your second version looks better though you still don’t have all the verts vertical. That top corner is now closer to center. And on that note lens corrections/perspective corrections should be done close to the beginning of the post production work flow for this reason.

So, everyone thus far has debated how much “perspective” there should or should not be to give the appearance of height or viewing comfort. And while this lofty viewing has been discussed, what has not been mentioned is the obvious tell-tale ground level windows. These should definitely appear vertical, being pretty much at eye level, and they are way off in your original. Your corrected is much better. Manfred’s more so. If these are way off then so is the shot. No way should you see wankered ground level architectural verticals in this instance regardless of your opinion of what should or should not happen three stories up.

As for “stretching” a building? Stretching is one thing, but scaling after correcting is common and a typically just another aspect of correction to maintain, well, aspect!

That’s some of the technical stuff. Now the fun part! Opinion!

Sam I like this shot. Beautiful, grandiose architecture! But I like it corrected a la Manfred’s version and that is an opinion based on the technicalities mentioned above. I think the building is more grandiose than imposing and I like it standing straight and tall. I don’t think the building is tall enough or the camera close enough that the correction looks “too much”. Sometimes when close enough, or tall enough, corrections can cause a “top-heavy” look that is a bit overwhelming. I don’t see that here and it may be a close call as to how much correction is needed. But there is no doubt in my mind that to make the shot what it can be some corrections were absolutely necessary.

If you could have shot further away using a longer focal length, that helps, though not always possible. Shoot wide for correcting/cropping (already mentioned). If you could have found a higher vantage point that would also help with convergence. Also not always possible. Sometimes it just comes down to post!

[Sam W]

Hi Sam!

Quite the conversation-provoking shot you have here! Very nice conversion btw and perfect for this building.

As regards the perspective? A lot of factors enter the equation. Such as how far away you are from the building? How tall the building. Looking up, looking down, or centered on the building? End use just for starters.

As a quickie example and without adding a bunch of caveats, if you are standing below a skyscraper shooting pretty much straight up, you probably wouldn’t want to correct to dead vertical. Conversely, if you are shooting a single story building, convergence is not desirable. In fact, it is pretty much agreed (at least by those who make and pay big money doing it big time) that in most cases verticals should be vertical.

In the case of your original shot, some correction would be desirable and you have done so. Here’s why I think that. The building, in my opinion, is not tall enough not to correct, at least to some degree. Also, and this is a biggie, there is considerably more “lean” on the camera right side of the building and the shot has a very pronounced lop-sided look. Not good at all! Whether you cropped from the left I couldn’t say but typically, the closer to the side of the frame the more the distortion. The top corner vertical (to camera right of the word “House”) is almost vertical yet it is not even close to the center of the image. The center is where verticals should be closest to vertical before any correction decisions and they are not in the original. Still yet another indication that correction should be performed and why your second version looks better though you still don’t have all the verts vertical. That top corner is now closer to center. And on that note lens corrections/perspective corrections should be done close to the beginning of the post production work flow for this reason.

So, everyone thus far has debated how much “perspective” there should or should not be to give the appearance of height or viewing comfort. And while this lofty viewing has been discussed, what has not been mentioned is the obvious tell-tale ground level windows. These should definitely appear vertical, being pretty much at eye level, and they are way off in your original. Your corrected is much better. Manfred’s more so. If these are way off then so is the shot. No way should you see wankered ground level architectural verticals in this instance regardless of your opinion of what should or should not happen three stories up.

As for “stretching” a building? Stretching is one thing, but scaling after correcting is common and a typically just another aspect of correction to maintain, well, aspect!

That’s some of the technical stuff. Now the fun part! Opinion!

Sam I like this shot. Beautiful, grandiose architecture! But I like it corrected a la Manfred’s version and that is an opinion based on the technicalities mentioned above. I think the building is more grandiose than imposing and I like it standing straight and tall. I don’t think the building is tall enough or the camera close enough that the correction looks “too much”. Sometimes when close enough, or tall enough, corrections can cause a “top-heavy” look that is a bit overwhelming. I don’t see that here and it may be a close call as to how much correction is needed. But there is no doubt in my mind that to make the shot what it can be some corrections were absolutely necessary.

If you could have shot further away using a longer focal length, that helps, though not always possible. Shoot wide for correcting/cropping (already mentioned). If you could have found a higher vantage point that would also help with convergence. Also not always possible. Sometimes it just comes down to post!

Hi Terry - Seems I touched on a passionate subject. To be honest, I was not happy with the shot due to the angle and proximity of the building from which it had to be taken. It sat in my digital library until I became interested in B&W (a few weeks ago). It looked like a good candidate to practice B&W conversion (my first note on this thread). From comments received I think I received a passing grade. I'm very happy about that because there are many here that are B&W experts.

If I had to evaluate the PP possibilities of the original photo in regard to perspective and distortion correction, I would submit that I hit a compromise between technically correct and artistically pleasing. BTW I don't claim to be artistic. Also, "the top corner vertical (to camera right of the word “House”) appears to be on dead center on my first update or at least very close.

I think the move to more technically correct which might appeal more to architects results in a personally unappealing top heavy effect in this photo. I know Manfred did not have much to work with in this photo as he mentioned he would have used a tilt/shift lens from the start. That said, his results give me a uneasy feeling and to my untrained eyes the columns appear to be converging under the ground. Maybe this is an optical illusion but that does not matter as it is what I see. Perhaps as I learn more about architectural photography that perspective (technically correct, acceptable to architects) may grow on me. Thanks to all responding to this post I know a lot more now than I did last week about all of this and I will be using this knowledge going forward. Thanks Terry - Best regards - Sam

[MrB]

I think the move to more technically correct which might appeal more to architects results in a personally unappealing top heavy effect in this photo. I know Manfred did not have much to work with in this photo as he mentioned he would have used a tilt/shift lens from the start. That said, his results give me a uneasy feeling

Spot on, Sam.

Perhaps as I learn more about architectural photography that perspective (technically correct, acceptable to architects) may grow on me.

I hope not, Sam - this is photography, not architectural drawing! Stick with what you feel about the image and you will probably be right, as you are here, and for the factual reasons I explained in my earlier post.

Cheers.
Philip