Windows

[DanK]

A view through two windows, 18th century tavern.



EDITED:

Anticipating one comment, I straightened the perspective, using Nik's new Perspective Efex, which is remarkably easy. I like it less but would welcome comments either way:



For you history buffs, this tavern is on the route the British troops took the day the American revolution started (that is, the actual fighting), April 19, 1775. Very early in the morning, the British, who had started out in Boston, reached the Lexington town green, about half a mile (0.8 km) from my house. There was a skirmish, with 7 casualties on the American side. The British then continued on their way to Concord, where the locals had stored much of their gunpowder. Fighting started on a bridge over the small Concord River, and for whatever reason, the more numerous British retreated. In the meantime, colonists from a large part of New England converged on the area, and just west of this tavern, at a bend in the road called the Bloody Angle, the Americans ambushed the British and inflicted heavy casualties. This continued in various places between there and Boston. The British were not prepared to deal with citizen soldiers stationed behind stone walls and trees.

The route is now all a public park. There are a few grave sites and memorials to the fallen British soldiers which are maintained by locals to this day. There were fresh flowers on one when I took this photo today.

[ST1]

Well seen and taken Dan, I like both versions. Having said that I would personally have corrected the angles.
The texture and colour of the timbers makes the image for me. My only other thought is that I would have liked to see a version in which the reflections in the glass panes were removed by the use of a circular polariser. One for your next visit maybe?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rufus]

I also like both. The unstraightened one is more dynamic. It appears, to me at least, to be leaning back at the top, so if that could be adjusted while retaining the dynamic angle it would definitely be the better version IMHO.

As well as the colour and grain of the wood, the white (putty perhaps?) rather nicely defines the wooden frames of the individual panes of glass while keeping the eye on the subject and discouraging detailed examination of the reflection, until the rest of the image has been fully appreciated.

[DanK]

Peter and David,

thanks for the comments. A lot to think about. I'm going to try again later after I mull this over more.

Re the reflections: I wanted them. That's why I was standing to one side. All a matter of taste.

Re the perspective: I don't do a lot of perspective correction, and I am not very good at it. I was standing toward the left, of course, and looking slightly up, which accounts for the leaning back impression. So, there is perspective operating both vertically and horizontally. I tried correcting the vertical only to see whether it looks natural. I think it does, and I think it is probably the best:




Re the putty: the exterior was just redone, with a new coat of what I assume is something like Creosote and new putty on the windows. the putty is extremely bright white and was distracting. I managed to select only the putty and darken it enough that it didn't seem distracting, although it does still set the windows off.

Re the texture: this is one of the few circumstances in which I use Nik. I find that the Pro Contrast filter in Color Efex is very helpful in bringing out textures like this.

Thanks again. If I can come up with a third version worth looking at, I'll post it.

Dan

[billtils]

Dan

I like these but have a conversational (that is, it's not a critique) question on the perspective matter: I tend to regard perspective correction as tool to remedy lens distortion artefacts and not as something to change the perspective of an angled shot that is the same as would have been seen by the eye to how it would have appeared if not shot at an angle.

I didn't find your unadjusted shot to be in any way unnatural ...

As it happens this is of particular interest to me just now as a few others from the local camera club and myself are making a pictorial record of all the business in the town where I live. We frequently have to take angled shots to avoid the outcome being a photograph of one or more cars with a little bit of a business frontage in the background.

Where a wide angle lens has been used, the perspective distortion is corrected either automatically when processing the raw image or manually if that is not possible then manually.

[Wavelength]

I liked the image with the altered perspective

[DanK]

I didn't find your unadjusted shot to be in any way unnatural ...

It was the third one--vertical correction only--that I was concerned about, but it looks natural to me.

The issue is what one would want in the ideal. If you were going to take this photo, which perspective would you want? I can see arguments for both the second and the third, but the third is what caused the reflections, given the angle of the light. I can't see much reason for the first. I took it that way simply because I wasn't all enough to avoid tilting the camera up. I think the vertical perspective makes it look like a capture by someone who was walking by--which it was--rather than a planned angle.

It's all a matter of taste, but I think I will put the third on my website. without really planning to, I have been slowly creating a collection of shots of this building. Here are two more that I posted a long time ago:

[Rufus]

For my money, post #4 is the one. Well done, that small adjustment makes all the difference.

The recently applied wood preservative has certainly spruced up the tavern sympathetically.

[xpatUSA]

I tend to regard perspective correction as tool to remedy lens distortion artefacts and not as something to change the perspective of an angled shot that is the same as would have been seen by the eye to how it would have appeared if not shot at an angle.

Agreed 100 per cent and, at a focal length of 27mm, the angle of view is about normal thereby making the window rendering pretty much "as-seen".

[Rufus]

Agreed 100 per cent and, at a focal length of 27mm, the angle of view is about normal thereby making the window rendering pretty much "as-seen".

...except that sometimes the brain perceives reality and an image differently even if the latter is "as seen".

[mugge]

I prefer the original image. Sometimes a corrected perspective is too pat and I have been guilty of that many times.
Cheers Ole

[DanK]

: I tend to regard perspective correction as tool to remedy lens distortion artefacts and not as something to change the perspective of an angled shot that is the same as would have been seen by the eye to how it would have appeared if not shot at an angle.

Hmm. I came back to this after seeing Ted's response. I'm not sure I understand this. Why not use it this way? why impose this constraint on oneself?

The reason that there is a looking-up perspective is happenstance: it's because the window is fairly high up, I'm only (?) 185cm tall, and I had nothing to stand on. Is there a reason not to use the tools at hand to make this look as if I were standing on a half-meter-tall rock? I probably would have stood on one if one had been handy. People change perspective in architectural shots all the time using tilt-shift lenses for exactly this reason. Should they not do this?

Is this really any different from other edits one does to create an appealing image? This isn't photojournalism, where edits are rightfully avoided. To make the image appealing (to my tastes), I departed in several respects from what I saw, not just in changing perspective. I exaggerated the texture of the wood using four different tools (texture and clarity in LR, Pro Contrast in Nik, and Smart Sharpen in Photoshop), added contrast to the windows to enhance the reflection, darkened the putty so that it would be less distracting, and did a good bit of dodging and burning to lessen the disparity in tonality caused by the unfortunate time of day (nearly high noon on a cloudless day). It's all a matter of taste, of course, but I personally do things like this all the time, as long as they don't look unnatural. (E.g., I avoid oversaturating landscapes.) I don't see altering the perspective as any different from these other changes. In fact, it's less of a departure, because if I had been taller, that's precisely what the perspective would have been, while the enhancement of texture is clearly a departure from what one sees.

[Chataignier]

First of all - interesting bit of history, thanks for sharing.
As for the perspective issue, I like the original shot - it is as seen, I have no problem with it. That being said I agree with Dan that perspective correction is a tool like any other and there is no reason in my view to avoid it, nor any obligation to modify perspectives, it's a matter of taste. Personally, in general I dont like converging verticals in architectural shots and usually try to correct them but sometimes even that is a creative effect. Live and let live !

[xpatUSA]

Looks like we could do with a sorta kinda tie-breaker: "As It Looked to the Eye" versus "Corrected Perspective" - perhaps from a CAPA Certified Judge?

That way we'll know how it's 'sposed to be done ...

[billtils]

the window is fairly high up, I'm only (?) 185cm tall, and I had nothing to stand on. .

As the saying goes "Context is everything".

[DanK]

I went with #4 so far, but I think the choice is less important than the fact that this was a good and thoughtful discussion. Thanks for all the comments.