I had this particular awkward image and, as well as not knowing how to align it in viewfinder, I didn't know how to align it in post processing!
This is what I did with it, but I am open to suggestions (uploaded a bigger than normal image this time so feel free) as how to deal with the alignment.
Nikon D80, 1/50 sec, f5.6, ISO 200, 27mm lens equivalent.
And before anyone says, I couldn't go further back, or move to the side. I was shooting through a gap in the trees with a wood immediately behind me!
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
John, this is a difficult one. I am inclined (!) to write - leave the converging verticals alone. Your viewpoint is close to the building so you are looking up - the converging verticals serve to give an impression of the height of the building.
If it were mine, the only change I would make to the structure of your edited image, is to rotate it a bit more clockwise, until a vertical line of the building that is closest to the vertical centre line of the image frame, is itself vertical in the image. Hope that makes sense:
Philip. With an image like that any attempt to correct converging verticals would be pointless, likely disastrous. It is converging verticals that give us the sense of height when we look up. The brain needs converging verticals. It is the lack of them that makes it impossible to recognise the difference between a small aircraft close up or a large one far away.
When I took the photograph I used the edge of the building against the sky as my vertical. For cropping I took the fire escape windows, down the end of the building, as the vertical. What you did, selecting a vertical in the middle of the frame, is what I would have done in correcting a less extreme shot. I would square up a mid frame vertical, then adjust either end of the frame to make the edges vertical, so why not here. Thank you for your valuable input and smooth cloning.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
It seems obvious that an object which is truly vertical in the real scene, placed at the centre of the field of view, should be vertical in the image. Empirically that is also the way the camera's electronic level-meter guides me and, if necessary, I would usually adjust in post-processing according to that simple geometric rule. Anything else would veer away from reality and, of course, there's nothing wrong with that, if it is what the photographer chooses. It is just another aspect of the art of photography - a photograph does not have to look real, although I tend towards reality in my own images.
Gentlemen on the subject of converging verticals,Iam tempted by a tilt and shift lens not just for converging verticals but also for landscapes, where I'm told tilt and shift lenses can improve depth of field and create mini panoramic images, has anyone had any experience with this type of lens.
There is an interesting article here. However, it is a rather specialist piece of equipment for occasional use. The particular lens they refer to in the article currently costs £1200 to £1500.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
Eddy, used a 10x8 camera, R & T Lens, in the 50/60's for commercial work, (still have 2}, also used for other work, including landscapes, not in the context you mention. With a Gridded focussing, and, under the cloth, albeit an upside down image, it was easy to check all parameters before shooting. (Murphy's Law does come into this, I assure you). Ed.
To each his own!
(This post was last modified: Feb 21, 2016, 09:18 by EdMak.)
