Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: shift options  (Read 8954 times)
marc gerritsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


WWW
« on: December 09, 2006, 07:00:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Wondering if any of you have done a comparison between an analog shift with a
 
view camera and a digital shift in p.s. of the same location. I have heard many

times there is a lot of difference, I have looked all over the web to see some

documentation, but sofar have not found anything. Would like to see a good comparison

to consider getting into a view camera or something similar with a shift option.

Sofar I have rectified slight perspective distotion in ps and when confronted with high distortion

possibilities I use the top half of the portrait frame, with my 39mp back that still leaves me a

18.5 mp correct photo large enough for most situations.

thanks
Marc
Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2006, 08:22:26 PM »
ReplyReply

i would say this depends on two things:
1. how often you need to shoot architectural motifs, and
2. how good or exercised are your eyes for perspective corrections in ps.
probably if you have not much experience you will reach much better results with shift lenses..... and if you have the eye for correcting perspectives in a good way ,- you probably have done this often and than.. you will also need a shift system cause you will shoot often architectutre.

the pure quality is clearly better, if you use the nearly symmetric schneider or rodenstock wide angles than most if not all wides for mf systems. and if you correct the images fast you will reach a correction angle of 30degrees or something like that, and than you will have little bit more than   the half of the resolution on the upper edge of the image.
cutting out the half of the image as you describe leads mostly to very flat panoramic images, or you have to cut not only the bottom but the edges too, to end up with a more 3:4 like format- than your resolution wil decrease too much and your wides will be not longer wide.
so all this things are compromises, they might work if you just shoot occasional architecture and the expectations of your clients may not be the highest..... otherwise it will become difficult, cause you simply use the wrong tools for your work.

aside from the pure quality question i feel much better on location if i see my motifs ion the perspective how i want to have it, its less abstract and more inspirating, i think.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
marc gerritsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2006, 09:08:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Rehnniar,

Thanks for your input

For every four interior shoots, I do one purely architectural one
 
As for as my ps ability I think I am reasonably good with architecture as my background is

architectural design, but better check my website and judge for yourself.

Just came back from China where I did an architectural shoot and I really was in a bit of difficulty

there, as I normally would be able to find some hight to eliminate perspective distotion, but here

I had very little room to move back and no where to go up. All this got me thinking; shift!

Still would love to see an image, both corrected by a shift lens and by photoshop,

If there is no real visible difference, I think I will forget about shifting as I think it would slow

me down too much in the shoot.

cheers
Marc
Logged

rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2006, 05:20:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Marc,

This pdf from Schneider explains a lot!

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/foto/digitare_e.pdf

Also there is a reason why Schneider and Rodenstock are spending millions of dollars in research
in designing new optics for digital sensors.

Correcting in PS is never the same as shooting the image with shift etc.

In PS the file will be degraded ,like Rainer explained.

IOW for the serious architectural shooter, a dedicated shift camera is the only option.

Cheers,
Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2006, 06:27:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Marc,

as a photographer having worked many years with view cameras, I can only agree with Rainer and Willem: a camera will give you endless possibilities of shifting and perspective correction tithout having to alter the file in post-processing.

Thierry
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
TorbenEskerod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2006, 07:08:41 AM »
ReplyReply

xx
« Last Edit: January 20, 2008, 06:21:51 AM by TorbenEskerod » Logged
Rainer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2006, 10:10:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all!
This is my first post here. I´ve been reading on this forum with great interest, especially the MF DB section - even though i do not own a DB.
I know the lens shift options quite well, as i´ve been using a 4x5 Arca view camera.

Marc wrote:
"Still would love to see an image, both corrected by a shift lens and by photoshop"

Let me add another wish:
corrected by PTGui, which allows flat stitching of several multi-row panorama files (requires something like a Omni-Pivot Packge from RRS or VR-PRO head by Novoflex).

I´d really love to see a comparison of all three...
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2006, 10:40:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Great post reply Alan!
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2006, 06:29:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd be delighted if I could get the architectural results I want using perspective correction in Photoshop instead of lugging around a Linhof M679 with a digital back. I've tried, but I can't.

It's not just a matter of vertical shifts. Frequently I'll use side shifts and vertical shifts together, I normally work in crowded European cities where the ideal taking location would often put you in the middle of a busy street so there's often a big side shift component to the shot to get around that problem. Then there's the fact that the shot will almost always need a lot of cleaning up to remove parked cars and street signs. So this generally means using Photoshop to splice in "patches" taken from a slightly different location. Taken overall it's just quicker and cleaner to start with a perspective-corrected original shot.

As for stitching, it's a nice idea in theory, and for some shots it would work fine, however there's still a significant percentage of architectural shots where stitching isn't really a practical solution. For example if you need to use HDR to capture the subject's full tonal range, or if the sun keeps emerging from behind scatterd clouds, or if you're shooting a record of a construction site with swinging cranes and moving workmen, or if you're expected to deliver hundreds of final shots covering a major development.  In these circumstances single shot capture, or at most stitching two frames using a sliding carriage on a technical camera, is really the only solution.
Logged
TorbenEskerod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2006, 10:26:49 AM »
ReplyReply

xx
« Last Edit: January 20, 2008, 06:22:40 AM by TorbenEskerod » Logged
chrismuc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2006, 02:20:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Marc,

okay, I did not compare MF lenses but I did a comparison between a Canon 24 TS-E and a Zeiss 21f2.8 on a 5D.
Please see uncroped pics at
http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc
http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/test_canon_24tse_vs_zeiss_21

My conclusions were:
I was positivly surprised by the quality of the Canon 24 but the optical quality of the Zeiss 21 PS-shifted is still better than the optically shifted Canon (micro contrast).
The Canon has very little distortion which is very important for a shift lens because the distortion of a shifted lens is more difficult to compensate properly in PS. Edge sharpness is okay up to 7 mm shited, above the edges become very soft and there is some visible CA.
In contrary the Zeiss 35PC shows stronger waveform distortion but only little CA and it this lens is extremely sharp also in the edges even if shifted horizontally by up to 10 mm
http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/zeiss_35f28pc_vs_zeiss_35f28

Christoph
Logged
marc gerritsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2006, 08:15:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Guys for all the input and especially Torben for my request to see a ps shift

and a lens shift.

My conclusion for now is that, yes one can use ps to shift, as the result between ps end lens is

absulutely minimal. Of course files will be interpolated but I shoot with 39mp so the end

result will always be enough quality for a double page spread. Re reference guide,

if you have a keen eye for architecture, design and their proportions I think that a ps shifted

photo can do in 98% of the cases.

I now take on a large project about 300 shots a day in 2-3 exposures. That is about 125

architectural and interior set ups.

If I would do this with a view camera or the like and had to compose each photo on the ground

glass it would take me 4 days, so I would rather do the shifting in the comfort of my office.

cheers
Marc
Logged

ericstaud
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 384


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2006, 11:27:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I bought the Alpa 12 SWA & Phase One P45 combo to avoid this kind of retouching.  I did a little too much architecture shooting with my Nikon, correcting perspective, distortions, and trying to correct CA in Photoshop.  I now shoot just as many shots in a day as I did with the Nikon.  Now the day after the shoot I can spend shooting a different job, making invoices , or playing with my daughter.  My wrist feels better too.

For many of my clients my images are the only lasting record of their work.  I did not like dumbing down the market for architectural photography.  If my clients asked me about shooting Nikon or Canon and I said yes, they trusted me.  If they asked me standing in their office it was, more often than not, surrounded by 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 4x5 film.

With the rates you should be charging for 125 images, you could pay for a real nice 33 or 39mp setup with several Schneider Digitars and a shift camera in about 3 or 4 days.
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2006, 12:41:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I have to agree with Eric.

I also prefer to get the shot at the initial stage.

Marc,if the option in PS works for you great,however in my eyes,nothing beats the real thing.

Also shooting with a dedicated camera that allows lateral shift and raise and fall doesn't have to be
an ordeal.

Of course taking a shot with an H1,Contax etc will be faster,however that time will be lost behind the computer.

And it's not always about speed.

Cheers,

Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2006, 12:49:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Marc,

You can do 125 final architectural and interior shots in 4 days with a view camera?
Perhaps I'm slow    but I can manage only around 12~15.

Anyone else shoot this fast?

Cheers,
Kumar
Logged

rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2006, 12:54:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Kumar,
Marc shoots with the H3D39!
Cheers,
Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2006, 01:23:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Marc shoots with the H3D39!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know.
QUOTE:
I now take on a large project about 300 shots a day in 2-3 exposures. That is about 125 architectural and interior set ups.

If I would do this with a view camera or the like and had to compose each photo on the groundglass it would take me 4 days, so I would rather do the shifting in the comfort of my office.

Actually, he will be doing 300 shots a day, taking into account the multiple exposures required for blending, etc.
Wow, that's fast!

How about you Willem?

Cheers,
Kumar
Logged

marc gerritsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2006, 01:38:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, if you can only do 12-15 shots with a view camera a day,  that really shows

me, I will not be able to make a living with it.

From the 125 shots I take on a large project a day, the client chooses about

20-30% of finals. I will need another day for file management and photoshop.

I could not possibly imaging myself doing that with a view- or similar camera then.

So I will definately stick with what works very well for me now and only correct

perspective in ps.

cheers
Marc
Logged

rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2006, 01:55:47 AM »
ReplyReply

As I said before Marc!
What ever works best for you,however if the clients only select 30% of the images,
what's happening to the  other 70%?
Taking up a hell of a lot of storage on your hard drive?

I'm not having a go at you BTW!

Regards,
Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2006, 03:16:25 AM »
ReplyReply

how long will it take to coerrect the shots in ps?

but the tread makes me a little bit tired.
as i said before ... everything depends on the quality you want to make, or your client expect from you.
 anyway,- its enough to know that you want to make 125 shots in two days. everything has its price...... i can make 500 shots a day,- but usually i do 10 or 15 and in big projects less.
for sure not because i cant shoot faster..... my eMotion needs 1,5 sec. each shot, to run from one perspective to next takes maybee 2 minutes.  but usually i am not paid for beeing speedy.....
« Last Edit: December 14, 2006, 03:16:44 AM by rehnniar » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad