30 St. Mary Axe (or ...boy do I need a TSE lens)

[lostprophet]

As I don't have a Canon 24mm TSE lens I have to make do with my Sigma 12-24 and shoot w-i-d-e and play about correcting the photo in PS, at least until the Lens Fairy pays me a visit

Finished shot is at the bottom


The original shot

Then using the perspective control in PS I dragged the top corners out

Then using the scale control I made the image taller

Wasn't happy with the colour so made it black and white

Well its not perfect but I'm fairly happy with it

CLICK FOR HIGH RES

 

[Becky]

I wasn't so fussed earlier, as I know its a tricky fecker to photograph, but you didn't half pull it out of the bag in the end... looks awesome...

 

[Helen B]

Andy,

You've done a great job on the original. Can I just suggest one thing? When you have vertical coverage to spare, frame so that the building is near the top of the frame - ie aim to keep the back of the camera as near to vertical as possible. With a 12 mm lens you will be able to do anything architecturally* that the 24 mm TS lens can do, it will only need enlarging more.

*in terms of perspective - the tilt is hardly ever necessary or useful with architecture.

Best,
Helen

 

[lostprophet]

Andy,

You've done a great job on the original. Can I just suggest one thing? When you have vertical coverage to spare, frame so that the building is near the top of the frame - ie aim to keep the back of the camera as near to vertical as possible. With a 12 mm lens you will be able to do anything architecturally that the 24 mm TS lens can do, it will only need enlarging more.

Best,
Helen

cheers for that, I better remember that next time up London

 

[lostprophet]

I wasn't so fussed earlier, as I know its a tricky fecker to photograph, but you didn't half pull it out of the bag in the end... looks awesome...

I aim to please

 

[Becky]

With a 12 mm lens you will be able to do anything architecturally* that the 24 mm TS lens can do, it will only need enlarging more.

*in terms of perspective - the tilt is hardly ever necessary or useful with architecture.

Sorry to thread jack Andy...

Is this really the case? Surely the whole point of the tilt-shift lens is to avoid the tapering/converging vertical effect produced when photographing tall buildings with a wide angle lens? I always thought the vertical shift was used while the camera body could be kept parallel to the building and therefore you don't get the converging verticals by having the camera pointing upwards? I see what you mean about framing lower to keep the camera as parallel to the building as possible, but I still thought that the tilt/shift was generally regarded as pretty useful for architecture. Though maybe my understanding is muddled...?

 

[Sideburns]

Sorry to thread jack Andy...

Is this really the case? Surely the whole point of the tilt-shift lens is to avoid the tapering/converging vertical effect produced when photographing tall buildings with a wide angle lens? I always thought the vertical shift was used while the camera body could be kept parallel to the building and therefore you don't get the converging verticals by having the camera pointing upwards? I see what you mean about framing lower to keep the camera as parallel to the building as possible, but I still thought that the tilt/shift was generally regarded as pretty useful for architecture. Though maybe my understanding is muddled...?

Useful, but not necessary. Lots of times the effect neither adds nor detracts. It's a personal preference in most cases.

 

[Becky]

I get that, but technically speaking surely they're extremely useful?

 

[Helen B]

Sorry to thread jack Andy...

Is this really the case? Surely the whole point of the tilt-shift lens is to avoid the tapering/converging vertical effect produced when photographing tall buildings with a wide angle lens? I always thought the vertical shift was used while the camera body could be kept parallel to the building and therefore you don't get the converging verticals by having the camera pointing upwards? I see what you mean about framing lower to keep the camera as parallel to the building as possible, but I still thought that the tilt/shift was generally regarded as pretty useful for architecture. Though maybe my understanding is muddled...?

It isn't the angle of coverage of the lens that causes convergence, it is the angle the back makes to the vertical, as you say. If the angle of view of the lens is wide enough to get the whole building in without tilting the camera from the vertical, then you don't need to shift it. All you gain by using a longer, shifting lens is magnification - you don't have to crop the bottom out of the picture. Tilt is rarely of benefit, and is often detrimental, in architectural photography.

Shift is a benefit, but it may not be essential especially if you aren't enlarging the image to the limit.

Best,
Helen

 

[Becky]

Hmmm interesting, thanks for the response!

 

[lostprophet]

maybe I'll order another TSE lens at work and 'borrow' it one weekend

 

[Roger]

nice end result and Helen's description of getting around the TS issue is spot on....if the space is very tight then a TS becomes more useful.

 

[Helen B]

nice end result and Helen's description of getting around the TS issue is spot on....if the space is very tight then a TS becomes more useful.

Doesn't it depend on what you are comparing? I was comparing LP's 12 mm lens with the 24 TSE. The 12 is more useful than the 24 TSE if space is very tight, the way I look at it.

On full-frame the 24 TSE is equivalent to about a 16 mm rectilinear unshiftable lens, in terms of the vertical angle of coverage while keeping the sensor plane vertical in portrait orientation. If LP set his zoom to 16 mm*, he would get a good indication of what he could do with the 24 mm TSE in terms of perspective control. This is based on 9 mm of shift (or rise or fall). Greater than this, and the 24 mm TSE image quality falls badly at the corners. It is a lot more difficult to correct aberrations in post-processing for an off-centre lens - ie like a shifted 24 mm TSE

I've had the Schneider 28 mm PC-Super-Angulon for about ten years, and I don't use it very much for images that will be post-processed digitally. It's a very different matter for making slides for projection. That's an interchangeable-mount lens, by the way. Here it is on my R6 after I switched the mount from Nikon to Leica.

*I'm assuming that he is using full frame. The equivalent focal length would be different for other frame sizes.

Best,
Helen

 

[Silverbackmp]

Helen B,

I would love to completely understand what you are talking about (I'm not being smart). I don't think of myself as unintelligent, but could you point a website or book that might explain this in a pictoral format?

Stunning photo, BTW

 

[Helen B]

I don't know where this explanation would be on the web. I'll draw it out later, unless someone else finds it first. It's commonly used, especially in architectural photography with small and medium format cameras, so I imagine that it's out there somewhere.

Best,
Helen

An afterthought, now that we are discussing technical matters. The alternative Photoshop method is to apply symmetrical correction at the outset. Instead of just expanding the top of the frame, you can apply equal compression to the bottom, so that there is no compression or expansion to the centre of the frame. This prevents the compression shown in the second image.