Architecture Dutch Reformed Church, Graaff-Reinet

Dutch Reformed Church, Graaff-Reinet · 07:31 AM

This is my first try at Architecture, and PP specifically for vertical line correction. Any comment and or tips are welcome

Before

After

After #2

igor · 01-20-2011, 07:47 AM - **1 Like**

beautiful shot, but I'd prefer the original, it looks more natural to me.

Sparkle · 01-20-2011, 08:06 AM - **1 Like**

Beautiful Church. Where is it. Would prefer a bit more space on each side. Second of course (?) is best. How could anyone say the first looks natural when it is distorted by the lens?

altopiet · 01-20-2011, 08:09 AM

Thanks Igor. I must agree that I would also rather go for the original. I just don't have an idea what the norm is with this type of photography. I've just seen that it can be done, and tried it.

altopiet · 01-20-2011, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Sparkle

Beautiful Church. Where is it. Would prefer a bit more space on each side. Second of course (?) is best. How could anyone say the first looks natural when it is distorted by the lens?

Hi Sparkle. It is in my home town, Graaff-Reinet, South Africa, and one of the main tourist attractions. It was constructed between 1886 and 1887. I cropped it like that because of new buildings surrounding it. I go past this church a few times every day and despite the vertical lines not being straight in the first photo, the second one just does not seem the same as I see it every day. But looking from your perspective, not having seen it before, I can understand why you say the second looks better

**Rense** · 01-20-2011, 08:21 AM - **1 Like**

Great church, such can't be found here

The norm? Well, what is the norm? I'd say: best looking is not completely corrected, just keep a tiny bit of distortion....

altopiet · 01-20-2011, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Rense

Great church, such can't be found here

The norm? Well, what is the norm? I'd say: best looking is not completely corrected, just keep a tiny bit of distortion....
__________________
Rense

Rense, I added another photo, trying something in between the first 2, is that what you had in mind?

Andi Lo · 01-20-2011, 09:18 AM - **1 Like**

I'd disagree. I think distortion should either be deliberately or none. A little bit is distracting. Just imho of course though. I'd prefer the first with a little bit more distortion. Second one is good, and would be my pick. Maybe the new buildings can be incorporated into the photography? A lot of architectural photographs that I like have two of the three 'near-middle-far' element, so I thought including a tree or urban element for framing would be nice too.

Another thing is that I'm guessing this is not the main entrance? I couldn't find a door in the photo with big enough size to accommodate the sunday churchgoers.

altopiet · 01-20-2011, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

I'd disagree. I think distortion should either be deliberately or none. A little bit is distracting. Just imho of course though. I'd prefer the first with a little bit more distortion. Second one is good, and would be my pick. Maybe the new buildings can be incorporated into the photography? A lot of architectural photographs that I like have two of the three 'near-middle-far' element, so I thought including a tree or urban element for framing would be nice too.

Another thing is that I'm guessing this is not the main entrance? I couldn't find a door in the photo with big enough size to accommodate the sunday churchgoers.
__________________

Andi, I'll try a few other angles, next week, trying to add something else to the photo. You are right, this is actually taken from the back corner of the church, the front entrance is at the tower side. For the normal tourist shot, you have to stand in the middle of, yes... "Church" street, the main street in town, and it was to busy to do that. I'll see about getting a shot early one morning perhaps

**Sailor** · 01-20-2011, 11:17 AM - **1 Like**

Hey Christo - nice images of a beautiful church. I'll have to say I prefer the corrected image (2d one), but I'll also have to admit I never correct my own wide-angle shots - so, what do I know?

Anyway, it's great to experiment.

Jer

altopiet · 01-20-2011, 11:23 AM

Thanks Jer.

Originally posted by Sailor

Anyway, it's great to experiment.

I can not agree more!

**Rense** · 01-20-2011, 12:35 PM

Yeah, I like the third one best, but..... the church could use more space..... So, next time when you're planning such a correction, set some steps back...

**WPRESTO** · 01-20-2011, 01:02 PM - **1 Like**

The distortion correction is fine, and nicely done in the third shot (compressed a bit in vertical axis compared to second shot, right?) Correction of perspective distortion was the whole point of rising fronts on view and press cameras. Professional architectural photographers did and do use it routinely, unless dramatically converging lines are desired. With my (now retired) LX, I used a 28mm shift Takumar to get rid of converging verticals, but that was a big, heavy lens - a pain to transport unless going specifically to one building for a particuar shot. No way I could carry that lens on vacation to Europe anticipating at least some shots of tall buildings. PP is MUCH more satisfactory.

Sparkle · 01-20-2011, 01:24 PM

Well, again on a deeper level, most churches, are falling into themselves.

SpecialK · 01-20-2011, 08:56 PM - **1 Like**

Perspective is not distortion, it's reality your eye compensates for. The camera-->subject distance means with a wide angle lens the base of the building is significantly closer to the camera than the roof, therefore the roof is smaller and the walls must lean in.

With a long lens, the difference in distances is slight, which makes the subject appear flat, though with straight sides.

If you over-correct and make tall buildings straight, it creates an optical illusion making it appear to get wider going up, because your eye expects it to taper upward. That is what is happening in #2.

I have no problem with #1, though I can accept #3 as well.

altopiet
	View full profile
	Contact via private message
	Find other posts by altopiet
	Find threads started by altopiet
	Find threads in which altopiet has posted

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Meet Dutch	kkoether	Post Your Photos!	3	12-28-2010 09:03 AM
Hi from the "Gem" of the Karoo, Graaff-Reinet, South Africa	altopiet	Welcomes and Introductions	2	09-25-2010 05:58 AM
Dutch Architecture	guillermovilas	Monthly Photo Contests	0	09-02-2010 01:37 PM
anyone speak Dutch?	Gooshin	General Talk	4	07-16-2009 03:58 AM
Tipicaly dutch picture	Corros	Post Your Photos!	6	03-25-2009 12:14 PM

01-20-2011, 07:47 AM - 1 Like	#2
igor Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: USA and Europe Posts: 585	beautiful shot, but I'd prefer the original, it looks more natural to me.

01-20-2011, 08:06 AM - 1 Like	#3
Sparkle Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,521	Beautiful Church. Where is it. Would prefer a bit more space on each side. Second of course (?) is best. How could anyone say the first looks natural when it is distorted by the lens?

01-20-2011, 08:09 AM	#4
altopiet Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Gem of the Karoo, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,307 Original Poster	Thanks Igor. I must agree that I would also rather go for the original. I just don't have an idea what the norm is with this type of photography. I've just seen that it can be done, and tried it.

01-20-2011, 08:21 AM	#5
altopiet Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Gem of the Karoo, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,307 Original Poster	Originally posted by Sparkle Beautiful Church. Where is it. Would prefer a bit more space on each side. Second of course (?) is best. How could anyone say the first looks natural when it is distorted by the lens? Hi Sparkle. It is in my home town, Graaff-Reinet, South Africa, and one of the main tourist attractions. It was constructed between 1886 and 1887. I cropped it like that because of new buildings surrounding it. I go past this church a few times every day and despite the vertical lines not being straight in the first photo, the second one just does not seem the same as I see it every day. But looking from your perspective, not having seen it before, I can understand why you say the second looks better

01-20-2011, 08:21 AM - 1 Like	#6
Rense Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zetten - The Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,050	Great church, such can't be found here The norm? Well, what is the norm? I'd say: best looking is not completely corrected, just keep a tiny bit of distortion....

01-20-2011, 09:11 AM	#7
altopiet Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Gem of the Karoo, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,307 Original Poster	Originally posted by Rense Great church, such can't be found here The norm? Well, what is the norm? I'd say: best looking is not completely corrected, just keep a tiny bit of distortion.... __________________ Rense Rense, I added another photo, trying something in between the first 2, is that what you had in mind?

01-20-2011, 09:18 AM - 1 Like	#8
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	I'd disagree. I think distortion should either be deliberately or none. A little bit is distracting. Just imho of course though. I'd prefer the first with a little bit more distortion. Second one is good, and would be my pick. Maybe the new buildings can be incorporated into the photography? A lot of architectural photographs that I like have two of the three 'near-middle-far' element, so I thought including a tree or urban element for framing would be nice too. Another thing is that I'm guessing this is not the main entrance? I couldn't find a door in the photo with big enough size to accommodate the sunday churchgoers.

01-20-2011, 10:05 AM	#9
altopiet Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Gem of the Karoo, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,307 Original Poster	Originally posted by Andi Lo I'd disagree. I think distortion should either be deliberately or none. A little bit is distracting. Just imho of course though. I'd prefer the first with a little bit more distortion. Second one is good, and would be my pick. Maybe the new buildings can be incorporated into the photography? A lot of architectural photographs that I like have two of the three 'near-middle-far' element, so I thought including a tree or urban element for framing would be nice too. Another thing is that I'm guessing this is not the main entrance? I couldn't find a door in the photo with big enough size to accommodate the sunday churchgoers. __________________ Andi, I'll try a few other angles, next week, trying to add something else to the photo. You are right, this is actually taken from the back corner of the church, the front entrance is at the tower side. For the normal tourist shot, you have to stand in the middle of, yes... "Church" street, the main street in town, and it was to busy to do that. I'll see about getting a shot early one morning perhaps

01-20-2011, 11:17 AM - 1 Like	#10
Sailor Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Coastal Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,205	Hey Christo - nice images of a beautiful church. I'll have to say I prefer the corrected image (2d one), but I'll also have to admit I never correct my own wide-angle shots - so, what do I know? Anyway, it's great to experiment. Jer

01-20-2011, 11:23 AM	#11
altopiet Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Gem of the Karoo, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,307 Original Poster	Thanks Jer. Originally posted by Sailor Anyway, it's great to experiment. I can not agree more!

01-20-2011, 12:35 PM	#12
Rense Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zetten - The Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,050	Yeah, I like the third one best, but..... the church could use more space..... So, next time when you're planning such a correction, set some steps back...

01-20-2011, 01:02 PM - 1 Like	#13
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,103	The distortion correction is fine, and nicely done in the third shot (compressed a bit in vertical axis compared to second shot, right?) Correction of perspective distortion was the whole point of rising fronts on view and press cameras. Professional architectural photographers did and do use it routinely, unless dramatically converging lines are desired. With my (now retired) LX, I used a 28mm shift Takumar to get rid of converging verticals, but that was a big, heavy lens - a pain to transport unless going specifically to one building for a particuar shot. No way I could carry that lens on vacation to Europe anticipating at least some shots of tall buildings. PP is MUCH more satisfactory.

01-20-2011, 01:24 PM	#14
Sparkle Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,521	Well, again on a deeper level, most churches, are falling into themselves.

01-20-2011, 08:56 PM - 1 Like	#15
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Perspective is not distortion, it's reality your eye compensates for. The camera-->subject distance means with a wide angle lens the base of the building is significantly closer to the camera than the roof, therefore the roof is smaller and the walls must lean in. With a long lens, the difference in distances is slight, which makes the subject appear flat, though with straight sides. If you over-correct and make tall buildings straight, it creates an optical illusion making it appear to get wider going up, because your eye expects it to taper upward. That is what is happening in #2. I have no problem with #1, though I can accept #3 as well.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search