[Dartmoor Dave]

The ruins of Holy Trinity Church in Buckfastleigh with the Takumar 17mm. So many possible compositions at that place that I really need to go back when the light is better.





Edit:
Same shot with the verticals straight. At first I preferred it with converging verticals, but now I'm not so sure.

---

Last edited by Dartmoor Dave; 12-06-2018 at 06:14 AM.

[rayallen]

The ruins of Holy Trinity Church in Buckfastleigh with the Takumar 17mm. So many possible compositions at that place that I really need to go back when the light is better.





Edit:
Same shot with the verticals straight. At first I preferred it with converging verticals, but now I'm not so sure.

I prefer verticals straight. I agree about the many photo ops there. You could go back many times and still find something new.

[ZombieArmy]

I've been thinking about adding a stylish handwritten signature to my works to give them that last little touch of professional polish.

Missed an opportunity for comic sans.

[goatsNdonkey]

Not exactly sculptures, but large fiberglass or plastic holiday figures at a local shopping mall.

Rokinon/Samyang f/2 16mm
K10D

[Mountain Vision]

State of New York Education Building by Justin, on Flickr

[Dartmoor Dave]

I prefer verticals straight. I agree about the many photo ops there. You could go back many times and still find something new.

Thanks Ray. I'm starting to appreciate the old medieval churches around here as great spots for photography, especially the ruined ones, and it's offering a whole raft of new technical challenges to learn about that I've never really dealt with before. It does seem to have identified a need for a good rectilinear ultra-wide lens though, because defishing the Tak 17mm really isn't the best way to do things.

Or maybe a proper panoramic head for the Tak 20 would be a better option for me personally? That way I'd still get the rendering that I know and love, and presumably I could seamlessly stitch shots taken using a decent pano head -- even shots of a church from close up?

Does anyone have any experience stitching shots of large buildings using a properly set-up pano rig?

[paulh]

Fire Yucca seed pods in November - DA18-55 on K10D:

[paulh]

At the creek on a sunny November morning - F35-80 on K10D:

[rayallen]

Does anyone have any experience stitching shots of large buildings using a properly set-up pano rig?

Dave, I have a proper pano head but I have not used if to take panos of large buildings. It would depend on the focal length of the lens being used and how close you are. I can't see that it would make much difference using a pano head or not because once you pan upwards and the back of the camera is not at 90 degrees to the building you are still going to get converging verticals. The amount of convergence would be lessened by being further away and using a longer lens and then stitching multiple images in both horizontal and vertical directions. But I know that is not always possible.

P.S. My pano head is not a $1000 Manfrotto one. It was much cheaper but it is quite well built and it does the job.

[Minimonster]

I acquired my K10D recently to use as a dedicated M42 camera after I acquired some lenses. I used it with the SMC Takumar 135 last month for Single in November. This is from this morning when the sun shone briefly. SMC Takumar 35/3.5 on K10D

[goatsNdonkey]

My theory: As long as the woodpile still comes out stacked straight, there is no reason for de-fishing.



Bower/Samyang f/3.5 8mm
K10D
B&W conversion ( a great cure for purple fringing! )

[Dartmoor Dave]

My theory: As long as the woodpile still comes out stacked straight, there is no reason for de-fishing.

Quite right. The world is round after all, so photographs with a flat horizon are basically misrepresenting reality.

[35mmfilmfan]

Quite right. The world is round after all, so photographs with a flat horizon are basically misrepresenting reality.

Dave,

Sorry to take issue with you on this point, but according to British Standards, filters are 'Optically Flat'. However, if you take these parameters and extrapolate, you end up with a sphere some 50 miles in diameter. Therefore, according to British Standards, the Earth is Optically Flat.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Sorry to take issue with you on this point, but according to British Standards, filters are 'Optically Flat'. However, if you take these parameters and extrapolate, you end up with a sphere some 50 miles in diameter. Therefore, according to British Standards, the Earth is Optically Flat.

Ah, I see. Perhaps that's why so many people in my area still believe that if you were mad enough to go as far 50 miles away from your village, you'd fall off the edge of the world.

[dbs]

Ah, I see. Perhaps that's why so many people in my area still believe that if you were mad enough to go as far 50 miles away from your village, you'd fall off the edge of the world.

Hi Dave

yep heard that too and its the 21st century

Dave