Shooting straight

[Vincent Vega]

Hi

Recently I bought myself a 30D and a couple of lenses (17-55, 10-22 and EF50 1.8). I have been out taking photographs for a couple of weekends now (mainly stuff like ruined monasteries and dilapidated Elizabethan mansions) and have finally got around to having a look at the fruits of my labours.

Something I have noticed (other than lots of the shots being rather uninteresting) is that a large number of them just aren't straight! I can see this by looking at the lines of the buildings - lines that are supposed to be parallel to the ground are pointed up at one end and so on. I realise that due to the lenses I've got (i.e. not tilt shift ones) the proportions of the buildings might look a bit out, but the number of photos that are at an angle is rather disappointing.

Can anyone more knowledgable than I provide me with any hints on how to ensure I shoot straight? I try to ensure that I'm lined up with the buildings properly when I shoot but the problem persists.

I have been shooting to date just with the camera. I've got a tripod (Gitzo legs + Acratech head) but haven't had the confidence yet to take it out with me and play around with it. This is all a bit new to me, you see...

[Glenn NK]

I'm not sure if the problem is the camera not being level or one of converging parallel lines (an oxymoron I admit).

I have a bubble that slips onto the hot-shoe of my 30D, and it will level the camera fairly closely in both directions. Cross levelling keeps horizons where they should, but levelling along the line of sight should solve the problem with "converging parallel lines".

Does this help?

Oh, by the way, I almost always use a tripod for macros and for buildings and scenery; in fact I'm becoming a bit of a tripod addict.;)

PS EDIT: The hot-shoe bubble is most effective with a tripod because one can't see the viewfinder and the bubble at the same time.

[poloman]

When using just the viewfinder, just do the best you can. It doesn't take much of an error to be obvious when viewing later. Just use photoshop to straighten them up. I find that I shoot at an angle more than I would like. If you watch closely, you will notice that lots of others do too. Today, I was watching a show called "sunrise in the swamp". It was shot in the everglades. This is a very flat area. The camera was mounted on a tripod and just allowed to run. The horizon was off by 2 or 3 degrees easily and they got paid!
As far as your uninteresting shots? Try not to take them. They aren't interesting. :):)

[SkipD]

Something I have noticed (other than lots of the shots being rather uninteresting) is that a large number of them just aren't straight! I can see this by looking at the lines of the buildings - lines that are supposed to be parallel to the ground are pointed up at one end and so on. I realise that due to the lenses I've got (i.e. not tilt shift ones) the proportions of the buildings might look a bit out, but the number of photos that are at an angle is rather disappointing.Are all the shots in question looking like the right side of the camera is low? If so, the problem could be how you operate the shutter release button. If you don't grip the right side of the camera in such a way that the index finger is totally free to move while holding the camera, it's easy to push the right side of the camera down while pressing the shutter release button.

I would also suggest that you mount the camera on a rigid tripod and very carefully align the viewfinder's upper or lower edge with a straight line in the subject (preferably a line that goes across the whole image). Then look at the image and see if the line is parallel to the edge of the photo.

[Glenn NK]

The hot shoe bubble I noted above:

http://www.hama.co.uk/products/imaging/miscellaneous_camera_accessories/index.hsp

Two items below is a Lens Cap Holder; stick the cap end onto the side of the bubble, and loop the other end through the camera strap fitting.

I'm on my third one now - the first two fell off and were lost before I wised up and put the "retainer" on.

These items were purchased at my local camera store, but are likely widely available.

[bieber]

If I really want a straight horizon, I'll try and compose a shot so that I can use two even-heighted focus points to level it out.

[StewartR]

Vincent, it would help to see some of your problem photos. From the way you describe it, I'm not sure whether your problem is as simple as a tilted horizon - which the other suggestions have addressed - or whether it's something more subtle related to the perspective effects you're getting with the wide-angle lenses. When I use my 10-22 to take photographs of buildings, nothing is straight! - but that's OK because I don't expect it to be.

[braduardo]

If I really want a straight horizon, I'll try and compose a shot so that I can use two even-heighted focus points to level it out.

Me too!

[Vincent Vega]

Thanks for all the replies: they were all very helpful. From the top:


Does this help?


Definitely. I do actually have a hot-shoe bubble (came free with a magazine). Time to start using it, I guess (told you I was new to this). The one I've got looks like the second one on that page you kindly linked to.


As far as your uninteresting shots? Try not to take them. They aren't interesting.


Easier said than done! I read "Understanding Exposure" before getting my camera. After I finished reading, I found myself thinking that the concepts of aperture, shutter speed and the rules of thirds were fairly simple to understand, it's just trying to use these things together to get a decent photo when I press the button. Some of my shots are interesting (in my eyes), but plenty are "oh, it's a wall". I don't have the skill yet to pick out that interesting angle to shoot or that combination of aperture/shutter speed/whatever that will produce an interesting and memorable shot.


Are all the shots in question looking like the right side of the camera is low? If so, the problem could be how you operate the shutter release button.


A mixture, really. Some of them are low on the right, some on the left. Here's a good example, taken with the 10-22 (my first ever photo on the internet, BTW):

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa177/VincentVega9969/IMG_1522.jpg

If you focus on the three horizontal lines in the middle, between the two rows of windows, the slant is quite pronounced (the right end being highest). It doesn't look quite so slanted if you look at the bottom of the building, above the grass. Am I not facing square on to the building when I'm shooting it, or am I trying to line up the wrong thing when shooting (i.e. I'm making sure the ground is straight, instead of the three lines on the building)?

Something else I've noticed is that when I shoot, I tend to get an area of grass or sky above or below the subject, which probably doesn't help: I need to frame my shots better. I try and take some shots from too far away and take too many with the 10-22, instead of the 17-55.


When I use my 10-22 to take photographs of buildings, nothing is straight! - but that's OK because I don't expect it to be.


This may sound like a dumb question, seeing as I spent £500 buying the lens (and seemingly have no idea why it produces photos like it does), but why is this the case? Presumably it's due to a combination of the focal length range and the arrangement/construction of the innards of the lens. But why exactly?

[SkipD]

This may sound like a dumb question, seeing as I spent £500 buying the lens (and seemingly have no idea why it produces photos like it does), but why is this the case? Presumably it's due to a combination of the focal length range and the arrangement/construction of the innards of the lens. But why exactly?The "distortion" is simply because you are very close to the subject. If you used a longer focal length and backed away several times the distance you were for the posted image (assuming it were possible, of course), you wouldn't have all the bent lines, etc.

Distance between the viewer(or camera) and subject controls perspective, and it is NOT focal length that does it. Many people attribute the changes in perspective to the focal length but it is purely distance.

[braduardo]

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa177/VincentVega9969/IMG_1522.jpg



It looks like you weren't facing straight at the building. If you shoot at it from an angle, you will get vertical and horizontal distortion. (distortion isn't the exact word I was looking for)

[StewartR]

It looks like you weren't facing straight at the building. If you shoot at it from an angle, you will get vertical and horizontal distortion. (distortion isn't the exact word I was looking for)That's exactly what I was thinking when I mentioned the 10-22 lens. If you are square on to the side of the building then the horizontal lines will appear parallel; otherwise they will appear to converge. Also, if you hold the camera level then vertical lines will appear parallel; but if you point the camera upwards - which is very natural, because you don't want a load of the ground in your composition! - then verticals will appear to converge.The "distortion" is simply because you are very close to the subject. If you used a longer focal length and backed away several times the distance you were for the posted image (assuming it were possible, of course), you wouldn't have all the bent lines, etc.

Distance between the viewer(or camera) and subject controls perspective, and it is NOT focal length that does it. Many people attribute the changes in perspective to the focal length but it is purely distance.This is technically correct. Of course ultra-wide angle lenses and being close to the subject tend to go hand in hand... which is why we often see this phenomenon with the 10-22 and not (say) the 100-400.

However, I think SkipD might have overlooked a slight detail. The real issue is not the distance to the subject, but rather the proportional difference between the distances to the two ends of the subject:

When you're square on to the subject, both ends are the same distance away and everything looks good.
If you're not square on but a long distance away, the two ends of the subject are at more-or-less the same distance (e.g. only a few % difference) so distortion is minimal.
If you're not square on and close, one end of the subject might be much further away (say 50% further away) than the other end, and there you will have distortion.

This is demonstrated in the panorama below. I was a long way from the subject, but clearly the left hand end of the pano is a lot further away than the left hand end, and my picture has the same converging horizontals that yours has.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=195096

[PhotosGuy]

Can you get back & use a longer focal length? If not...

If you can draw a horizontal line from the camera to the front of the building, and put the center focus point on that spot, the camera should be level, which will eliminate most distortion. Problem: Sometimes that means that the top of the building will be cut off.
Can you use a wider focal length to shoot the horizontal building with the cam rotated vertical so the building just takes up the top half of the frame? This keeps the front of the lens (and the sensor in the cam) more parallel to the vertical of the building, which should
eliminate most of the perspective distortion, too.

Is Architectural Photography really for me? (http://www.you-can-do-great-photography.com/architectural-photography.html)

[suecassidy]

Isn't that problem called parallax? And isn't that why they typically shoot architectural photos with view cameras? Something to do with being able to tilt and swivel. I don't know about that sort of thing, but I'd look to photoshop to fix it... would love to see some of the old buildings you shoot though.

[StewartR]

Isn't that problem called parallax?No. Parallax is the phenomenon whereby near objects seem to move relative to distant objects as the observer moves. It can be a pain when you're making panoramic photos, but it's not an issue here.

[JurekB]

And isn't that why they typically shoot architectural photos with view cameras? Something to do with being able to tilt and swivel.

Exactly so, to keep all your vertical lines parallel you need a large format camera starting at a 5x4. However for the amateur this may prove quite inconvienant and expensive so the best thing would be to take the advice already given, i.e. shoot from a distance and accept that you'll get some convergence.

The type of lens will also having a bearing on this as the wider the lens the more it will distort, an extreme example of this is obviously a fish-eye lens.

[StewartR]

And isn't that why they typically shoot architectural photos with view cameras? Something to do with being able to tilt and swivel. Exactly so, to keep all your vertical lines parallel you need a large format camera starting at a 5x4...... or one of Canon's Tilt-and-Shift Lenses (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Tilt-and-Shift_Lenses/index.asp).

[JurekB]

Sweet! Do you have any experience of those?

[strmrdr]

look into dx0 optics software it will fix most of issue.
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo

[StewartR]

Sweet! Do you have any experience of those?Nope. Not yet. Sorry. But if you're interested (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=353608)... let me know!

[PhotosGuy]

Do you have any experience of those? I've used Nikons, & it worked OK, but didn't feel that the cost/weight/bag-space issues justified buying it. If I really needed to shoot an HQ architectural shot, I'd use a view cam. For editorial work, the 20mm & 35mm film usually would work OK as in post #13.