Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II

^^^^^Very nice.

Thanks

Still have some converging verticals in that image though.

TRhoads wrote in post #18223534
Still have some converging verticals in that image though.

Yeah, iirc I maxed the upwards shift and needed to angle the camera body downwards some but the center building would have been right on the edge of the frame and I don't like that. I could have walked back a bit but there would have been some street signs in my way.

Or was it move the camera body up? I don't remember.

IMHO, the prettiest city in Canada, Old Quebec, QC

^^^^Was last in Quebec in the early 70's. I really want to get back there again. Great shots.

TRhoads wrote in post #18223534
Still have some converging verticals in that image though.

While eliminating any convergence is a stated goal of shift lenses, I personally find that leaving a tiny bit of convergence to be more pleasing, or at least acceptable. I really dislike the typical convergence of an uncontrolled, wide angle pointed up, but I think we find some convergence to be normal.

It's totally a matter of personal taste, and the target audience. For an architecture-aware audience, full correction. For a casual audience, maybe not always?

dasmith232 wrote in post #18227324
While eliminating any convergence is a stated goal of shift lenses, I personally find that leaving a tiny bit of convergence to be more pleasing, or at least acceptable. I really dislike the typical convergence of an uncontrolled, wide angle pointed up, but I think we find some convergence to be normal.

I agree, I think it looks really odd to eliminate all convergence; the results simply don't match the way our eyes see things like tall buildings!

Of course photography is often very much about creating effects we don't see in the same way with our eyes, like OOF blur or long exposure glassiness. But surely when using TS lenses for architecture, the aim isn't to show structures which look strange because their verticals are perfectly aligned?

dasmith232 wrote in post #18227324
While eliminating any convergence is a stated goal of shift lenses, I personally find that leaving a tiny bit of convergence to be more pleasing, or at least acceptable. I really dislike the typical convergence of an uncontrolled, wide angle pointed up, but I think we find some convergence to be normal.

It's totally a matter of personal taste, and the target audience. For an architecture-aware audience, full correction. For a casual audience, maybe not always?

Savethemoment wrote in post #18227463
I agree, I think it looks really odd to eliminate all convergence; the results simply don't match the way our eyes see things like tall buildings!

Of course photography is often very much about creating effects we don't see in the same way with our eyes, like OOF blur or long exposure glassiness. But surely when using TS lenses for architecture, the aim isn't to show structures which look strange because their verticals are perfectly aligned?

This and this

M_Six wrote in post #18227278
^^^^Was last in Quebec in the early 70's. I really want to get back there again. Great shots.

Thanks! You should go there, especially during Christmas, it's one of the best Christmas town in the world, such a pretty little town.

We will go back again next summer.

dasmith232 wrote in post #18227324
While eliminating any convergence is a stated goal of shift lenses, I personally find that leaving a tiny bit of convergence to be more pleasing, or at least acceptable. I really dislike the typical convergence of an uncontrolled, wide angle pointed up, but I think we find some convergence to be normal.

It's totally a matter of personal taste, and the target audience. For an architecture-aware audience, full correction. For a casual audience, maybe not always?

Savethemoment wrote in post #18227463
I agree, I think it looks really odd to eliminate all convergence; the results simply don't match the way our eyes see things like tall buildings!

Of course photography is often very much about creating effects we don't see in the same way with our eyes, like OOF blur or long exposure glassiness. But surely when using TS lenses for architecture, the aim isn't to show structures which look strange because their verticals are perfectly aligned?

The aim is not so much to keep the verticals perfectly vertical, but to represent the building as close to reality as possible AND in a pleasing manner. Keystoning must be eliminated, yes, but I've also found that as buildings get tall and taller a very small amount of it needs to be reintroduced (in post-processing, usually) in order to present the subjects as the eye sees them. Usually these 'artificial keystoning' is in the order of decimals of a degree and so it doesn't negate the benefits of a perspective correction lens, nor does it make such lenses obsolete or unnecessary. The amount of reintroduced keystoning is directly proportional to the height of the building and/or how close the camera was to it.

Alveric wrote in post #18227603
The aim is not so much to keep the verticals perfectly vertical, but to represent the building as close to reality as possible AND in a pleasing manner. Keystoning must be eliminated, yes, but I've also found that as buildings get tall and taller a very small amount of it needs to be reintroduced (in post-processing, usually) in order to present the subjects as the eye sees them. Usually these 'artificial keystoning' is in the order of decimals of a degree and so it doesn't negate the benefits of a perspective correction lens, nor does it make such lenses obsolete or unnecessary. The amount of reintroduced keystoning is directly proportional to the height of the building and/or how close the camera was to it.

Yes the keystoning which occurs with tall buildings and normal lenses is annoying, it'd be nice to have TS lenses to minimise it (although for my own photography needs that would be a crazy extravagance). I've never used a TS lens and am curious about the idea of adding a a small amount of keystoning back in post - is trying to leave a bit in when taking the shot just too fiddly to be practical?

Savethemoment wrote in post #18228130
is trying to leave a bit in when taking the shot just too fiddly to be practical?

No, it's a piece of cake. Using the shift feature is very simple.

Three vertical frames stitched - honestly sometimes I wonder if I could get away with two, even if they are +10 and -10 a part.... ?

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/R4gL​s2