Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Architecture, Real-Estate & Buildings 
Thread started 26 Nov 2017 (Sunday) 18:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

This is probably parallel vertical heresy...

 
dmward
Cream of the Crop
8,999 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 1039
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Metro Chicago
     
Nov 26, 2017 18:25 |  #1

...but, in a lot of images, mine as well as others, making sure verticals are parallel, especially with taller buildings makes them look like they are larger at the top than bottom.

Here's a portfolio of images from a job last fall: http://architecture.dm​wfotos.com/lifescience​/ (external link)

I struggled to get the images looking "right" for verticals. I was surprised how often the image that was most visually pleasing didn't have parallel verticals using the guides in Photoshop.

Thoughts?


David | Sharing my Insights, Knowledge & Experience (external link) | dmwfotos website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
14,694 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1041
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Nov 26, 2017 18:30 |  #2

dmward wrote in post #18504706 (external link)
...but, in a lot of images, mine as well as others, making sure verticals are parallel, especially with taller buildings makes them look like they are larger at the top than bottom.

Here's a portfolio of images from a job last fall: http://architecture.dm​wfotos.com/lifescience​/ (external link)

I struggled to get the images looking "right" for verticals. I was surprised how often the image that was most visually pleasing didn't have parallel verticals using the guides in Photoshop.

Thoughts?

I totally agree with your perfect verticals comment. Look at the TS17 and TS24 threads to see this. I think non perfect verticals work better in some architecture images.


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
8,603 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 1753
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited 8 months ago by Left Handed Brisket. (2 edits in all)
     
Nov 26, 2017 18:38 |  #3

An interior room with 8 foot ceilings should be basically perfect.

One or two story houses should generally be perfect.

I rarely make any thing taller perfect. The taller the building the more absurd it can look. The only exception that comes to my tired mind is if the camera is not at ground level. If camera perspective is in the middle of the large room/building height, keeping them parallel and vertical can be important.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,005 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1274
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Nov 26, 2017 20:53 |  #4

In real life our eyes don't see tall buildings as having exactly parallel verticals. There is a slight convergence so it make sense that it will look a little odd if tall verticals are exactly parallel. It isn't as extreme as the camera causes but it is there. For that reason I tend to leave a little convergence when adjusting taller buildings.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,464 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 981
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Post edited 8 months ago by Alveric.
     
Nov 26, 2017 22:02 |  #5

Yes, you can have things too perfect. But, re-introducing a wee bit of keystoning in post 'straightens' the building out for the eye. Only a smidgen, mind you, a degree or two, no more. The taller the building, the more 'correction' you need. Short buildings are OK with the verticals remaining truly vertical.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmward
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
8,999 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 1039
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Metro Chicago
     
Nov 26, 2017 23:33 |  #6

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18504719 (external link)
An interior room with 8 foot ceilings should be basically perfect.

One or two story houses should generally be perfect.

I rarely make any thing taller perfect. The taller the building the more absurd it can look. The only exception that comes to my tired mind is if the camera is not at ground level. If camera perspective is in the middle of the large room/building height, keeping them parallel and vertical can be important.

That’s about the height considerations use as well.


David | Sharing my Insights, Knowledge & Experience (external link) | dmwfotos website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pippan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,005 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 924
Joined Oct 2015
Location: Darwin, Straya
Post edited 8 months ago by Pippan.
     
Nov 26, 2017 23:44 |  #7

dmward wrote in post #18504706 (external link)
...but, in a lot of images, mine as well as others, making sure verticals are parallel, especially with taller buildings makes them look like they are larger at the top than bottom.

Here's a portfolio of images from a job last fall: http://architecture.dm​wfotos.com/lifescience​/ (external link)

I struggled to get the images looking "right" for verticals. I was surprised how often the image that was most visually pleasing didn't have parallel verticals using the guides in Photoshop.

Thoughts?

The Greek architects 2,500 years ago understood this. That's why the columns of buildings from that era taper slightly towards the top. It's because of the way our brains interpret what we see.

I've been meaning to comment on this in relation to photos of buildings for some time, but didn't want to offend people. Yes, perfect verticals do look like they're larger at the top. Verticals should be adjusted so they look right to the eye, i.e. with a tiny bit of tapering.


— Please feel free to offer your thoughts on how I might improve my images —

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmward
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
8,999 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 1039
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Metro Chicago
     
Nov 27, 2017 18:10 |  #8

Pippan wrote in post #18504896 (external link)
The Greek architects 2,500 years ago understood this. That's why the columns of buildings from that era taper slightly towards the top. It's because of the way our brains interpret what we see.

I've been meaning to comment on this in relation to photos of buildings for some time, but didn't want to offend people. Yes, perfect verticals do look like they're larger at the top. Verticals should be adjusted so they look right to the eye, i.e. with a tiny bit of tapering.

I remember the greek columns from art history. For some reason that eluded me when i was trying to figure out why the "true" verticals in photos make the buildings look weird.


David | Sharing my Insights, Knowledge & Experience (external link) | dmwfotos website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

685 views & 2 likes for this thread
This is probably parallel vertical heresy...
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Architecture, Real-Estate & Buildings 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is stp0830
703 guests, 285 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.