Real Estate Shooters and Distortion Complaints

I've been reading through a number of threads about people shooting indoor shots with UWA lens and that some of the clients were complaining that the rooms look unnaturally stretched out or bigger then what the rooms are in reality. This got me to thinking that with the new lens that I got, the 14L, being used on a full frame camera, that I too might end up getting complaints from my potential clients as this lens does seem to pull out the outer 15% or so of the edges of the image and artificially elongate the shots. So, what I tried to do in post, on a test shot was to make a selection of the outer 15% of the image on the sides and then use the transform tool to squeeze those areas back into a more normal shape.

Having now done that, I wanted your opinions if this extra processing step is worth it and/or if it helps to actually correct a problem and minimize potential complaints from clients.

Here's the before and after...

I don't think you'll get as many "complaints" as you think. Try shooting smaller rooms from a lower height... maybe just above doorknob level. But if I used my Tokina 11-16 at 14mm on a 1.6 crop body, that's the equivalent of 18mm on a full frame body. Maybe only use the 14mm when it's absolutely needed?

...And which HP printer is that? Looks just like my B8350 only different colors.

ChasP505 wrote in post #8093788
I don't think you'll get as many "complaints" as you think. Try shooting smaller rooms from a lower height... maybe just above doorknob level. But if I used my Tokina 11-16 at 14mm on a 1.6 crop body, that's the equivalent of 18mm on a full frame body. Maybe only use the 14mm when it's absolutely needed?

...And which HP printer is that? Looks just like my B8350 only different colors.

Ah OK...perhaps I was reading too much into this issue from the threads here? Thanks!

The printer is an HP 9800...prints up to 13x19 borderless...does a pretty good job too!

Cheers!

Just saw this post, after deciding to not post about the distortion in your white kitchen shot. For some reason, the distortion of the elements on the stove, and the elongated look to other things, was distracting. More distracting than the lighting.

Others were posting about how to improve the lighting, and I couldn't get my mind off the odd look of the features. Then I wondered if I was a potential buyer looking at that, what would I think? In all honesty, the colour/WB was less of an annoyance than the odd scale. It just didn't sit right ...

The Ghost of FM wrote in post #8093524
So, what I tried to do in post, on a test shot was to make a selection of the outer 15% of the image on the sides and then use the transform tool to squeeze those areas back into a more normal shape.

Pretty well done. But that will not be possible on all images I think. For instance in something that has a regular spacing (tiles or so), you'll see where the selection ended.

Miracles don't exist here. The problem is that a rectilinear projection (as it is the one produced by non-fisheye wide angle lenses) looks unnatural to our eyes when the angle of view becomes large.

However you can try different projections that in some situations can reduce distortion in the borders at an affordable cost. In the pano stitcher PT Assembler, his author (Max Lyons) has implemented a good number of projections, some of which can help in this situations.

For example the Recti-perspective projection will strongly reduce distortion in the borders with respect to a rectilinear projection, keeping the vertical lines completely vertical, so as those lines crossing the centre of the image (or close to that):

This rectilinear (wide angle lens) projection:

The Ghost of FM wrote in post #8093900
The printer is an HP 9800...prints up to 13x19 borderless...does a pretty good job too!

Oh yeah... HP released that printer under 2 model names, but it's the same exact printer... the Deskjet Pro 9800 and Photosmart Pro B8350. I like mine too!

But regarding the lens... We have some expansive homes and properties here in New Mexico and most Canon users that I know of use a crop body with the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 for real estate shoots.

_GUI_ wrote in post #8095819
Miracles don't exist here. The problem is that a rectilinear projection (as it is the one produced by non-fisheye wide angle lenses) looks unnatural to our eyes when the angle of view becomes large.

However you can try different projections that in some situations can reduce distortion in the borders at an affordable cost. In the pano stitcher PT Assembler, his author (Max Lyons) has implemented a good number of projections, some of which can help in this situations.

For example the Recti-perspective projection will strongly reduce distortion in the borders with respect to a rectilinear projection, keeping the vertical lines completely vertical, so as those lines crossing the centre of the image (or close to that):

This rectilinear (wide angle lens) projection:

In Recti-Perspective becomes:

Note the very different distance between the bridge columns; the price to pay here was some curvature in the horizontal lines of the upper bridge.

This is Recti-Perspective too from another user; the pano has a field of view of 155,7º! with not much distortion in the edges:

The program can easily be used to turn one single rectilinear image straight from your wide angle lens, into any other projection.

Regards.

Thanks for links and info contained in them. I downloaded the PT Assembler program but I'm not sure if this program was intended for a singular shot and fixing the kind of distortions that my 14L lens creates? It seems to be more geared to doing multi-shot panos of which I have little interest in doing. Of course, I could be completely wrong about that as this program seems very difficult to get a grasp of for a non technical/mathematical​ly inclined user such as myself.

Cheers!

sue.t wrote in post #8094384
Just saw this post, after deciding to not post about the distortion in your white kitchen shot. For some reason, the distortion of the elements on the stove, and the elongated look to other things, was distracting. More distracting than the lighting.

Others were posting about how to improve the lighting, and I couldn't get my mind off the odd look of the features. Then I wondered if I was a potential buyer looking at that, what would I think? In all honesty, the colour/WB was less of an annoyance than the odd scale. It just didn't sit right ...

I agree with you on that. The distortion of the stove and the lighting fixture bugged me too and that's why I started this thread about distortion complaints and how best to deal with this issue before it becomes an actual client complaint. It looks like some types of distortions can be corrected more easily then others, like the one I did in the opening post of this thread. The kitchen shot would appear to be far more difficult to effectively correct.

Cheers!

When People complain about distortion in real estate photo's from UWA's they may not be complaining that the lamp or tiles are elongated.......They may be complaining that a wide angle lens makes that half bath in the hall looks like a walk in master bath that you could hold a ballroom dance in. When in reality if you set on the thrown your knees touch the far wall.

You touched on this in your post and then went on to correct the elongated tiles....My guess is if someone were to walk into your office there first impression would be that it was larger than it was...

I don't think the PP you did does much to address the problem.

I think if you shoot wide it's a problem your gonna have....However the real issue is when someone could have shot it with a natural perspective lens but shoot it wide simply for the sake of making it appear larger than reality.....Bordering on unscrupulous! Not a lot you can do in PP outside of some serious bending and streatching to regain perspective. And if you do I think most people would prefer the "distorted size issue" rather than the corrected shot. They have a tendancy to look not quite right....And that leaves suspicion and ultimatly a bad taste in the prospects mind.

Keep in mind....that's just my opinion, and as we all know everyone has an opinion & an ......(nevermind)

Neumanns makes an interesting point, and that is one of perspective. If you use an ultrawide angle lens and shoot from close in, it will affect the perspective of "bigness" of the room, whereas if you back off a bit and use a longer lens the room will look more in true perspective. The challenge, then, is to be able to get far enough back to get the right perspective.

I'd say in that setting having an ultra-wide to wide zoom could come in handy -- a 10-22 for a crop or a 17-40/16-35 for a ff, and so you can find the right balance.

I just did a test shot of my living room with my 5D and the 16-35 at the two ends, backing up for the 35 shot, and it did make a difference, although the room is too cluttered right now to post the shots.

tonylong wrote in post #8098142
I'd say in that setting having an ultra-wide to wide zoom could come in handy -- a 10-22 for a crop or a 17-40/16-35 for a ff, and so you can find the right balance.

Exactly... Most of the photographers I know of, serving the local real estate agents, shoot with a crop body and something in the range of 10-22 mm.

ChasP505 wrote in post #8098263
Exactly... Most of the photographers I know of, serving the local real estate agents, shoot with a crop body and something in the range of 10-22 mm.

Well, I'm certainly not going to downgrade my body and lens to fit in with the rest of the pack!

And while I did have it in the back of my mind that having the 14L might help me to land some real estate photo gigs, my main reason for getting it is because I love to shoot wide landscapes and my 17-40L has certain limitations with regard to barrel distortion and not being quite wide enough for many of the types of shots I like to take. In that regard, the 14L is clearly a better performer and well suited to my shooting style.

Cheers!

The Ghost of FM wrote in post #8098556
Well, I'm certainly not going to downgrade my body and lens to fit in with the rest of the pack!

And while I did have it in the back of my mind that having the 14L might help me to land some real estate photo gigs, my main reason for getting it is because I love to shoot wide landscapes and my 17-40L has certain limitations with regard to barrel distortion and not being quite wide enough for many of the types of shots I like to take. In that regard, the 14L is clearly a better performer and well suited to my shooting style.

Cheers!

But do you get my point about perspective distortion? If you shoot at 14mm on a ff camera you are getting a very wide angle of view that when you shoot close in (like your study shot) will give an unnatural look of depth to the image. I thought that was your concern in the OP. The only way of "fixing" that type of distortion is to move back and shoot with a longer lens (or use the same lens but crop).

tonylong wrote in post #8098710
But do you get my point about perspective distortion? If you shoot at 14mm on a ff camera you are getting a very wide angle of view that when you shoot close in (like your study shot) will give an unnatural look of depth to the image. I thought that was your concern in the OP. The only way of "fixing" that type of distortion is to move back and shoot with a longer lens (or use the same lens but crop).

Yes I do and I'm going to try shooting the kitchen again with my 24L later this evening to see if I can get a less distorted perspective. I'll post them once I'm finished.

Cheers!