Real Estate Shooters and Distortion Complaints

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!

Of course not... I should have inserted the phrase "16-35 full frame equivalent".

The Ghost of FM wrote in post #8098788
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!

Sounds good, and I hope you get it all sorted out!

tonylong wrote in post #8098792
Sounds good, and I hope you get it all sorted out!

OK, here's tonight's rendition. This one taken with the 24L, full manual exposure, thanks to PhotosGuy's help and because I don't have the gels for the flash yet, opted to just use the available light.

Well, it would have been interesting if you could have gotten a bit further back with the 24. With the 14 shot, the distortion is really bad at the widest (closest objects) -- look at that stove! You got a bit less of an angle of view with the 24 shot so it's both a closer crop of the scene (making it look a bit smaller) but also misses that stretched out teapot, which would have been an amusing comparison, but it also shows how distorted things that are closer can get with the ultra wide lenses, and the subsequent distortion of perspective.

tonylong wrote in post #8099569
Well, it would have been interesting if you could have gotten a bit further back with the 24. With the 14 shot, the distortion is really bad at the widest (closest objects) -- look at that stove! You got a bit less of an angle of view with the 24 shot so it's both a closer crop of the scene (making it look a bit smaller) but also misses that stretched out teapot, which would have been an amusing comparison, but it also shows how distorted things that are closer can get with the ultra wide lenses, and the subsequent distortion of perspective.

I could have gotten further back but by doing that, I'd just be getting the door frame leading into the kitchen so I wouldn't have been able to show any more of the stove or the kettle.

In some ways, I think I like the 14L's rendition better because it made the kitchen look a bit closer to its actual size. The 24L's version seems to just make the room look really small when in reality, its a fair sized kitchen for an apartment...most are quite a bit smaller then this one.

Cheers!

Interesting Blog article about lens selection from prominent New Mexico architectural photographer Kirk Gittings:

http://kirkgittingspho​tography.blogspot.com/​2009/01/lens-selection.html

Essentially he advocates using the new Canon Tilt Shift lenses for minimal distortion.

tonylong wrote in post #8098142
I just did a test shot of my living room ... although the room is too cluttered right now to post the shots.

Funny! Me too, and why I've never posted interior shots. Bet you a buck my level of humiliation would be greater than your level of humiliation!

tonylong wrote in post #8098142
...whereas if you back off a bit and use a longer lens the room will look more in true perspective.

But what do you do if you can't back up? I've shot rooms so small that the best I could do was to back out the doorway until the jambs just started to show in the periphery, and to me the shots are still too distorted. I've not solved the problem, but the single-pano software solution deserves a try.

To the OP: For the record, I, too, have never received a complaint. But take that remark with a little caution because in the situation I am shooting in I might not have been the recipient of the complaints.

ChasP505 wrote in post #8124885
Interesting Blog article about lens selection from prominent New Mexico architectural photographer Kirk Gittings:

http://kirkgittingspho​tography.blogspot.com/​2009/01/lens-selection.html

Essentially he advocates using the new Canon Tilt Shift lenses for minimal distortion.

I'm not sure if I read anything in that article about the new ones compared to the long standing current ones but, yes, for doing architectural photography as apposed to real estate photography, I can absolutely see the need for them and especially so for shooters who don't wish to use Photoshop to straighten out their shots in post.

Personally, I would have loved to pick up the new 17L tilt shift but the price jump Canon has put on many of their newest lenses is just insane unless you're needing it for your lively hood and able to recoup the cost of it through your work. Even my 14L seems to be in that class of product too but at 800 bucks less then the 17L TS, I bit the bullet and purchased it...though primarily for my landscape shooting.

Cheers!

The Ghost of FM wrote in post #8125699
...for doing architectural photography as apposed to real estate photography, I can absolutely see the need for them

Well.... Isn't real estate photography essentially a subset of architectural photography? (I chose not to use the term "red-headed step-child")

ChasP505 wrote in post #8125869
Well.... Isn't real estate photography essentially a subset of architectural photography? (I chose not to use the term "red-headed step-child")

I would characterize it as "the poorer cousin from the bad part of town"!

Of course, if your only exposure to real estate photography is shooting big budget monster homes as apposed to those mostly shooting plain-Jane houses in depressed markets or worse, then sure, I could see how the line is much closer.

Cheers!

Another interesting real estate photography article.

ChasP505 wrote in post #8127452
Another interesting real estate photography article.

Thanks!

There's some great information at that site!

Cheers!

The Ghost of FM wrote in post #8096853
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.

It can be used with a single image. You have to inform the program of the focal length used and camera crop factor, and type of lens (rectilinear, fish-eye,...). It will then allow you to transform the image into any other kind of projection.
It can also correct barrel/cushion distortion if you inform about their value.

It's a bit tricky to use, but it works well.

What is this? Toronto's urban redundancy?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

I try to reduce the keystoning effect of a UWA lens by using as long a focal length as possible and by attempting to keep the sensor perpendicular to the floor and parallel to the walls as much as possible. This can be usually achieved by keeping the camera as level as possible. Keeping the camera level as possible often means that I often have to shoot from a lower angle than eye level. I like to use a tripod and a right angle finder to shoot rooms. That way, I don't have to stoop down so far to look straight through the viewfinder.

However, there are times when we just have the keystoning effect and need to get rid of that effect using Photoshop or some other photo editing program.
Some perspective control links

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/perspective.shtml

http://www.larry-bolch.com/perspective/​photoshop.htm

http://www.outbackphot​o.com …erspectiveCorre​ction.html

A very viable alternative to using an UWA lens is to use a longer focal length lens on a tripod and shoot a pano with the camera in the Portrait position. That way, you get a wider view from top to bottom than shooting in the landscape position and your left to right coverage is predicated by the number of images you take.

You can make do with a RRS "L" bracket on your tripod

http://reallyrightstuf​f.com/QR/05.html

Another viable pano solution is to use a specialty Pano head such as the inexpensive but, very workable, Panosaurus.

http://gregwired.com/p​ano/Pano.htm

Panos are pretty easy just with the Photoshot merge program.

Question... would multiple images stitched together produce a more faithful image overall than a single image from even a wide angle lense...or would you still run into enough distortion to not make it worthwile?