As some of you know, I've got this straight vertical/horizontal fetish. If I see a photo (of mine) which is obviously not straight I just have to get Gimp's "rotate" tool out.
This is "somewhat problematic" when taking shots of buildings, because there's always some part of the buildings that are at an angle. In fact normally more than one part, and at different angles because of perspective and so on. And as a result I can't get my head around editing them, let along bringing myself to post them.
Help!
Does anyone have any advice on taking shots of buildings in a way that is geometrically interesting?
If you can't hide it, use it... Flaunt the angle like crazy... Make the angle purposive rather than something that is an accident or cant be helped... Stop worrying about showcasing the whole building and start thinking how you can make a small piece of it interesting...
Out of whack angles make me crazy too - and those are the strategies I've come up with... I'll be watching this thread w interest to see what others suggest - I cld use to learn a few new tricks :)
I'm curious what you feel about the first two images of the brick wall and staircase. Is it the diagonal line of the lower roof that bothers you?
Here are two of my shots that somewhat exemplify @northy's suggestion. BUT - the comments on the "crooked" one suggest that it doesn't bother anyone. Just food for thought.
Small portion relatively straight
large view - not straight ... but read the comments.
There is no escaping it, I say use it, abuse it. It's an optical illusion, looking up onto anything will alter it, because the bottom is closer to you, the close you get the more tilt you will get. Move right away and take the shot :)
Perspective correction will fix problems with converging verticals where the object is at a similar height to the camera -- these are caused by the camera not being perpendicular to the object, and are especially obvious with wide-angle lenses.
As mentioned, the latest version of Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw have automatic perspective distortion correction options built in, although doing it manually is not too difficult with a bit of practice.
You can also use tilt-shift lenses to do perspective correction in-lens, although these are very expensive and relatively rarely used even by professionals these days, with the powerful correction tools built into image editing software.
Bear in mind that if you are looking up at a building from ground level, perspective correction only looks right if the side of the building you are photographing is completely flat -- if there are any bits that are sticking out or in (such as balconies, a sloping roof, or so on), or you are shooting from the corner of a building, so you capture two walls at 90 degrees, and the section of building you photographed is more than a few degrees in angle above your vantage point, perspective correction will make the building appear very strange.
You can usually get away with a small amount of perspective correction to bring the verticals slightly closer to parallel, but if you try and fix it completely it will look quite weird. The problem, of course, is that you are trying to make it appear as though you were shooting the building without looking up at it, but the photograph contains only the underside of any part that sticks out, and that's something that nothing short of 3D modelling can fix.
Unfortunately, the only way to truly accurately photograph a building and keep the lines straight is to photograph it from a height where you don't have to point the lens up or down -- if you want to shoot the whole building, this typically means using a sufficiently wide-angle lens from a height of about half-way up the building, something which is rarely possible without at the very least hiring a cherry-picker! The other option is to shoot the building from a long way away with a telephoto lens, so that the relative angle between you and area of the building you are photographing is only a few degrees, allowing perspective correction to be applied without making the building look noticeably deformed.
If neither of these are an option, and you are forced to shoot a relatively tall building from a close, low vantage point, then the best option is to to try and make the angles work for you, as @northy suggests. Remember, converging verticals are what the eye sees in those situations as well, you only notice them more in a photograph because you are confining the image bounds to a strict rectangle.
Particularly if you are shooting upwards or sideways - the focal plane will be at a considerable angle to the natural plane of the subject - you'll run into perspective issues. Also if you are shooting with a wide angle lens you'll get those pesky "converging verticals." There is nothing to be done when shooting if you have these focal plane angles. This is certainly what is happening with the four shots you point us to. In the first two you have the verticals vertical, but in the second two you don't.
For the extreme shot, like @northy says, it is often good to go with it and use the perspective you have, but I don't think three and four are quite right with the milder form of distortion, looking just a little odd to me.
Editors can adjust this effect. Vertical and Horizontal Perspective Corrections. Many cameras also have in-camera post adjustment in the "retouch" menu. When you do, you will "pixel" pull and push the image, watch for sharpness being compromised, and with the upwards shots will lose content at the top and the sides as you look to crop the image back rectangular. And indeed if done too much, you will end up with too much stretching at the top when shooting upwards. I have learned to compensate for this, and shoot to give me space to correct this in the many images I love to shoot of big buildings especially. When you do the perspective correcting bit, you will often find that you again have to reach for the "straightener" or image rotator.
Shooting both upwards and to the side, I find the vertical corrections are most pleasing, living with significant horizontal angles, like your image one and two, although a mild horizontal problem can sometimes improve the situation as well.
Also think about lens distortion correction, those bowed horizontals and verticals rather than just leaning to one side, especially at wide angle or telephoto lengths.
All four corrections, horizontal perspective, vertical perspective, lens distortion and rotation interact with each other. The Adobe Products you will find typically present all four tools on one screen or tab for convenience, the Lens Correction | Manual tab in Adobe Camera Raw for example. Other tools may indeed present the tools similarly, I can't say.
Agree with almost everything that Alexis says too. @abirkill He and I had a long conversation on this very subject when I was a newbie at this. What the eye "sees" and how the brain actually interprets it is something I think we still don't quite agree on. If the brain thinks something should be "straight" or "parallel" then that is what you will "see." Most especially, the field of view of the eyes is quite narrow when they remain static and don't scan, which they are always doing, to which you are almost always totally unaware. So when your eyes scan a big area, wider than the basic angle of view, and the brain puts it all together, thousands of adjustments are made to what you "see." Neither or these conditions, of course, applies when applied to a small recatange of a static image, as indeed Alexis says.
Sorry for the length of the response, but I hope all that helps. Good shooting. And editing too...
Shooting
- Go wherever you can to get a good angle and most of the lines pretty straight. This is not always possible of course....
- Compose the shot in a way, that you can afford to lose stuff from the edges (you might need to use rotate tool in post...). Also, the lens distortions are the strongest at the edges, and cropping is one way to get rid of them.
- Make sure the "main lines" like corners of the buildings are straight - reduces the need for rotating in post
Post-processing
- Use lens distortion correction if necessary; I use the Photo editing software that came with my Canon...
- In GIMP, rotate first if needed
- Then go for the Perspective tool. Drag the image from the corners and straighten all the lines you feel needing straightening. You can do it in steps - one line at a time. Zoom in enough to really see that the lines are straight before clicking the "Transform" -button. Note that sometimes it's easier to get a line straight by dragging the image "inwards", but this will lead to image not being rectangular and you need to crop - this is why it's a good idea to compose loosely while shooting.
I actually shot one image yesterday, which is perfect for this thread - will post it later.
I don't have time now to comment on everything, so I will do so slowly, over the day.
@dlaxton No, it's not the diagonal line of the lower roof that gets me, that is part of what makes it (semi) interesting in my opinion. No, it's the vertical line of the wall high on the left, where it isn't vertical, in that one. And I know that no matter what I do, something always will be "out" in that way. I'll have half bricks on the edge lower in the shot and full bricks higher, or something like that. Or in that photograph of mine you used as an example, the top of the window. It throws my eye off enjoying the rest of the photograph.
@abirkill Yeah, I don't really like perspective correction for much the reasons you mentioned. Besides, I often find if I get one line "right", another gets pushed or dragged out. Or I get them all straight and the photo looks like it's about to pass through a blackhole!
So you and @northy think I'd be better off getting closer to the building to emphasise the angles?
@frankhymus Thanks. Yeah, the second two of those four example were definitely my least favourite of them. I was mainly interested in the area around the stairs anyway, it was more interesting, but took those final two because I was aware the first two didn't give me what I wanted.
I hadn't considered the auto distortion control! For some reason that was switched off in my camera. I guess I was an idiot and went "What's that? I don't know, so turn off!"
Funnily enough, I prefer the third and fourth images of yours to those which have lots of correction. I think that says more about my sanity than your editing skills though, don't worry! Taking the last as an example - it looks absolutely fine to me - the corner edge of the building on the left side is as near as makes no difference parallel to the edge of the photo. The rest is expected - no way do I expect the other angles to be perfect 90° or something.
@janim Wow. Step by step. That's what Mr. B likes! Thanks so much!
Yes, I get what you mean about the building corners. With the example images I posted though, you'll see I can't exactly do that, because I'm shooting at an angle to the main wall surface, so the vertical is straight at one end but not at the other. And yes, I could shoot "head on", but then I lose the angle on the other wall and probably the visibility onto those stairs... The second shot is okay, but I find the detail overwhelming, there's no context to "hide" it in and appreciate the lines and shapes rather than "here are some stairs". If you see what I mean.
I look forward to seeing the image you got yesterday. If you feel like doing "before" and "after", and maybe write some comments on what you did and why, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one to appreciate that. Maybe it would be something for a 365 blog post/article, if Ross would be willing?
What would we do without @abirkill Alexis and @frankhymus Frank. Thanks for so much good information. Also thanks to Mr. Biscuit for asking the question.
Aargh... I typed out a long explanation, but it got deleted when I went in search if the picture... Short story - I generally prefer up close and personal... And it's often difficult to get a whole bldg in when in a large city surrounded by obstacles... But when I am going for the whole shebang, an explanation of what I do is in the comments below this image from last September - basically compose so camera is straight on, and crop lots
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
If you can't hide it, use it... Flaunt the angle like crazy... Make the angle purposive rather than something that is an accident or cant be helped... Stop worrying about showcasing the whole building and start thinking how you can make a small piece of it interesting...
Out of whack angles make me crazy too - and those are the strategies I've come up with... I'll be watching this thread w interest to see what others suggest - I cld use to learn a few new tricks :)
I have: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesebiscuit/sets/72157635178648022/
I feel like there's something in there, but I can't get it out. (As the actress said to the bishop.)
Here are two of my shots that somewhat exemplify @northy's suggestion. BUT - the comments on the "crooked" one suggest that it doesn't bother anyone. Just food for thought.
Small portion relatively straight
large view - not straight ... but read the comments.
As mentioned, the latest version of Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw have automatic perspective distortion correction options built in, although doing it manually is not too difficult with a bit of practice.
You can also use tilt-shift lenses to do perspective correction in-lens, although these are very expensive and relatively rarely used even by professionals these days, with the powerful correction tools built into image editing software.
Bear in mind that if you are looking up at a building from ground level, perspective correction only looks right if the side of the building you are photographing is completely flat -- if there are any bits that are sticking out or in (such as balconies, a sloping roof, or so on), or you are shooting from the corner of a building, so you capture two walls at 90 degrees, and the section of building you photographed is more than a few degrees in angle above your vantage point, perspective correction will make the building appear very strange.
You can usually get away with a small amount of perspective correction to bring the verticals slightly closer to parallel, but if you try and fix it completely it will look quite weird. The problem, of course, is that you are trying to make it appear as though you were shooting the building without looking up at it, but the photograph contains only the underside of any part that sticks out, and that's something that nothing short of 3D modelling can fix.
Unfortunately, the only way to truly accurately photograph a building and keep the lines straight is to photograph it from a height where you don't have to point the lens up or down -- if you want to shoot the whole building, this typically means using a sufficiently wide-angle lens from a height of about half-way up the building, something which is rarely possible without at the very least hiring a cherry-picker! The other option is to shoot the building from a long way away with a telephoto lens, so that the relative angle between you and area of the building you are photographing is only a few degrees, allowing perspective correction to be applied without making the building look noticeably deformed.
If neither of these are an option, and you are forced to shoot a relatively tall building from a close, low vantage point, then the best option is to to try and make the angles work for you, as @northy suggests. Remember, converging verticals are what the eye sees in those situations as well, you only notice them more in a photograph because you are confining the image bounds to a strict rectangle.
For the extreme shot, like @northy says, it is often good to go with it and use the perspective you have, but I don't think three and four are quite right with the milder form of distortion, looking just a little odd to me.
Editors can adjust this effect. Vertical and Horizontal Perspective Corrections. Many cameras also have in-camera post adjustment in the "retouch" menu. When you do, you will "pixel" pull and push the image, watch for sharpness being compromised, and with the upwards shots will lose content at the top and the sides as you look to crop the image back rectangular. And indeed if done too much, you will end up with too much stretching at the top when shooting upwards. I have learned to compensate for this, and shoot to give me space to correct this in the many images I love to shoot of big buildings especially. When you do the perspective correcting bit, you will often find that you again have to reach for the "straightener" or image rotator.
Shooting both upwards and to the side, I find the vertical corrections are most pleasing, living with significant horizontal angles, like your image one and two, although a mild horizontal problem can sometimes improve the situation as well.
Also think about lens distortion correction, those bowed horizontals and verticals rather than just leaning to one side, especially at wide angle or telephoto lengths.
All four corrections, horizontal perspective, vertical perspective, lens distortion and rotation interact with each other. The Adobe Products you will find typically present all four tools on one screen or tab for convenience, the Lens Correction | Manual tab in Adobe Camera Raw for example. Other tools may indeed present the tools similarly, I can't say.
Here are just a few of my shots where I used these editing techniques, all with varying degrees of vertical correction, a lot for the first two, some purposely left for the third, and it all hangs out in the fourth.
http://365project.org/frankhymus/work-in-progres/2013-08-17
http://365project.org/frankhymus/work-in-progres/2013-08-14
http://365project.org/frankhymus/work-in-progres/2013-05-09
http://365project.org/frankhymus/iphone/2013-04-29
Agree with almost everything that Alexis says too. @abirkill He and I had a long conversation on this very subject when I was a newbie at this. What the eye "sees" and how the brain actually interprets it is something I think we still don't quite agree on. If the brain thinks something should be "straight" or "parallel" then that is what you will "see." Most especially, the field of view of the eyes is quite narrow when they remain static and don't scan, which they are always doing, to which you are almost always totally unaware. So when your eyes scan a big area, wider than the basic angle of view, and the brain puts it all together, thousands of adjustments are made to what you "see." Neither or these conditions, of course, applies when applied to a small recatange of a static image, as indeed Alexis says.
Sorry for the length of the response, but I hope all that helps. Good shooting. And editing too...
Shooting
- Go wherever you can to get a good angle and most of the lines pretty straight. This is not always possible of course....
- Compose the shot in a way, that you can afford to lose stuff from the edges (you might need to use rotate tool in post...). Also, the lens distortions are the strongest at the edges, and cropping is one way to get rid of them.
- Make sure the "main lines" like corners of the buildings are straight - reduces the need for rotating in post
Post-processing
- Use lens distortion correction if necessary; I use the Photo editing software that came with my Canon...
- In GIMP, rotate first if needed
- Then go for the Perspective tool. Drag the image from the corners and straighten all the lines you feel needing straightening. You can do it in steps - one line at a time. Zoom in enough to really see that the lines are straight before clicking the "Transform" -button. Note that sometimes it's easier to get a line straight by dragging the image "inwards", but this will lead to image not being rectangular and you need to crop - this is why it's a good idea to compose loosely while shooting.
I actually shot one image yesterday, which is perfect for this thread - will post it later.
@dlaxton No, it's not the diagonal line of the lower roof that gets me, that is part of what makes it (semi) interesting in my opinion. No, it's the vertical line of the wall high on the left, where it isn't vertical, in that one. And I know that no matter what I do, something always will be "out" in that way. I'll have half bricks on the edge lower in the shot and full bricks higher, or something like that. Or in that photograph of mine you used as an example, the top of the window. It throws my eye off enjoying the rest of the photograph.
So you and @northy think I'd be better off getting closer to the building to emphasise the angles?
I hadn't considered the auto distortion control! For some reason that was switched off in my camera. I guess I was an idiot and went "What's that? I don't know, so turn off!"
Funnily enough, I prefer the third and fourth images of yours to those which have lots of correction. I think that says more about my sanity than your editing skills though, don't worry! Taking the last as an example - it looks absolutely fine to me - the corner edge of the building on the left side is as near as makes no difference parallel to the edge of the photo. The rest is expected - no way do I expect the other angles to be perfect 90° or something.
Thanks for your advice, long or otherwise :)
Yes, I get what you mean about the building corners. With the example images I posted though, you'll see I can't exactly do that, because I'm shooting at an angle to the main wall surface, so the vertical is straight at one end but not at the other. And yes, I could shoot "head on", but then I lose the angle on the other wall and probably the visibility onto those stairs... The second shot is okay, but I find the detail overwhelming, there's no context to "hide" it in and appreciate the lines and shapes rather than "here are some stairs". If you see what I mean.
I look forward to seeing the image you got yesterday. If you feel like doing "before" and "after", and maybe write some comments on what you did and why, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one to appreciate that. Maybe it would be something for a 365 blog post/article, if Ross would be willing?