Do you always correct verticals?

Bottoms Up

A
Bottoms Up

  • 0
  • 0
  • 11
Alayna-1

Alayna-1

  • 0
  • 0
  • 50
Legion of Honor

A
Legion of Honor

  • 3
  • 0
  • 117
Happy Hands

A
Happy Hands

  • 1
  • 2
  • 93

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
180,619
Messages
2,493,250
Members
95,116
Latest member
David1
Recent bookmarks
0

Do you always correct verticals?

  • Yes, I always correct.

    Votes: 9 30.0%
  • No, not always.

    Votes: 21 70.0%

  • Total voters
    30

Poco

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
652
Shooter
Multi Format
Quite often I'll see an architectural shot posted with perfect verticals, that nonetheless looks like they're spreading on the top. The fact is that the eye is used to convergence and, to an extent, even looks for it. So the question is, do you always correct verticals, or are there times when you don't and leave a slight tilt to the camera back?

Personally, if the verticals fill the view and extend close to the edges of the print, I tend to leave a slight camera tilt, but if there's enough border around the verticals, I go for a completely level back. Not to pick on this photo, but it illustrates the problem for me -- verticals perfect, but seeming to spread:

Dead Link Removed
 

gma

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
788
Location
Texas
Shooter
Multi Format
When I photograph houses I always correct the verticals because the transparencies are submitted to magazine publishers. For artistic work converging verticals sometimes improve an image.
 

dr bob

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
870
Location
Annapolis, M
Shooter
Medium Format
It depends on the effect I wish to present. Sometimes a little convergence lends to a better feeling of uplift or soaring such as one might like in a church steeple. In some circumstances complete correction can result in a looming effect even though the verticals are parallel, which can be disturbing, to me at least.
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,862
Location
Honolulu, Ha
Shooter
Large Format
I think they do spread in that shot. It looks like all the buildings on the left side of E. 4th st. are leaning forward a bit, as if there were a little too much rear tilt.

I tend to correct verticals most of the time, when I can. Sometimes this has the initial effect of making the scale of the structure ambiguous, but then there can be the secondary effect of noticing a familar object like a car or a person in the picture, and the structure seems that much more impressive.

Dr. Bob & I posted at the same time, so I'll add that I agree with his statement, and I like the soaring effect sometimes, for instance in that shot of the Bath Abbey organ I posted a while back (now deleted). I did that with medium format, but I would have done it the same with with a view camera. It looks squat and foreshortened if I try to "correct" it in the darkroom.
 

Tom Duffy

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
969
Location
New Jersey
Sinar has a series of technique/example books for large format photography. They recommend that you correct fully for converging verticals if the angle to the top of the building is 40 degrees or less. Higher angle than that and they recommend partial correction, since a full correction would look unnatural.
 

Jim Chinn

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,512
Location
Omaha, Nebra
Shooter
Multi Format
Thas is an interesting question I have also thought about. i have notice that if I shoot a church with very tall steeple and correct for convergence in the print the steeple seems out of proportion with the rest of the church. I guess a little convergence would satisfy the eye while not becoming to obvious.

When you are talking of no correction if the convergence is less then 40 degrees, I assume you mean with the camera is in neutral position with zero tilt you are measuring the convergence on the gg?
 

mobtown_4x5

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
243
Location
Baltimore
Shooter
4x5 Format
Interesting thread, I have been always correcting, with sometimes similar results as the example-
How exactly do you measure the 40 deg to apply the rule of thumb?
 

Loose Gravel

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2003
Messages
929
Location
Santa Barbar
So times the building are so tall that a correction looks goofy. Or it can't be done with the optics I have or cameras that I'm using. Correction is for architects with short buildings.

I've never seen anybody correct the parallelism of train tracks.
 

Flotsam

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
3,221
Location
S.E. New Yor
Loose Gravel said:
I've never seen anybody correct the parallelism of train tracks.

Exactly, perspective is an element of vision. Straining to "correct" it can make it look awfully unnatural.

Personally, I don't have any hard and fast rules. It's like any of the dozens of other personal visual decisions that you have to make when setting up a shot, when the image looks good to you... hit the d*mned button :smile:.
 
OP
OP

Poco

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
652
Shooter
Multi Format
I think one of the other interesting things about perfect verticals is that they create an impression of further remove from the object, like shot with a long lens.

Obviously, there's a lot of perceptual issues involved in the decision of whether to use movement to get everything absolutely straight. Now, I find myself moving away from an obsession with it (then why start this thread?) :tongue:
 

jss

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
200
Location
San Francisc
Shooter
Multi Format
overcorrecting verticals

i correct verticals because i like the look. i don't overcorrect.. structures that flare out at the top looks bad, unless there's some stylistic reason to do so.. in which case i'd overcorrect much more to make it obvious.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom