In that case, you might explain to me how the suggestion to point the camera at the horizon in order to achiever vertical verticals is "counter to the use of a PC lens". Perhaps one of us is using it incorrectly.
Same thing; two different names. Some lens companies call the shift lenses PC lenses.
In that case, you might explain to me how the suggestion to point the camera at the horizon in order to achiever vertical verticals is "counter to the use of a PC lens". Perhaps one of us is using it incorrectly.
Are you confusing tilt (changing the plane of focus) for shift by any chance?If a PC lens was used and tilted off level, the lens would be offset to achieve a composition with the vertical parallel building lines again appearing parallel
Are you confusing tilt (changing the plane of focus) for shift by any chance?
Or are you talking about some format other than 35mm?
In your example, if we assume you're using shift on a 35mm camera, the verticals won't be vertical. Tilting the camera up means the verticals will converge and shifting the lens is only going to move the image circle. It won't straighten those verticals for you.
All of the shift lenses I've used, Olympus 35, Pentax 28 and Canon 24, work in the way I have described. Or are there some "perspective control" lenses that work in a way I'm not familiar with?
Then the convergence goes away when the lens is appropriately shifted.
That's not the case at all. Try it and you'll see!
Not really. LolaColor is differentiating between shift and tilt, which are two separate methods of “perspective control.”Some way or another you both are describing the same thing. Shift and "perspective control" are the same thing -- just different names.
Yes, the "PC" is most aptly thought of as perspective control, and one can really go wild with it.Shift isn't just perspective correction either. You can use it for perspective distortion too
As Mike says both tilt and shift are controls
Shift can, however, sometimes be used to get the right image on the film, when positioning the camera in a way that prevents converging verticals, also results in the top (or bottom) of the subject being outside the frame.in the example given, shift won't correct the converging verticals.
Yes, of course. But that wasn’t the hypothetical example given. The example problem was to point the camera upward and to try to correct the verticals in that case. You’re gonna need some tilt…Shift can, however, sometimes be used to get the right image on the film, when positioning the camera in a way that prevents converging verticals, also results in the top (or bottom) of the subject being outside the frame.
Shift can, however, sometimes be used to get the right image on the film, when positioning the camera in a way that prevents converging verticals, also results in the top (or bottom) of the subject being outside the frame.
Yes indeed, I do!LolaColor, you are correct. Shifting a lens won’t correct the convergence for a camera already pointed upward. Tilting the lens is how you correct the verticals in that case, but I suspect you already know that.
Yes indeed, I do!
Yes indeed, I do!
My original reason for commenting here was to offer some advice to the OP trying to figure out how he would ensure straight vertical lines on buildings when shooting handheld with a shift lens (neither lenses mentioned by the OP have a tilt function). Anyway, it looks like he knows what he's doing and is happy with the results so that's all good.
To recap, what I would do in that situation is, point the lens at the horizon when in an unshifted position, then shift up to achieve the desired composition. A hot shoe bubble level would be perfect for this, if it weren't for the slight difficulty that you can't see the bubble while looking through the viewfinder! Regardless, when you first use a shift lens it can be a bit confusing, especially if the lens is already shifted off-center. So my approach has always been to get the camera aligned correctly first while unshifted, as this is what determines whether the vertical (and horizontal) lines will converge or not, and then to shift. Here's an illustration of that. Note the drainpipe on the left of the image is vertical in both shots:
View attachment 292285
Next consider the usage that Sirius Glass suggests. Now, bear in mind that it may be the case that I have misunderstood him so far in this thread. If so, I apologise in advance for that. But to the best of my knowledge this is an accurate illustration of what he claims he "did", "does", and that "it works".
View attachment 292286
Again, note the orientation of the drainpipe on the left. It is a converging vertical in all images, regardless of the degree or direction of shift applied. This is because the film or sensor plane is not parallel with the plane of the wall, and the reason it's not parallel is, of course, because I pointed the camera up. Shifting the lens moves the image circle but won't correct for converging perspective.
But if it's a lens that also has a tilt function, now that we're on the subject, I would still rely only on shift while keeping the camera level for architectural work. My understanding is that tilt is best reserved for manipulations of the focal plane. To give two examples, ensuring that one side of an angled box is in focus for product photography, or the opposite effect could be to create a miniature world effect in landscape work. These manipulations of the focal plane are probably not desirable outcomes in classic architectural photography, but might be of interest as a novelty effect, although I guess that at small apertures the effect won't be pronounced. In any case the amount of perspective correction that can be achieved via tilt only is small in comparison what can be done with shift, at least on the tilt-shift lens that I have used, the Canon TS-24. But it's certainly interesting to consider that if I'm at the limit of the shift movement and I'm still just a little bit short of bringing the top of the building into view, one option could be to point the camera up slightly and dial in a bit of tilt on the lens. Although on that Canon the tilt is limited to one axis only so I don't think it's possible to shift and tilt in the same direction.
On another aside, and to give a little love to the Olympus 35. Yes, if you were to have only one shift lens then wider would certainly be preferable to 35mm. However, I've often found 24mm and 28mm to be too wide for some applications and I use the 35mm focal length a lot. The Olympus 35 is a lovely lens, I think, and for a few different reasons. The image quality is good when stopped down. It's tiny. But best of all is that there are no knobs or twiddling to be done. You just grab the lens and slide it freely in whatever direction you wish. Yes, the shift mechanism can get a bit loose but I seem to remember there are screws that can be tightened somewhere to firm it up. Failing that, a piece of insulation tape applied between the sliding faces adds enough friction to hold the position, and that's what I did with mine.
Yes indeed, I do!
My original reason for commenting here was to offer some advice to the OP trying to figure out how he would ensure straight vertical lines on buildings when shooting handheld with a shift lens (neither lenses mentioned by the OP have a tilt function). Anyway, it looks like he knows what he's doing and is happy with the results so that's all good.
To recap, what I would do in that situation is, point the lens at the horizon when in an unshifted position, then shift up to achieve the desired composition. A hot shoe bubble level would be perfect for this, if it weren't for the slight difficulty that you can't see the bubble while looking through the viewfinder! Regardless, when you first use a shift lens it can be a bit confusing, especially if the lens is already shifted off-center. So my approach has always been to get the camera aligned correctly first while unshifted, as this is what determines whether the vertical (and horizontal) lines will converge or not, and then to shift. Here's an illustration of that. Note the drainpipe on the left of the image is vertical in both shots:
View attachment 292285
Next consider the usage that Sirius Glass suggests. Now, bear in mind that it may be the case that I have misunderstood him so far in this thread. If so, I apologise in advance for that. But to the best of my knowledge this is an accurate illustration of what he claims he "did", "does", and that "it works".
View attachment 292286
Again, note the orientation of the drainpipe on the left. It is a converging vertical in all images, regardless of the degree or direction of shift applied. This is because the film or sensor plane is not parallel with the plane of the wall, and the reason it's not parallel is, of course, because I pointed the camera up. Shifting the lens moves the image circle but won't correct for converging perspective.
But if it's a lens that also has a tilt function, now that we're on the subject, I would still rely only on shift while keeping the camera level for architectural work. My understanding is that tilt is best reserved for manipulations of the focal plane. To give two examples, ensuring that one side of an angled box is in focus for product photography, or the opposite effect could be to create a miniature world effect in landscape work. These manipulations of the focal plane are probably not desirable outcomes in classic architectural photography, but might be of interest as a novelty effect, although I guess that at small apertures the effect won't be pronounced. In any case the amount of perspective correction that can be achieved via tilt only is small in comparison what can be done with shift, at least on the tilt-shift lens that I have used, the Canon TS-24. But it's certainly interesting to consider that if I'm at the limit of the shift movement and I'm still just a little bit short of bringing the top of the building into view, one option could be to point the camera up slightly and dial in a bit of tilt on the lens. Although on that Canon the tilt is limited to one axis only so I don't think it's possible to shift and tilt in the same direction.
On another aside, and to give a little love to the Olympus 35. Yes, if you were to have only one shift lens then wider would certainly be preferable to 35mm. However, I've often found 24mm and 28mm to be too wide for some applications and I use the 35mm focal length a lot. The Olympus 35 is a lovely lens, I think, and for a few different reasons. The image quality is good when stopped down. It's tiny. But best of all is that there are no knobs or twiddling to be done. You just grab the lens and slide it freely in whatever direction you wish. Yes, the shift mechanism can get a bit loose but I seem to remember there are screws that can be tightened somewhere to firm it up. Failing that, a piece of insulation tape applied between the sliding faces adds enough friction to hold the position, and that's what I did with mine.
Well, that sounds like a good place to start. Now, I'm going to go and stand horizontally for a while. That's quite enough nonsense for one day!I start by standing vertically
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?