I've read all the debate on the photo over the last couple days. I wish I
had a shift lens, but have never had the money for one. Nikon and Canon
make some really cool ones that also have tilt, like a view camera. I have
a 4x5 camera that I have only used a handful of times since buying it a
decade ago. I just didn't have the physical strength to carry it far from
my car when shooting outdoors. I was in a lot worse health back then than
now.
I think I still like the uncorrected one, but might try a new crop of the
perspective corrected one, as some of you guys have suggested, and see if
that improves it. Most of my architectural stuff gets perspective
corrected. I'm not sure why I didn't did it at first with this one. I
didn't think too try it for some reason, but I am glad I didn't since I
seem to like the uncorrected one best (but might change my mind when I
mess with the crop!).
Moose's tone correction looks too light on my screen. I think this is a
monitor calibration issue rather than an issue of one of us doing ugly
editing, no one seems to have theirs set the same. I think my work is
showing too dark and contrasty on Moose's screen compared to mine. The
prints look beautiful, but you'll have to take my word for it,
unfortunately. Some people liked my version, others liked Moose's, and I
suspect that the brightness each viewer had his screen set to influenced
which version was preferred.
I've been pretty busy the last couple days doing some web design work
that's bringing in some much-needed money, so that's why I've kept so
quiet during the discussion. I wanted to thank everyone for their ideas.
--
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana
260-437-8990
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Crawford/48229272798
Become a fan on Facebook
On 6/12/12 8:09 PM, "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I'd prefer to use a shift lens too but I had to sell the Zuiko 24/3.5 in
>order to afford the 5D. One day maybe I'll get another but I haven't
>really noticed much of a resolution problem with moderate software
>perspective correction. Of course, I'm also not trying to make gigantic
>prints from those images.
>
>Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>On 6/12/2012 5:32 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> There also is substantial loss of sharpness/resolution in the
>> perspective corrected version--perhaps related to not enough pixels to
>> manipulate. Reminds me of the advantage of using a shift lens--I enjoy
>> that way of working anyway. Also it reminds me I almost always like the
>> Zuiko 24/2.8 rendition better when there is an expanse of sky with
>> clouds compared to the lens corrected/profiled Canyon
>> 24-105--distortion and all. Not sure why.
>>
>> Shifty Mike
>>
>>> I like the increased tonal distribution, but actually liked the skewed
>>> perspective better.
>>
>> --Bob
>>
>>
>> On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Moose wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure. I think the problem is that Chris' signature style* of
>> high
>>> contrast suppresses highlight and shadow
>>> detail. With the visual attraction/distraction of the unsquare forms
>>> 'corrected', there just isn't much for the eye to
>>> engage with.
>>>
>>> Changing the tonal distribution to bring up detail in the building
>> surfaces
>>> improves the corrected version a lot, to my
>>> eye.
>> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Crawford/ward-corp2.htm>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>--
>_________________________________________________________________
>Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|