wide angle lens perspective distortion, does it bother you?

P

portia

Member
Local time
11:31 AM
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
13
I took this picture using the 43mm lens and a Mamiya 7II. I got the building in there as desired, and even included the foreground snake charmers. While most people had to go across the street to take a picture of this place (the Hawa Mahal, the wind palace in Jaipur , India. For more on my trip to India travelogue and some more photos, not all were taken with the Mamiya 7II).
The problem/question is the distorted perspective, does it look bad? does it bother you? would you use some tool in Photoshop (which one?) to correct it?

How about the 2nd picture of the Taj Mahal?

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
My answer is sometimes. I really like converging verticals on buildings and I don't agree with the school of thought that they should *always* be fixed and is a "technical flaw" - it's an effective and uncommon effect sometimes.
For instance I think it works great in your first picture but your 2nd is an example of when I'd think about taming it slightly since there's something unsettling about the minuret being sucked back towards the taj. I'd think about straightening the minuret but leaving the Taj leaning.
The times I dislike it are usually tall thin objects which just look like they're going to topple - close up buildings with a certain mass to them I think look very domineering and slightly ominous with the distortion.
Just my opinion though.
Cheers!
 
portia said:
The problem/question is the distorted perspective, does it look bad? does it bother you? would you use some tool in Photoshop (which one?) to correct it?
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Actually there is no distortion. Not a bit. :) Only tilted lines. Those come from a (backward) tilted camera. Buy a level and you'll get rid of this prob. It is very difficult to keep a RF with a wide lens properly aligned to vertical, easier with a SLR and maybe a grid screen. DISTORTION are BENDED lines, pincushion or barrel like.

If there is no level availabel from Mamyia try the Voigtländer. Or correct it with PS but expect a considerable loss for such extreme angles like you got here in the two demo pics.

I personally find it bothering , yes, boring enuff to invest in the expensive CV level
:rolleyes:

Best,
Bertram
 
There is a little distortion in the corners of the frame that is typical of wide angle. Objects/shapes near the corners are stretched/elongated. Not much you can do about that except not to put objects in that part of the frame if possible. I agree with Bertram that the rest of it is just from a tilted camera in an effort to get it all in from up close. If you are happy with it that is all that counts. Yes it can be corrected in PS but don't ask me how.

Bob
 
GraphicConverter keeps getting better at least as fast as I can learn new tricks. :rolleyes: In GC, this feature is called "Unskew" and it's on the Effects menu. You click 4 points on the photo (probably near each corner) to define the alignment you wish.
 
For street-type shots like your first one, I think the converging lines of the wide add an "edginess" that works. The people are just as important as the building.
A perspective corrected or tilt-shift lens, available for some SLR systems, would provide a more pleasing look for a more typical architectural shot like your second example. IMHO.
Has anyone ever heard of a PC lens for a RF system? :confused:
BTW, I was in both locals a couple of years ago and shot everything in Jaipur with my Nikkor 20mm, and most of my Taj shots with the 50mm. Something was screwed up with the pressure plate on my Nikon's film door and every single frame has a nice, clear scratch across the top third. :bang:
 
Nikon Bob said:
There is a little distortion in the corners of the frame that is typical of wide angle. Objects/shapes near the corners are stretched/elongated. Not much you can do about that except not to put objects in that part of the frame if possible. I agree with Bertram that the rest of it is just from a tilted camera in an effort to get it all in from up close. If you are happy with it that is all that counts. Yes it can be corrected in PS but don't ask me how.
Bob
Click to expand...

Hi Bob,

btw the effect towards the edges ,which is a general prob for all wides as you say correctly , begins to bother me more and more.
I did not perceive it so clearly in former times , maybe after a while of using wides first your perception gets more detailed, don't know ?

Technically I consider this one to be messed up by that corner effect..

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=19476&cat=5355

.. but I love it too much to throw it away. The terrace floor in the lower lhs corner looks as if it would melt in the sun and hangs down like an old Camembert.

I am on my way back to a more intensive use of the 50mm now agin, one of the things I love with these lenses is the neutral look, tho they can have a considerable amount of "true" distortion (barrel most) too.

Best,
Bertram
 
Bertram

I can live with the WA distortion in the corners and try to watch my verticals. The 50 is just too hard to use for me.

Bob
 
I agree with daveozzz above. If it's not overdone, I don't find converging veticals to be much of an issue at all, it's part of the "language" that the WA lens speaks and try to frame my shots so that the effect doesn't get out of control. I find it much easier to manage with an SLR and thus I don't usually shoot wider than 35mm with my rangefinders.

It's possible and relatively easy to correct converging verticals in Photoshop, but I often find that something is lost in the photo by doing so. If you're interested, there's a great article on working with wide angles at Petteri Sulonen's website here. I made sure to read this before I went out to play with my 28mm lens and it helped me a lot.
 
Doug

I am finding the same thing, that wides on an SLR are easier to control to keep verticals vertical.

Bob
 
Nikon Bob said:
Bertram
I can live with the WA distortion in the corners and try to watch my verticals. The 50 is just too hard to use for me.
Bob
Click to expand...
What makes it hard for you ,Bob ? Doesn't it fit to the places you go for shooting ?
I admit that at some places you simply need a wide to get the shot you want.
I use my wides only for that kinda places meanwhile, NOT from reasons of perspective, as I did . First if I cannot step back, then the wide is taken.

I noticed this summer that I got a bit too used to the wide lenses and would have done some shots better with a 50, a kind of over-adaption, made me forget what the other lenses are good for ;)

Best,
bertram
 
Bertram

I just do not see the way a 50 does and really have to work to make fit what I want to do. I am much more comfortable with a 35 or wider and a short tele for details. Nothing wrong with a 50 but I am just too lazy to work it I guess. Your over-adaption theory is a good one though, I could go along with that.

Bob
 
Hi, the 43mm viewfinder has a level built-in. I think I might have tilted the lens backwards like Bertram said. I will watch out for it next time. I think I was using the word "distortion" too loosely.
Thanks for all the great feedback and info.
 
portia said:
I took this picture using the 43mm lens and a Mamiya 7II. I got the building in there as desired, and even included the foreground snake charmers.
(snip)
The problem/question is the distorted perspective, does it look bad? does it bother you? would you use some tool in Photoshop (which one?) to correct it?

How about the 2nd picture of the Taj Mahal?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

In the first picture it doesn't bother me much. The tool I use for this is not in Photoshop at all (although PS may well have something similar). It is called "warp" in Picture Window Pro. Using this you could broaden the top, losing the corners, but it would also make the view a bit squat, so to compensate you could stretch it to a higher aspect ratio format using some other tool. If you do this in warp, OTOH, you would maintain the format but lose some area from the top and/or bottom of the shot, which in this shot you would not want.
For the Taj Mahal, I'd definitely do this. An advantage would be that you'd lose the whatever-it-is-that's-distracting from the top RH corner.
 
portia said:
Hi, the 43mm viewfinder has a level built-in. I think I might have tilted the lens backwards like Bertram said. I will watch out for it next time. I think I was using the word "distortion" too loosely.
Thanks for all the great feedback and info.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting comment. I use an M6 , the wide is a 50mm, there is no 'level' in viewfinder. Where is the level visible in the M7? Top or bottom , is it always visible? Does it intrude?

Jan
 
Hi, Jan,
the 43mm and 50mm both come with a separate finder which clips on top of the camera. The level is always visible when you look through the finder. I tried to take a picture of it using my digital camera so you have an idea of what it looks like. And an external view of the viewfinder.
 
You just need to get used to seeing wide angle compositions. With a longer lens you're often fine crouching down, pointing the lens slightly up and shooting a subject against some portion of the background. You might assume that the 43 works the same way, only you will get more background. In a sense you do, but you also emphasize the perspective inherent in your choice of position and level. You need to use perspective to your advantage!

Instead of crouching, try getting up higher and closer and aiming the camera more level, or even slightly down if possible. This will allow you to separate subject from background, and both will be on a ground plane with all sorts of potentially interesting perspective lines connecting them. Keeping the camera level and roughly on plane with the background will keep it straight.

Photoshop's perspective crop is a really useful tool as well. But IMO you're better off using it to make minor adjustments (just like other edits) than relying on it.

I don't think the real problem with pointing a wide angle upwards is the emphasized perspective per se but the fact that you're getting so much sky and so little subject. Pointing it down works much better, because you're actually getting more foreground, and not just a bunch of visual void.
 
Jan Brittenson said:
You just need to get used to seeing wide angle compositions. With a longer lens you're often fine crouching down, pointing the lens slightly up and shooting a subject against some portion of the background. You might assume that the 43 works the same way, only you will get more background. In a sense you do, but you also emphasize the perspective inherent in your choice of position and level. You need to use perspective to your advantage!

Instead of crouching, try getting up higher and closer and aiming the camera more level, or even slightly down if possible. This will allow you to separate subject from background, and both will be on a ground plane with all sorts of potentially interesting perspective lines connecting them. Keeping the camera level and roughly on plane with the background will keep it straight.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advise! I agree about not depending on PS for correction, it is much easier and faster if you get it right in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom