I want some pieces of advice from the folks here, particularly those with background in architectural and wide-angle photography. I am posting two wide-angle photos, one whose perspective has been corrected and another uncorrected shot.

Some (or is it most?) photography books insist that converging verticals should be avoided, hence the advice that one should avoid tilting the camera as much as possible when shooting a building or a facade. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to avoid converging verticals when shooting a tall building unless you are shooting it from another building.

Perhaps the goal is not to cut the top of the building with the least camera tilt? In the event that one doesn't manage to avoid the phenomenon, is perspective correction in software mandatory? If rules are made to be broken, when does one break the rule on converging verticals (if it is a rule)? Thanks.

Regards,
Norman

Uncorrected:
http://www.vgalleries.com/members/naquino/SanAgustin/P9236968b.jpg

Corrected:
http://www.vgalleries.com/members/naquino/SanAgustin/P9236968c.jpg

mmmmmmm... I guess if you're after strict architectural photography standards then the use of perspective correction is a must... However, in most cases, what's more pleasing to the eye is what's relevant. :)

... so, for me, given the example above... actually I prefer the uncorrected one...

Same here :)
Plus just to point out the corrected one looks like it has a fat bell :)

Some insist that converging verticals should be avoided at all cost. On the other hand, I think calling converging verticals 'perspective distortion' is highly suspect as it unjustly suggests a misrepresentation of reality (the fact is, that is how a facade will look like if shot from a low angle, hence it is a natural perspective and not a distorted one).


Truth be told, I love the effect of converging verticals. Anybody else here who doesn't mind it at all?

Here are two more samples, one corrected and one uncorrected:
Uncorrected:
http://www.vgalleries.com/members/naquino/SanAgustin/P9236970b.jpg


Corrected:
http://www.vgalleries.com/members/naquino/SanAgustin/P9236970c.jpg




I think the corrected version looks flat.


Regards,
Norman

Same here..

i think the uncorrected photo has much more drama, i find that my gaze is drawn towards the center where i think your focal point is. i feel that the aisle leads directly towards the altar. on the other hand, the second photo has much more emphasis on the frescoes to the chandeliers, it gives me that feeling of "looking upwards" rather than down the aisle.

then again, i guess its a case to case basis where adjusting the perspective makes the whole composition balanced and leaving it as is may add more drama to the whole thing =b

besides, ang daming nawala nung nagcrop ka sa pangalawang photo... sayang...

This is one of the reasons why I always have a step ladder handy for my shoots.

I can shoot from a higher POV and minimize converging lines. It ain't as hand as a tilt & shift lens but it is a cheaper option :D

Jo, I wouldn't think the museum administrator would have allowed me to bring a ladder inside. Heck, the guards would not even allow a tripod to be used! And a ladder is most likely unusable with a ceiling as high as San Agustin Church's -- unless, of course, you take the long steel ones used by Meralco utility men. Hehe. =B)

Regards,
Norman

Akala mo lang hindi ka papayagan. :D I usually bring a small stepladder. It's light and portable. It hasn't been refused entry even in the Metropolitan Museum. LOL!

It won't suffice for the high ceiling of San Agustin Church. But its a great way to get a shot of the altar over the heads of the wedding guests :D


Jo, I wouldn't think the museum administrator would have allowed me to bring a ladder inside. Heck, the guards would not even allow a tripod to be used! And a ladder is most likely unusable with a ceiling as high as San Agustin Church's. Hehe. =B)

Regards,
Norman

I'm not really an expert nor am I an experienced photographer. But, I'd like to share the same kind of issue I face when composing views for 3D renderings we do for clients. Here is what I've observed:

1. Some clients respond well with converging verticals or extreme "3 point perspectives" as we call it. One client even stated one time, "So that's how I'd see it when I'm 11 inches taller... nice view."
2. Some clients don't respond well to this, they whine and whine, especially those clients who aren't creative or technically inclined. They request for a normal view, and since unlike in real life, you can "physically" back out beyond a wall in 3D software, we comply.

So, to make it short, I really think it depends on the target viewer. But just to be safe, we always mix both normal and extreme perspective shots together. The logical + the drama.

As for me, I like 3 point perspectives better. :) Nice shots by the way.

I do quite a bit of architectural work. I manage to fix vertical convergence by using a large format camera (with full range of movements). You can also fix vertical convergence in SLR by using a tripod and a lever (to make sure you do not have a tilt).

If breaking the rule is an option, make sure that the convergence is obvious and don't look like an accident.