What's wrong with these Summicron shots?

See below some testshots I took with my last generation Summicron M-35 f/2

asph. As you can see in these pictures, the objects that should be straight

are somewhat diagonal/ sloping. Does anyone have a suggestion what's wrong

here? To the best of my knowledge I held the camera straight. I can't imagine

that I was too close. I know there are probably hundreds of Photoshop actions

to correct this but I'm not interested in those.

 

Is this a lens problem? Is it the guy behind the camera (me, that is) ? This

is pretty annoying.

 

Thanks for yr help.<div></div>

Nr 2<div></div>

Nr. 3<div></div>

The top one is tilted to the left, the other two to the right. Are you sure you don't have the top one reversed?

personally I like your fotos and it is the shooter making them diagonal. Practice.

better said, I like the diagonal of the fotos which makes them more interesting. Otherwise humbug.

Leon, you don't say what body you are using. That interests me as I have had a similar problem with my R-D1 and today I was forced to do a test with a spirit level. My conclusion is that the framelines are about 2.5 degrees out of kilter with the body (and sensor). NB a figure arrived at with the help of photoshop. Name your weapon of choice. Johnny.

Leon

 

Is this not convergence at work, where the film plane and the plane of the subject are not parallel? When we look up at something, the view is indeed convergent, but our brain makes it look right. The camera's only brian is external and can thus not make the corrections: the brain's owner must do that by making the planes parallel. That is the one of the main advantages of view cameras that can change the relative alignment of the lens plane, and the film plane to correct the perspective tricks.

 

Does that help?

Cheers

"Name your weapon of choice"

 

Johny, it's a 2004 Leica MP.

I also have a similar problem when I shoot trees from abt. 3 to 4 meters distance; they look diagonal....

Having said that, I once experienced the same problem shooting a Canon 17-40 F/4L USM- lens.

 

I hope the above is not a lens/ camera problem though.

I understand Leica has a fix for that. It's a lift you put in one shoe, they give you 2 free and then they're around $120 each for the rest of your shoes <wink>.

Is this a regular problem? If so, you could have a type of vision condition that I can't remember the name of right now. I have it to a small degree and I have to really remember to line up vertical subjects carefully, especially when using wide lenses. You might try a spirit level--I find it helps on some shots.

Check your shoes. Looks like you dropped a heel.

 

Seriously - level issues. I aquired a tendendecy to tilt small-viewfinder cameras (typically digital video) a consistent 1.2 degrees left. One way to get past it is to put a level on the flash shoe, the kind you read from behind the cameras. Pay attention to it. Eventually you might correct the problem.

 

Very best of luck. It's going to be okay.

Try framing your shots next time by making sure at least one horizontal, vertical or even diagonal is square with the frame. By doing so you may violate the classic rule that the horizon should be straight because it is of no importance any longer.

 

Just take a look at the (poor) photograph I took recently. It all seems weird at first glance; the camera is pointed upward from vertical and the horizon is not square with the frame.

 

At second glance it starts to look pretty logical because of the fact that I purposely placed the right hand side of the building square with the vertical of the frame.

 

When I look at your photos, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with your photos. Here is what I think happened: your framing was correct until you pressed the shutter button on the right hand side of your MP just a bit too excited....Just check the other photos you took that day.

Press down on the shutter release, not push down which seems to be what you do. Or, wear a boot on one foot and a flip-flop on the other.

Your camera must have been tilted at the time of the exposures!

I'm sure I know the answer. First, as several have noted, ther camera was aimed upwards, in order to include the height of the subject. When the camera back is not kept vertical, that will cause the vertical lines to converge. That is just a necessary consequence of tilting the camera up. The only ways out of it are: 1. Use a wide angle lens that will cover the height of the scene without being aimed upward; 2. use a perspective control lens, or a camera with a rising front; 3. climb up a stairway, seek a second-flooor window or balcony, or otherwise gain a high enough camera angle to cover the subject with the camera back held vertical.

 

There is a tendency, when there are converging verticals, to tilt the camera to the left or right, to make one edge of the picture vertical. That is exactly what you did in picture #1. You favored the left edge of the scene, and tilted the camera to the right, to keep the left-hand verticals vertical. That resulted in an exaggeration of the leaning verticals on the right, making those lines lean in more dramatically. It's OK to do that, as long as it's what you wanted; but you should be aware of when you are doing it, since it may not give the effect you had in mind. In this case it resulted in tilting foreground lines off of the horizontal, giving the shot an overall out-of-kilter effect.

 

Picture 2: The camera was not tilted upwards. How do I know? Because the left and right umbrellas are parallel. Had the camera been tilted up, the umbrellas would be leaning in toward each other. Instead, the whole camera was tilted off level to the left. (Why?)

 

Picture #3: Here the camera was again aimed upward, back not vertical. How can I tell? Because the verticals are converging, coming closer together at the top. Here, the camera was then tilted to the left, partially straightening the verticals on the right. The result is a bit more sucessful, IMO, than in #1.

 

So here's my point: there's a tendency to guide off either the left or right edge, in an instinctive effort to straighten the picture. But often this will result in putting the picture out of kilter. So it's important to be aware of how our almost unconscious efforts to correct the perspective will affect the picture. It's easier to get the hang of it by viewing a groundglass, such as an SLR or a twin-lens medium-format camera. An old Yashica D, Rolleicord, or what-have-you is a good learning tool for this.

Leon, I think your next course of action involves some experimentation. All will be revealed - hopefully.

Unless you are perfectly perpendicular to your subjects you'll always see convergence. (You must be both horizontally and vertically perpendicular, or either one can get you.)It's the laws of physics at work. The wider angle your lens, the more convergence will be emphasized. I too, like your photos anyway.

"feisty bunch of guys wondering why a $5700 camera won't automatically take a great photo."

<p>You spend that much money on a trophy camera and can't be bothered to read a basic book on composition? Here's a perfect example that Greenspun was right!

Some people draw conclusions like curtains . . . .

Leon, with what Rob F. said, and the other comments, you have a comprehensive answer, but I add this. If you don't like your results, then to counter the influence of the mind's amazing adaptive ability, it helps if you think of your composition pictorially and geometrically, SEPARATELY. You can switch your thinking back and forth between the two views in your mind as you look at your composition. For me, it can take a bit of time, but for some shots, its worth it. It may be that very experienced great photographers do this automatically, but it is not easy for me.

 

I learned these techniques using a 24 and 20 Nikkor and have built on them using the VC15 on the M, but I am finding that these ideas are applicable to a lot of shots with even just a 35, which is not that wide. I normally try to keep the camera vertically and horizontally level, or I deliberately shoot on an extreme diagonal. I sometimes even have to stand on my tip toes to include just those last few inches I need to keep the camera vertical and include a small detail. Of courese, in that situation, its best to be using a fast shutter speed.

 

The great thing about what you are exploring is that it will apply to every type of photography you choose: SLR or rangefinder, digital or film. Have fun.

Less beer, more espresso.

Mark, John, Rob and all others; thanks a lot. Interesting read. I will have to be a bit more careful next time I guess.

Leon, I believe there have been some issues with the lenshood not bayoneting on parallel to the camera body, with this particular lens.

 

Is it possible that you have such a problem and are also using the frontmost edge(as seen through the viewfinder) of this hood as a "level" when composing? Just a thought