Perspecitve correction lens or just use photoshop?

[louisb1]

Until I was introduced to the perspective correction in PS I assumed that in

order to follow my passion of photographing buildings I would eventually have

to get a PS lens.

 

I'm new to the digital domain so can anyone tell me if PS has replaced PC

lens. Is the PC in PS2 good enough? It appears that way for me in small sized

images for the web.

 

LouisB

[pico_digoliardi]

There are things that a proper view camera that you cannot do in in Photoshop, however if you can settle for modest sized prints you can still do some. It depends upon how much you want very good outcomes.

 

And there is no PC lens that can do what a view camera can - they just don't have the movements necessary for many subjects, and they are rarely wide enough.

[jon crispin]

Louis, like anything else, the closer to the final output that you get in your original capture,

the better off you are. The only problem using a PC lens on a digital camera is that you lose

the wide angle coverage. My 28 becomes a 42. I still use it alot and prefer it to messing

around in PS. Just my opinion. Jon

[RaymondC]

PS you can tilt but you cannot shift.

[oceanphysics]

Ray has it backwards.

[oceanphysics]

Not that anybody asked about tilting.

[stephen hazelton]

The other option is to use a wider lens than required, keep the camera level, and then crop off all the extra foreground. Of course, this reduces the quality of your output, but is definitely worth a try, if you already have a wide lens. Right now, I think the widest shift lens available is Canon's 24mm, and they have digital-wide-angles quite a bit wider than that.

[tommyinca]

FWIW, Two points

 

1. Photoshop perspective correction trade off resolution for correction. If you have spare resolution to trade, a great tool.

 

2. Perspective correct is just that "correction" not control. While a PC lens or view camera does control and not correction.

[paul.droluk]

The simple answer...

 

correction of simple perspective distortion (like keystoning) in PS is certainly do-able, but

in NO WAY is it a substitute for corrections made IN camera. Unfortunately, all of the wide

angle PC lenses available perform so poorly on digital sensors that you are actually no

worse off by doing simple corrections in PS, even though they are destructive.

 

If you are simply viewing your photos on a computor screen, using them for web based

viewing, or making small prints... it doesn't really matter anyway, as nobody can see the

degradation in quality.

 

Now the less simple answer...

 

You say your "passion" is architectural photography. To excel at this type of work, you

might want to think about using a 4x5 camera that has movements... copious movements.

There is no mystery why virtually every professional architectural photographer uses a

Technical View Camera. One with as much movement capability as possible, and lenses

with tons of extra coverage to fully exploit those movements. Usually this is a 4x5 camera,

though technical view cameras are available from 6x9 format and larger. There simply is

NO digital SUBSTITUTE at this time.

 

IMHO, architectural subjects (and landscapes) require viewing at LARGE output sizes. The

nature of the subject requires it. It is next to impossible to express the magnitude of large

or vast subjects with small reproductions... wether perspective corrections have been

performed or not. Another reason why the most successful architectural and landscape

professionals still use 4x5 and larger film capture... their final output is normally large.

 

It's a matter of using the right tool for the job at hand, so I'm not just digital bashing here.

My D2X gets FAR more use than my 4x5 or 6x17, because the subject matter I most often

shoot doesn't require the capabilities afforded by large film capture. That being said, when

I'm intentionally shooting landscapes or architecture I ALWAYS shoot 4x5... or larger.

 

So for now I would suggest doing basic perspective corrections in PS, rather than buying a

PC lens. When your "passion" grows to critical mass, get a View Camera and learn how to

use it... you'll be AMAZED at what can be done with one.

 

BTW, with everyone and his dog shooting with DSLR's nowadays you can buy a complete

(gently used) 4x5 with a lens on FleaBay for around the same cost as a wide angle PC

lense.

[stephen hazelton]

Well, maybe by then, they'll have a 4x5 digital sensor available for $50 or so. : )

[luisarguelles]

Louis, let me tell you one of my famous sentences: "one second in hardware equals one hour in software". Translation here: The PC lens gets the control and corection in the same instant you take the picture, PS tricks are only more or less good tricks.

[RaymondC]

Yeah don't bother with PC lenses in digital.

Use the free transform function in PS and pull the points around.

 

That's the ball really for SLRs or move to LF. Film SLR has the adv of PC lenses but still afar from LF. LF is cheap these days.

[ShunCheung]

I would say free transform in PhotoShop is pretty easy. The main issue is that it is destructive, as you lose quality from doing so because you are throwing away (a lot of) pixels. However, you don't need any special lenses or backs. To me, it is fine for occasional use (as in my case). It helps to have extra pixels to start with.

 

You definitely get a lot more freedom with large format. However, I wouldn't say it is cheap. Film and processing cost is going up. For large format, it is several dollars every time you press the shutter release. Of course, you learn to work slowly and accurately with it.

[wharridge]

"Ray has it backwards."

 

...not entirely, tilt the camera to include what you want, then tilt again in PS to make the verticals parallel to each other.

 

...Wayne

[Rob F.]

I use the 28mm and 35mm PC-Nikkors (I shoot with film). The 28mm (42mm in digital) is a good tool to have, when it is wide enough for you. The question is, will 42mm effective focal length be wide enough. Even 35mm is often not wide enough with film.

 

If you go the Photoshop route (I've done it, it works) then shoot wide enough to allow an extra margin at the left and right. That's because as you correct the converging verticals, the picture becomes trapezoidal shaped, and you'll want to square up the left and right edges. That will cost you some picture width. The more correction that's needed, the greater the margin that should be allowed for this cropping. A lens of 16 or 18mm actual focal length, IMO, would not be too wide.

[brent_mcsharry1]

Paul Droluk has summarised things beautifully. Personally I could not disagree with a single point he made.

 

There is a little confusion creaping into this thread, as there often is in non-LF forums regarding terminology. If you are interested in view cameras, there is a good description of basic terminology here:

 

http://www.toyoview.com/LargeFrmtTech/lgformat.html

 

even though we use the term tilt in the english language as a synonym for angle (eg to tilt the camera upwards) in LF jargon tilt refers specifically to tilting the front (the board holding the lens) and/or rear standards (the board holding the viewing glass and film) up or down relative to the base (or monorail) of the camera so that the sandards are no longer parallel.

 

No nikon lens provides tilt.

[david_elm]

The PC Micro-Nikkor 85/f2.8 does shift and tilt. Great for high resolution panoramas.