Does Photoshop replace view camera movements?

[steve_singleton2]

As a non-digital photographer, I can't evaluate claims I've heard about doing perspective correction in image-editing software like Photoshop. Obviously, many high end digital back manufacturers produce products for the view camera. What's the story today and into the foreseeable future?

[ellis_vener_photography]

I think your second sentence answers your question. remapping an entire image is tedious and why do it if you can make the corrections when you are making the image (either on digital or film media).

[brian_c._ellis]

Unless you're in a position to spend megabucks, IMHO digital and large

format photography don't mix very well. Forgetting about the digital

backs (megabucks), you have to be able to scan the negative or

transparency into your computer. Large format scanners even

approaching the quality you're used to with film start at about $8,000

(the Nikon 4500) and go up from there. Service bureaus want

approximately $15 or more per large format scan. If you're willing to

accept very poor quality, use a desk top scanner (or, better yet,

switch to 35mm).

[dan_smith]

My first impression would be no. But, I haven't tried it so don't

really know. I do know the photoshop controls allow skewing images

so I don't see why they wouldn't work for this. I will try it with

some images first though and then let you know what it looks like.

 

<p>

 

I do think, based on experience, that nothing can take the place of

doing the job right in the first place. It is always faster & easier

than trying to correct later. But for those times when enough tilt

isn't available for the shot it might be a viable option. Darkroom

printers for years have been using tilted easels to make up for on

location limitations.

 

<p>

 

As for cost, large format scans aren't too expensive, especially when

the alternative is another image in which the building looks like it

it falling over backwards.

[j_greely]

If you have plenty of bits to spare, you can emulate <i>some</i>

movements in Photoshop, and they even give <a

href="http://www.adobe.com/studio/tipstechniques/keystone/main.html">a

n example</a> on their web site; note that it will cost you image

resolution. You can't reproduce swings and tilts, since Photoshop

can't focus your picture, and you can't precisely emulate many shifts,

since it may not be possible to stand in a position that would give

you the right bits to work with.

 

<p>

 

For the canonical example of photographing a mirror straight-on

without the reflection of the camera appearing in it, fixing it in

Photoshop would require painting over the camera with a

realistic-looking scene, which could be quite a chore! I think the

only way to do that well would be to shoot a second frame from the

mirror's position and paste it into the first picture, and the layout

of the room may not permit it.

 

<p>

 

For product and architecture work, I don't see "digital movements"

offering anything but pain and expense.

[alan_gibson6]

If you have a choice of doing a movement with the camera, or later in

software, the camera choice will always give you better quality. This

applies whether you have "real" or "digital" film, and will always

apply.

[tarek]

I know for sure that the Adobe Photoshop does perspective control.

However, this eats up the sides of the image. You can shoot your

vertical subject without any perspective correction with the camera

back and count on the photoshop, but make sure that you leave "extra"

space on the film sides around your distorted subject to allow for

computer perspective control.

[lot_wxs]

No, not for perspective-control and not even for selective sharpness

or DoF. Digitally implemented sharpness after the picture was taken

has its limits.