which lens to use for architectural photography???

[dianna_conrad]

<p>I am a portrait photographer and have recently been approached to do some architectural photography for a business. What is the best type of lens to use for that type of photography?</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>A tilt and shift lens, or a camera with movements.</p>

[leicaglow]

Stitching software can help in a pinch or in lieu of a t/s lens or camera. I used to use a Hasselblad

swc/m, a view camera, or a 28mm Nikkor t/s lens depending on economics.

[Robin Smith]

<p>Do you actually need a new lens? Suggest you scope out the site and then report back.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Mukul has it, if you want to do it right.</p>

<p>"Good enough for government work" standards however, let you do some perspective control in post-processing. All the same, the TS-E (Canon) or PCE (Nikon) type lenses with shift and tilt are necessary for quality 35mm architectural photography. A nice view camera is even better, but digital large format is pretty pricey.</p>

<p>If this is a casual sort of thing, you can use the perspective and correction tools in Adobe Camera Raw, in "Lens Correction," and the "Crop Tool" with 'perspective' clicked on.</p>

<p>Another strategy if it is just some exterior views is to get far enough back so you can keep the camera level and then crop the image to the 'meat' of the building. What causes much of the 'distortion' in the image is having the camera tilted up or down.</p>

<p>Lots of photographers purposely use what is called 'keystone' or 'falling over' perspective for effect, also.</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Suggest you scope out the site and then report back.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Exactly. Hard to make a good recommendation without knowing what the situation is. All the tools and techniques comments are relevant until it's clear what you are working with and need to accomplish.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Depends on the kind of buildings. Make shure that straight lines of the building are straight in the picture: use lens correction software or a good quality prime.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Perspective correcting software often gives misleading results. In JDM's corrected example above, the lines of the glass panels may be now vertically parallel to the side of the photo but the panels look more square than the true rectangular 2:1 that they are in the uncorrected photo. A clock tower may look like it is tilting over backwards with converging lines at the top when shot from a low angle facing up. Correcting in software so the sides of the tower are perfectly vertical will result in the clock face looking like an oval rather than round. The same thing happens when using the tilts of a view camera and I would suspect the same with a tilt shift lens.

[James G. Dainis]

<img src="http://jdainis.com/buildinga1.jpg"><BR>

Photo as shot with camera facing upward. Tall and lean with rectangular windows.</br><P>.<P>

<img src="http://jdainis.com/buildinga2.jpg"></P><P>

Corrected for keystoning in software. Short and squat with square windows. <BR>(But at least the sides are vertical)<P>

 

Which do you think gives a truer presentation of what the building actually looks like?

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>If you use perspective correction tools in Photoshop, the aspect ratio of buildings is preserved if you stretch the top and shrink the bottom equally. It emulates the use of a rising front camera quite well, except you lose a lot of the frame through cropping. When shooting, make sure the center of the plane to be corrected is vertical, so all convergence is symmetrical about the center.</p>

<p>You can also obtain the correct vertical perspective if you keep the film plan vertical, use a lens wide enough to to cover the subject, and crop unwanted areas. Or you could rent a view camera. The cost is usually rather low, compared to MF or digital gear anyway.</p>

<p>A book, "The Camera," by Ansel Adams is a good place to learn about use of a view camera.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>If you are to photograph relatively small structures, then, as Robin Smith said, your existing equipment may be all you need. For large and tall buildings, you will find that distance helps: photograph from as far away as is possible. The height of your camera is also important: sometimes a tall building can be photographed from a high window across the road. Even for a two-storey structure you may find that standing on a car roof makes things better. My first answer was based on (1) your self-description, which implies <em>professional</em>; and (2) your likely clients' approach, which implies <em>commercial</em>. The two together call for something better than make-do work. I have to say, though, that software tools are pretty powerful.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A small note about "correct" perspective: the images showing the converging verticals are the ones showing the correct perspective. When you look up at a building, you'll see verticals converge as naturally and correct as you see the sides of a road converge when you look straigh ahead (i.e. not up).<br>It's not always necessary to make verticals run parallel. Making them do that can even destroy an otherwise good image.<br><br>The 'compressed' result of perspective correction is indeed because the software does not preserve the aspect ratio of the building, but stretches in one direction, not the other. To create a truer to life image, the image has to be stretched vertically as well. The bad news is that when you do, it stretches equally in all parts of the image so though better, fully correct it will never be (unless there is some software that matches a vertical stretch gradient to the horizontal stretch gradient applied when 'correcting' verticals).

[colin carron]

<p>As with all photography, the most important thing is the light. So I suggest you study the exterior (and interior where required) of the building to see when the sun gives the best light for the building. In addition the most advantageous weather conditions are important too as these will form the background to your work.<br /> As for <em>tilt/shift versus post processing</em> to correct verticals it really depends on the quality you require. Unless you need the absolute top quality and large prints you can use post-processing to correct verticals and I would suggest that is an perfectly acceptable way to go in most cases.<br /> A good quality wide angle zoom and PS correction in most cases provides probably the basic acceptable standard, though a good prime wide angle lens is usually better. Take all the advantages you can - tripod, timer release, optimum aperture for sharpness. If you can get further away from the building and user a longer focal length then do so as less perspective distortion is apparent. In addition try to keep the wide angle lens as level as possible as this also eliminates convergence but you then have to trade that off against usually cropping the empty foreground. <br /> Note that in James' example of corrected verticals he has made the verticals almost upright. This is perhaps over-correction as it not what is seen by the eye and I suggest you leave a little convergence (either in T/S adjustment or PS) as it looks more natural to most people. In this case 'what looks right is right'.<br /> While wide angle lenses are useful in capturing a whole building, a longer lens such as a telephoto can be used to capture parts and details. The characteristic low perspective distortion of a telephoto lens can be used to give a sense of monumentality to a building. <br /> The uploaded photo shows how a shot is adjusted then cropped in PS to make verticals less convergent but still leaving some convergence. Note also the use of light and weather to make the photo hopefully more interesting. However you may need to follow a brief which does not permit such things.</p><div></div>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Bite the bullet and get a used perspective control lens.</p>

[dianna_conrad]

<p>Thank you, everyone, for your helpful responses. My first location is a small rural school, including baseball field. I'm going to practice with my existing lenses and see how it goes. My client is not in a huge hurry to get the pictures so I will be able to play with it until I am satisfied with the results and feel confident in selling the pictures.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Rural schools are usually only one or two storeys tall. I have a 28mm PC-Nikkor shift lens but seldom needed much, if any, shift correction for rural buildings I photographed for a project several years ago. Just getting a little additional height is usually enough to avoid perspective problems with ordinary lenses: standing in the bed of my pickup truck, or using a 3-step stepladder.</p>

<p>The same trick works indoors. Tote a two or three-step stepladder and a tall tripod - a tripod tall enough to elevate the camera above your eye level when standing on the floor or ground. Getting the camera to at least mid-height of a room with 10-12 foot tall ceilings will usually get the desired framing without avoiding tilts.</p>

<p>The main advantage to a shift lens in many situations is the rise-fall/shift mechanism can be used to tweak the composition without needing to move the tripod. A pan head with geared mechanism and macro slider can help with this too. Very handy in tight spaces where there are limited options for setting the tripod, or when you're nearly ready to take the shot and realize you need a small adjustment for the perfect framing. A slight adjustment to a perspective correction lens can shift the scene up to a foot indoors to the left, right, up/down, or a combination of those movements. These same adjustments - with either a shift lens or macro slider - can also be used to align shots for easier and more accurate stitching of two or more photos.</p>

[rashedahmed]

<p>If you have a 17-35mm lens then it's good for architectural works. Just keep some extra space around your subject to be corrected ( perspective ) later in Photoshop. The best to use a 17mm or 24mm perspective control lens. </p>

[anthony_brookes5]

Verticals can be corrected in Photoshop with transform - distort.