gyoung143
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #1 · Architecture with the GFX100s II and GF20-35 | |
mabra wrote:
Hello Gerry, I also think that the GF20-35 is an excellent lens that exhibits relatively little distortion. Nevertheless, distortion naturally occurs when you get very close to subjects—such as the building in this case. For this very reason, Bernd and Hilla Becher for example always photographed their industrial structures from a greater distance using longer focal lengths, precisely to capture the most neutral and undistorted image of the building possible. Conversely, if you approach the building at very close range using an ultra-wide-angle lens, distortion will inevitably occur, and you will never achieve a neutral representation—no matter how high-quality the lens you use may be....Show more →
To say that 'distortion naturally occurs....' is not really true. It's all tied up with a 2 dimensional reproduction of a 3 dimensional scene, and how your mind perceives the two. Your eye has a 'field of view' of more than 180 degrees horizontally, a lot more than any rectilinear wide angle you can buy. (Only fisheye 'toys' are as wide) but your mind usually concentrates on a narrwer angle, much the same as a 'standard' lens on a camera (which is why it's called 'normal' or 'standard'). Nonetheless you can make yourself observe a wider angle, and if you stood where the camera is in the third shot above you could 'see' that view. The photo is a good test piece for a lens, and looks to me, without taking a ruler too it, to show an exemplary absence of optical distortion. Straight lines are straight, rectangles viewed at angle are nicely trapezoid, no bowing ,'barrel' or 'pincushion' never mind 'moustache'. When you look at the 2d representation as here, it doesn't 'look right' to your brain because its a print or flare screen object, not the real building, and the brain handles them differently.
Buildings will look more 'natural' in 2d if the photo is taken from further away, but you may not have that option, or may, as here, exploit that human reaction for pictorial effect.
Ironically it is the common use of vertical shift, or 'rising front' on a technical camera, to 'correct verticals' that is actually a distortion, of perspective. When you look at a tall building from ground level the top is further away than the bottom, so in 2d records smaller and the verticals of the building converge. Now the brain knows that normally the ends of a building are straight and parallel so if they converge on a print etc it looks wrong, even though its 'right'..
I often use a small amount of vertical 'correction' with city shots of buildings, and you wouldn't notice, it looks more natural. You can use it creatively, if you get close, either fully 'correcting' and getting a building with dramatic shape, or not 'correcting' at all. Your choice.
Perhaps it's interesting that the easy software 'correction of verticals' was to be found in Photoshop under the 'Distortions' menu! And I think even in Lightroom they refrain from calling it a 'correction'.
If you spend your pro life using a Sinar monorail, or a technical camera, a good understanding of what you are doing with the movements is vital, and was part of my photographic education. Later repeated with students, although what you can do with a 'hand camera' which the GFX and FX cameras are is limited. Very few pro photographers now seem to use technical cameras, largey because quality from smaller formats is far superior to what could be done with small film formats, and post processing software will do so much so easily.
Gerry
|
