The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon 24mm Pce lens

viablex1

Active member
Anyone using these for shooting buildings?

I have had a couple of times where the distortion in really terrible like the building is bent in the middle toward the ground.

I am guessing on this forum people have run into that

What do you do

Matto
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Can you post an example of what you're seeing? I do not get that with my 24 PC-E. My initial guess is you may be over-correcting.
 

viablex1

Active member
should I have tilted it forward maybe a little?

I don't think you can do both on the lens at the same time but maybe wrong about that also are the axis off and have to be aligned by nikon for shift and tilt?

obviously this is operator error.

I would ask Routlaw but over the years I have wore him out lol!!!
 

wattsy

Active member
It might be my eyes but, in addition to the overcorrection that John has already pointed out, it looks like there's some kind of moustache distortion going on. It might be, of course, that the road and yellow kerb are not very flat in reality but they certainly look a little wavy in the photo.
 

Arne Hvaring

Well-known member
The "correct" way to do it is to first level your camera so that it is absolutely horizontal and then apply the required shift (and tilt if needed). A bubble level might help. This will give you parallell lines. However sometimes a slight convergence may look more natural; in those cases, tip the camera slightly upwards. Hope this helps.
 

viablex1

Active member
The "correct" way to do it is to first level your camera so that it is absolutely horizontal and then apply the required shift (and tilt if needed). A bubble level might help. This will give you parallell lines. However sometimes a slight convergence may look more natural; in those cases, tip the camera slightly upwards. Hope this helps.
ok thanks,

I used a shoe level and viewfinder, and used the viewfinder grid lines across the top and then shifted until the building was in the frame, but I didn't make sure that the lines on the side were parallel.

I agree but don't have near the technical expertise that others have on here and would never pretend to. But I think I see the moustache distortion as well.

I really appreciate the comments and will definitely take them into consideration. I might even ask to go back here to reshoot this, it would make a great print if I could get it correct.

Also makes sense to tip the camera up, thanks

Matto
 

Chris C

Member
should I have tilted it forward maybe a little
...
Hi- With wide shift lenses in particular [and 24 is very wide], great attention must be paid to getting the tripod platform head absolutely level for building photography. Your camera is slightly pointed downwards, hence the obvious divergence.

In framing architecture shots, pay great attention to the left/right edges of the frame to ensure your verticals are parallel, you might find this easier with just a token amount of vertical rise to 'set' the tripod platform adjustments before your final rising-front adjustment on the lens. These platform adjustments can be minor and subtle; I couldn't do them with a tripod ball head, a geared head is much easier [and a geared head on top of a levelling-base is even better].

In your picture, there are optical illusions at play. The columns are built with convergence, and it's an old building so you can't trust that any building's 'level' is actually 'true', yet alone any wavy tendencies in the road and kerb stones.

The workhorse cameras for architecture were 5x4 view-cameras; they gave a far larger screen than 35mm style dslrs. Big screens are far easier to set an image for parallel verticals [or horizontals] than roll-film view-cameras, and especially dslrs. This stuff takes practice and some concentration on picture framing details [or a sort-out visit to Lightroom].

Good luck.

………….. Chris
 

viablex1

Active member
Hi- With wide shift lenses in particular [and 24 is very wide], great attention must be paid to getting the tripod platform head absolutely level for building photography. Your camera is slightly pointed downwards, hence the obvious divergence.

In framing architecture shots, pay great attention to the left/right edges of the frame to ensure your verticals are parallel, you might find this easier with just a token amount of vertical rise to 'set' the tripod platform adjustments before your final rising-front adjustment on the lens. These platform adjustments can be minor and subtle; I couldn't do them with a tripod ball head, a geared head is much easier [and a geared head on top of a levelling-base is even better].

In your picture, there are optical illusions at play. The columns are built with convergence, and it's an old building so you can't trust that any building's 'level' is actually 'true', yet alone any wavy tendencies in the road and kerb stones.

The workhorse cameras for architecture were 5x4 view-cameras; they gave a far larger screen than 35mm style dslrs. Big screens are far easier to set an image for parallel verticals [or horizontals] than roll-film view-cameras, and especially dslrs. This stuff takes practice and some concentration on picture framing details [or a sort-out visit to Lightroom].

Good luck.

………….. Chris

thanks, and yes you are right the screen is so little and I should have paid more attention to the sides being parallel

matto
 

routlaw

Member
My take is a bit different on this… I think. Could be semantics but what I am seeing is the camera back was not plumb on its vertical and horizontal axis and thus not parallel to the building. This assumes of course the building over the centuries has not fallen out of plumb itself. I tend to use the in camera "Virtual Horizon" tool found in the menu under the tool icon to initially setup a shot like this. I have found this tool at least on my two cameras, D4 and Df to be very accurate. Just like using a LF field camera this is done of course with the lens at all zero detents, with no adjustments. Once the camera is perfectly plumb you can make minor adjustments using the grid lines for assist within the VF if necessary so that they are parallel with the building lines, again on both axis. Understood too not all tripod heads allow for such minute and precise leveling and adjustments. Geared heads tend to rule here, but have found my Linhof 3 way leveling head to be just as effective, quicker and way more solid than any geared head I have owned.

Once you have the camera (back) plumb and level then its time to make adjustments with the PC-E lens. In this case I would have shifted the lens up far enough to crop out most of the foreground road. Its subjective I guess but I don't see it adding anything to the picture or composition. Looks like perhaps a rainy and heavy overcast day, so with that in mind and given the additional sky area from the shift I might have done a few bracketed exposures blending the overcast sky into the scene with a tad more drama. Alternatively one could also crop the image as a long horizontal if the heavy overcast skies and foreground road were not wanted.

Just my two cents worth. Hope it helps.

rob
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Camera back needs to be absolutely dead perpendicular to the ground for no vertical convergence and then square to the building for no horizontal skew. If you angle down slightly you get your result, which is the total opposite of pleasing. In fact, a teeny bit tilted up generates a more pleasing result (at least IMHO) by adding just the teeniest bit of "normal" convergence to your verticals.
 

pfigen

Member
This is a quick simple Photoshop fix to straighten it out. There does not appear to be any significant barrel or pincushion distortion in this image. It's an image that tricks the eye because you're looking up at the top and the center parts of the facade, being closer to the camera, are also higher in the frame, helping to give the impression there might be some distortion. After a quick Free Transform, it's easy to see that the lens is actually pretty straight, at least in this instance.

As has been mentioned previously, leveling the camera prior to shooting is the best practice. These days the iPhone (and Android) app Clinometer, is my mobile tool of choice. Ninety-nine cents and always with me.
 

viablex1

Active member
vertical and horizontal axis and thus not parallel to the building.

This is my biggest problem overall for sure.

I was going to email you the question but I figured I would give you a rest, lol

Matto
 

DDudenbostel

Active member
I do quite a bit of interior and exterior work for architects and interior designers and never had a problem. It appears to me that the camera just wasn't perfectly level. Bubble levels aren't that great IMO. I use mine on a D800 mostly and use the artificial horizon built into the camera and viewed on the back. It's a very good lens.
 

viablex1

Active member
I do quite a bit of interior and exterior work for architects and interior designers and never had a problem. It appears to me that the camera just wasn't perfectly level. Bubble levels aren't that great IMO. I use mine on a D800 mostly and use the artificial horizon built into the camera and viewed on the back. It's a very good lens.
thanks I will be doing that for sure for now on

Matto
 
Top