«

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:17:20 -0500, Schneider <>
wrote:
> One thing that has been a thorn in my side since the beginning of
> photography. Those who will COMPLETELY correct for perspective
distortions
> in architectural photography; whether done in the darkroom with a
tilted
> easel and lens, by a tilt-shift/swing lens and/or view-camera, or
now
> digitally on a computer with your favorite editing software.


> IT WAS WRONG AT THE BEGINNING, IT WAS WRONG ALL LAST CENTURY, AND
IT'S
> STILL WRONG TODAY.


> I don't care what every other photography book has ever brainwashed
you
> into believing, IT'S WRONG.


> I don't take much architectural photography (mostly because I see
no reason
> to try to exploit and capitalize another artist's work, I'd rather
create
> my own and take full credit for it), so I had to hunt in my
archives to
> find a building that I could use for a demo, cropped from the side
of a
> larger image.




> In this image, which building in the three frames is the most
visually
> pleasing and realistic looking?


> <http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1404/5570472809_54df71e4b7_b.jpg>




> It shouldn't be distorted into some unnatural looking out-of-shape
> monstrosity. It should reflect how all people see buildings,
naturally from
> an average human vantage-point. Remove *SOME* but not ALL
perspective
> distortion if you must play with your toys.


> To tell the truth, I actually prefer the original totally
uncorrected
> building, the leftmost image. It not only preserves realistic
perspective,
> but it conveys a much more impressive altitude to the building than
the
> other two. (Though it could use a just a slight more tilting to the
right
> to make it stand more naturally.)


> The next time that some brain-dead wannabee idiot who can never
think for
> themselves tells you to align the sides of your buildings with the
sides of
> the frame, keeping all of them at nice and tidy 90-degree angles,
because
> that's what every other photographer and book has ever told them to
do
> their whole life, tell them to shove their untalented and
blind-man's
> advice up their ignorant ass.


> THEY'RE WRONG AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.


> "Even if 7 billion people are believing and doing a foolish thing,
it
> remains a foolish thing."

Only in your opinion. When it comes to art, only the artist has the
right to decide what is right.

--
Peter from my Droid

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:57:16 +1100, N <> wrote:
> On 31/03/2011, Peter N wrote:
> >
> > Only in your opinion. When it comes to art, only the artist has
the right to
> > decide what is right.


> Except if they want to sell it, then the customer decides.

That depends. If what my potential customer wanted, was, in my sole
opinion, was offensive, my answer would be no.

--
Peter from my Droid

>>
>>> On 2/04/2011, Peter N wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:57:16 +1100, N<> wrote:
>>>>> On 31/03/2011, Peter N wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only in your opinion. When it comes to art, only the artist has
>>>> the right to
>>>>>> decide what is right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Except if they want to sell it, then the customer decides.
>>>>
>>>> That depends. If what my potential customer wanted, was, in my sole opinion,
>>>> was offensive, my answer would be no.
>>>
>>> I thought we were talking about perspective correction not offensive
>>> imagery.


I was talking about art.


--
Peter