On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:36:17 +0100, Bob Talbot <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote/replied to: >Sorry to correct you. > >Absolutely no perspective correction needed. The "trick" was to hold >the film plane (image plane in digitals?) upright and parallel with >the front face of the building. Not too difficult with a gridded >focus screen. > >This inevitably resulted in a large expanse of lawn at the bottom - >which I just cropped off. I also shaved about 15% of the width off >from the right edge for gallery display to avoid it being too long and >thin. > >I'm wondering what made you think otherwise? I just figured you always showed a full frame image and likely couldn't hold the camera plumb without strange framing. Plus of course, I wanted to inspire some chat... I shot a whole house full of architectural photos with my film EOS and a 20-35mm lens. I managed to keep all verticals straight using your method. Interesting assignment and the clients loved it. >Was it something in the picture ? > >Yet another demo I keep thinking of doing one day is a side-by-side >comparison of a "straight" and a perspective-corrected shot. They >won't be the same: the clues are in the picture. Maybe if you have something round it might have gone oval, things like that. Not in your shot though. -- Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company: http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits - Powerlet, Posi-Lock I'm a BMW rider and enthusiast.
