"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 9 Mar 2005 at 11:42, Bob Blakely wrote: > >> Ok, Robby boy, we have a building with an intricate antenna structure atop >> the >> mechanical penthouse near my house. Using some of my favorite B&W, I'll >> shoot it >> vertical frame with the shift at max extension, vertical film plane (proper >> correction), and with the camera placed such that the antenna structure is at >> the very top of the frame. I'll then set the lens for zero correction and >> tilt >> the camera up to get, as best as possible, the same view. I'll then have the >> local pro shop process and digitize the images (from my experience, this >> will be >> about a 30 mb raw file). After correcting the distorted image in PhotoShop. >> I'll crop to the antenna structure. Perhaps, you're right and I'll see >> little if >> any difference in the rendering of the structure's intricate vertical >> elements. >> Ya think? > >It would be an interesting venture
As I suggested in another post, it would be a more interesting (and more valid) venture to compare the shift lens to an excellent *non-shift* prime (with correction done in Photoshop) since that's really the choice most of us are faced with: Do I spend the bucks on a shift lens or a top-notch prime of similar focal length? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
