It might be more interesting to you, but the question here concerns
perspective correction using either a lens or using PhotoShop. Using a
different lens destroys the scientific validity of the test. One could not
guarantee that any observed differences were NOT due to using a different
lens.
Regards,
Bob...
------------------------------------------------
"A picture is worth a thousand words,
but it uses up three thousand times the memory."
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"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?
