Tilt and Shift vs. Optic correction software

I have a canon 5D with two zoom lenses 17-40 and 24-105 and use it mainly for architectural photography. Can an optic correcting software such as dxo or bibble achieve the same results as a tilt and shift lens, or is it still best to use a tilt and shift lens for true perspective? If this can be done digitally which software is best for the job.
many thanks

My point of view is that Photoshop and some other perspective correction programs do it better. I use that feature often for my pics. Jouni

I use a combination of both. I like using tilt/shift lenses because it means you know what you are going to get at composition stage, which is important to me. For any significant perspective adjustments in photoshop you are also relying on the program to stretch/interpolate. However... the 24mm shift is soft and has lots of CA when shifted by a significant amount. The 45mm however is another story, really sharp and a lovely lovely lens!

Perhaps you should get your TS24 checked. Mine is decently sharp, and that's consistent with the Luminous Landscape test. You're right that there is some CA visible especially at significant shift settings, but there is a technique for fixing that with, for example, PTLens, even tho' the lens is shifted. There are published tests that show serious loss of image quality resulting from major perspective correction carried out in software; minor correction is OK, but it's best to let the lens do the hard work. You can't emulate tilt in software (or, at least, only my trying to blend multiple images, if you call that emulation).

You must have a copy that needs adjustment. The lens is quite sharp - I sometimes use it unshifted/tilted. At extreme shift it suffers from CA, but you can get around that in software.

As for software vs hardware shift correction - both have advantages and disadvantages. In tricky situations a combination of both is probably best.

Of course, you can't do tilt in software.

RS_RS wrote:
There are

RS_RS said:

published tests that show serious loss of image quality resulting
from major perspective correction carried out in software; minor
correction is OK, but it's best to let the lens do the hard work.
You can't emulate tilt in software (or, at least, only my trying to
blend multiple images, if you call that emulation).

Click to expand...

I love T/S and wish I owned both the 24 and 90 to go with my 45. Its close to being my favorite lens.

But--that being said, some just don't have the patience for total use of the T/S. Shift is very easy and I've done it many times even handheld. Tit is less so--and combining the two takes some slower work--which I like. However, some just don't like that way of working, so I would consider if thiis is important to you. They are very creative lenses--plus being fine lenses used just as MF lenses in their own right.

I rented the 24 first--and used it for 2 weeks, convincing myself that a T/S was for me. I had researched and thought about one for over a year before then. Renting one is the cheap way to see if its a lens and a way of working that is for you.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries

... but I've been shooting large format for decades. I believe that lens rise is the better way, and with tilt you can also adjust the depth of field without stopping down. THEN you can touch-up in post.
KP

--



http://www.ahomls.com/photo.htm
http://www.phillipsphotographer.com
Voted Best of the City 2004 by Cincinnati Magazine

I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8! And while you're at it, don't be afraid to vote Libertarian, for REAL freedom!

Ken Phillips said:

... but I've been shooting large format for decades. I believe that
lens rise is the better way, and with tilt you can also adjust the
depth of field without stopping down. THEN you can touch-up in post.
KP

Click to expand...

Agreed. Software does it with interpolation that destroys the image for future work. I can do most with extreme front rise with my view cam then any software can do. To say software does it better is rubbish!

Ken Phillips said:

--



http://www.ahomls.com/photo.htm
http://www.phillipsphotographer.com
Voted Best of the City 2004 by Cincinnati Magazine
I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8! And while you're
at it, don't be afraid to vote Libertarian, for REAL freedom!

Click to expand...

PanoTools can apply a decent shift but there will be a loss in resolution as the image warps to adjust the image.

Tilt can ONLY be applied by taking multiple exposures with different focus and warping them using PanoTools and blend in PS. You will need to optimize the image allowing for different lenses on each shot.

TS/E lenses are still the "best" solution if the situation allows for it.

Steven

--
---
Summer 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

Dave Luttmann said:

Agreed. Software does it with interpolation that destroys the
image for future work. I can do most with extreme front rise with
my view cam then any software can do. To say software does it
better is rubbish!

Click to expand...

And to be honest, to say "[you] can do [more] extreme front rise with [your] view camera than any software can do" is also complete rubbish to the Nth degree.

That said, the TS/E solution is still preferred if the situation allows for it.

Steven

--
---
Summer 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

Steven Noyes said:

Dave Luttmann said:

Agreed. Software does it with interpolation that destroys the
image for future work. I can do most with extreme front rise with
my view cam then any software can do. To say software does it
better is rubbish!

Click to expand...

And to be honest, to say "[you] can do [more] extreme front rise
with [your] view camera than any software can do" is also complete
rubbish to the Nth degree.

Click to expand...

Spoken like the clueless. The amount of software interpolation to create the effect of using extreme front rise exceeds 50%. Then to interpolate the image further for printing means that your image will be softer on one end than the other because of interpolation. So if you want your image to look like [email protected] feel free. Stating otherwise is rubbish!

I suggest you go out and use a view camera. It might open your eyes a bit. Software interpolation destroys data. A view camera doesn't. End of story!

Steven Noyes said:

That said, the TS/E solution is still preferred if the situation
allows for it.

Steven

--
---
Summer 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

Click to expand...

gareth Gardner said:

However... the 24mm shift is soft and has lots
of CA when shifted by a significant amount. The 45mm however is
another story, really sharp and a lovely lovely lens!

Click to expand...

As others have said: There may have been a problem with the 24TS-E. I have it and while it is not as sharp as other lenses, it is quite sharp, and CA is not very strong. I had rented the 45TS-E and CA was much stronger with this lens. It's true that the 45TS-E was sharper but more CA.

Bernie

Everything has been said already:

The main disadvantage of correcting in Photoshop is that you distroy the composition when correcting the perspective. Very slight corrections are ok of course, but strong corrections mean that you have to cut away parts of the image. With a shift lens you see what you get (later). As the viewfinder of even a 5d/ 1ds is still relatively small, it is sometimes hard to correct verticals exactly and it may be necessary to do some corrections afterwards in software, but it is a better way.

I personally find that the 24TS-E has some distortion which can be too strong with very regular lines but this can be corrected. But those corrections are minor compared to strong perspective corrections.

Of course a 4x5 view camera will give better control and image quality, but the time it takes to get a ready picture in the computer:

• take the image
• adjusting the camera
• processing the film,
• then scanning it etc.

with zero feedback on location makes the TS-E route 50 times easier and probably 100 times faster.

For exhibition and large prints things are clear, but with careful processing a FF Canon + TS-E can get you quite far. A lot of professional architecture photographers are using them.

bernie

Dave,

I know you worship film and truely believe it is vastly superior than digital at all things, but on this, well... Only way to say it is you are wrong.

I have applied so much rise (and yes I have used a view cameras some) on digital images it would rip your bellows right off their rails. And the warping of the image did not destroy the quality of the image at the extreme edges (there are ways around this if you plan for it when you shoot the image).

This was on stitches, and who ever said you had to use the same lens on every shot of the stitch Before flaming digital, you need to consider its strengths as well.

If we limit our self's to single shot compositions, I would agree (and did by stating the TS/E was the preferred solution). But in the general case with digital, you made a bold statement ("I can do most with extreme front rise with my view cam then any software can do.") and, from experience, I find it categorically false.

Learn what you are talking about before talking rubbish.

Steven

--
---
Summer 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

Thanks Bernie and everyone else for your advise to what has been a heated debate.

By trying out photoshop/dxo a bit on some of my photos I did notice some minor loss of quality and in some cases a reduction of image size. I will give TSE a go, probably first by renting one. As most of my architectural work requires wide angle shots I will try the 24mm first.
Thanks,
Amos

Amos Goldreich said:

I have a canon 5D with two zoom lenses 17-40 and 24-105 and use it
mainly for architectural photography. Can an optic correcting
software such as dxo or bibble achieve the same results as a tilt
and shift lens, or is it still best to use a tilt and shift lens
for true perspective? If this can be done digitally which software
is best for the job.
many thanks

Click to expand...

Don't know there is really any such thing as 'true perspective' - it's in the eye of the beholder.

Software should do what you want fine, and the package you currently use can probably already do it. I use Photoshop which works fine, and I can do a nuber of reworks if needed to get exactly what I want.

Where T/S lenses really come into their own is in the control on in-focus out-of-focus planes, landscapes for instance, especially closer ones, and very close, where you can slant the focal plane, and software really doesn't give the same result

I use both the 90 and 24 TS-E lenses frequently. Coming from a background of large format cameras does help the understanding of how to use these lenses.

The 90 is very sharp and used primarly for catalogue product shots where tilting is often used to gain the depth of field. I also use shift in the oposite way that you would use for converging verticals to help with perspective with some objects.

The 24mm TS-E is not as sharp as the 90, but it is sharper than my 16-35. Both lenses have thier strengths though. The 24mm is used for architecture exteriors and interiors and lansdcapes. Often overlooked is the fact that this lens an be shifted in any direction, not just vertically to correct building 'lean'. On occasion I use sideways shift when taking a shot of a room when I am facing a mirror. I can shft my reflection away.

Another use for shifting is when you do panoramas, the images are much easier to join when the camera axis plane remains the same, unlike revolving around a point which introduces distortion that has to be cropped out when joined.

I have carried out my own tests to compare the difference between shifting the lens and correction in photoshop. The main objection for photoshop is the subsequent cropping once corrected. There is a difference in quality when printed, but not that much.

There are comparison samples here -

http://www.pbase.com/gtmedia/lens_examples

I appreciate that these are only small samples for web display, but having printed large samples, my personal preference is to get it right in the first place with the right lens for the job. But hey, whatever flaots your boat.

--
Regards

Scuff

http://www.pbase.com/gtmedia

Steven Noyes said:

Dave,

I know you worship film and truely believe it is vastly superior
than digital at all things, but on this, well... Only way to say it
is you are wrong.

I have applied so much rise (and yes I have used a view cameras
some) on digital images it would rip your bellows right off their
rails. And the warping of the image did not destroy the quality of
the image at the extreme edges (there are ways around this if you
plan for it when you shoot the image).

This was on stitches, and who ever said you had to use the same
lens on every shot of the stitch Before flaming digital, you
need to consider its strengths as well.

If we limit our self's to single shot compositions, I would agree
(and did by stating the TS/E was the preferred solution). But in
the general case with digital, you made a bold statement ("I can do
most with extreme front rise with my view cam then any software can
do.") and, from experience, I find it categorically false.

Learn what you are talking about before talking rubbish.

Click to expand...

Can't seem to find many architectural photographers that agree with you. Wonder why that is?

If you don't notice the effects of interpolation on your images, than maybe your eyesight is to blame. As to ignorance to digital....I use everything from DSLRs and medium format backs up to betterlight gear, professionally, and a daily basis. Spare me your Pbase expertise.

Steven Noyes said:

Steven

--
---
Summer 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

Click to expand...

Sorry to say the only thing that Photoshop can help with is the SHIFT feature which brings lines into parallel. My guess is that applying the SKEW tool in Photoshop and printing these two images, plus one optically corrected, one would seriously challenged to pick which print was which. Try it. You'll be amazed with how "perfect" the interpolation functions.

The TILT feature is used to bring objects into sharp focus, even at WIDE open lenses, not possible with traditional optics,,, no help with photoshop on this feature.

--
.
‹(•¿•)›

JimWilson, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
http://www.rumor-page.com
http://www.FAUdigital.com

James L Wilson said:

Sorry to say the only thing that Photoshop can help with is the
SHIFT feature which brings lines into parallel. My guess is that
applying the SKEW tool in Photoshop and printing these two images,
plus one optically corrected, one would seriously challenged to
pick which print was which. Try it. You'll be amazed with how
"perfect" the interpolation functions.

The TILT feature is used to bring objects into sharp focus, even at
WIDE open lenses, not possible with traditional optics,,, no help
with photoshop on this feature.

Click to expand...

True James. That's a very good point. Not all things can be done with software....unlike some people seem to believe.

Regards,

James L Wilson said:

--
.
‹(•¿•)›

JimWilson, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
http://www.rumor-page.com
http://www.FAUdigital.com

Click to expand...