Tilt adapters

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 34,148
Re: Tilt adapters

dan pv wrote:

petrochemist wrote:

Using it in the traditional way is still a potential benefit in macro, on occasions where focus stacking isn't practical, and perhaps in low light conditions. It does have the ability to keep the ground focused while the tops of trees are OOF, aperture control could never manage that... I guess 'quite little utility' actually covers all those situations

It's especially still useful (and still used) in product photography, when you need a whole longer object to be in focus from a relatively close distance.

However, the shift movement remains very useful in the landscape and architecture photography.

Correction of this is pretty easy in Photoshop. Not as preferable IMO but shift adapters tend to be more expensive than most of my cameras!

Yes, but sometimes after the PS correction you end up with a trapezoidal frame that, when re-framed to rectangular, cuts some parts of the building/landscape you didn't want cut. And with the PS correction sometimes you get some perspective distorsions, too. I still think that the shift adapter is a better solution in architectural photography (at least for me), in spite of their higher cost.

You have a fellow traveller in me  Correcting in post has two disadvantages - the main one being that the pixel densities have to be fiddled with to correct the shape.  Secondly it is often said that we can always use an even wider lens and hold the camera horizontal and crop to shape.  A shift lens can do this without cropping and save a lot of pixels.  Obviously you don’t need as wide a lens to do this if you have shift.

Furthermore you cannot put parts of the image back into an image that cannot be seen from the capture point.  Post processing with reduced pixel densities is the least likely to provide a better optical solution as it requires interpolated pixels.

I give examples of a castle battlements where from the ground only a limited part can be seen. But when the image is perspective corrected something more of the detail should have come into view on correction of perspective.

The other small issue is that I have already pointed out on other threads that all images that require the camera to be tilted in any way must have some perspective issue.  Of course the longer the lens and the further away the object the less it can be detected.

So this is basically the crux of my argument - that minute perspective errors are effectively impossible to see, don’t bother photographers, and therefore no need to correct for them.  And yet we have (quite naturally) great interest in any lens’ capabilities to reproduce an image perfectly - even when it is not actually 100% correct for perspective.

I am not so much saying that everybody needs to use perspective correction on their shots even when our eyes cannot determine perspective errors but perhaps our almost obsessive interest in perfect lenses becomes faintly amusing when most of us would hardly stop long enough to notice that one lens is perhaps not quite as perfect as another.

I am not excusing obvious image errors just having a smile at the seeming infinite degrees of image perfection.

In other words - a good image is always a good image no matter what gear makes it.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow