Tilt Shift vs Photoshop

Finally bought a 17mm TS-E for my real estate gigs. As a quick test I went back and shot the facade of an apartment building I shot 2 years ago for a realtor using my 16-35/4L IS. The old shot was taken with the camera pointed up to include the whole building and then heavily corrected. I corrected it as far as I felt I could without it getting really squashed and weird. The new shot has minimal corrections because I was not on a tripod. Please pardon the totally different weather and light.

Old:

16-35L corrected

New:

17mm TS-E

The TS-E shot is much more true to life, and was easier to take as there is no guessing during composition, and is easier to work on.  The full 17mm field of view is retained.

The approach, taken with 50/1.8 STM. I took the above shots from the sidewalk on the right:

I love my TSE 17.  I don't like using it hand held, though.  If it had a tripod mount, it would sit permanently on its own tripod.

It's a magnificent piece of glass, too.  I didn't really get the full impact of better color and contrast on a lens until I got the 17,  I could recover more highlights with it than with other lenses, and the colors somehow looked better, in addition to having the magic shift function.

I've never actually tilted it.  I shoot it at F11, so everything is sharp.

Eddie Rizk wrote:

I love my TSE 17. I don't like using it hand held, though. If it had a tripod mount, it would sit permanently on its own tripod.

It's a magnificent piece of glass, too. I didn't really get the full impact of better color and contrast on a lens until I got the 17, I could recover more highlights with it than with other lenses, and the colors somehow looked better, in addition to having the magic shift function.

I've never actually tilted it. I shoot it at F11, so everything is sharp.

Normally I wouldn't hand-hold it, but I was just excited to try it right after purchase.  I've rented it twice before, so I know what you mean.  In this shot in particular, the inherent  vignetting of the lens while shifted up is helping the sky, almost like a polarizer.

I think at 17mm, the tilt function is not a major player.

f8 and be there, no?

JackM wrote:

Eddie Rizk wrote:

I love my TSE 17. I don't like using it hand held, though. If it had a tripod mount, it would sit permanently on its own tripod.

It's a magnificent piece of glass, too. I didn't really get the full impact of better color and contrast on a lens until I got the 17, I could recover more highlights with it than with other lenses, and the colors somehow looked better, in addition to having the magic shift function.

I've never actually tilted it. I shoot it at F11, so everything is sharp.

Normally I wouldn't hand-hold it, but I was just excited to try it right after purchase.

I've rented it twice before, so I know what you mean. In this shot in particular, the inherent vignetting of the lens while shifted up is helping the sky, almost like a polarizer.

Interesting.  That may be part of what I see with it.

I think at 17mm, the tilt function is not a major player.

f8 and be there, no?

Absolutely, especially with architecture.

J A C S wrote:

You were farther away with the new lens.

Are you sure?

The main drawback for me with using corrections in post is that you have to deform the image rectangle and then crop to accommodate the narrowest side. This means that you have to allow extra space around the edges when framing in camera.

Canon 5DSR with Canon 17mm f4 TS-E.   Three shifted and stitched images.

Correcting in Photoshop will never match your 17 TS-E. Check your file, I think you shot the original at 16mm, helping to exaggerate the corrections.

I generally shoot the 17 TS-E with an interest in the foreground within inches of the lens, so it is the f22 club for me. Too bad it does not go to f64! At times I will shoot at f8 and then focus stack to achieve the depth of field I want with increased sharpness.

I experimented with tilt years ago, and will do so again soon. However, my understanding and results make me believe that it is not useful for the images that I create. Definitely less effect with the 17 than the longer ones.

I use shift to correct converging lines, but I primarily use it for shifting and stitching to provide a wider view with medium format sized image files. You can experiment to see if you have an interest in ultrawide angle photography, achieving the view of an 11-12mm lens with your 17.

Have fun with it!

John Crowe wrote:

Correcting in Photoshop will never match your 17 TS-E. Check your file, I think you shot the original at 16mm, helping to exaggerate the corrections.

John,

I'm not the one to tell! Try replying to the right person.

P.S.  The only reason that I have stuck with Canon and not switched to Nikon, is the 17 TS-E!  I use it for 95% of my architecture/landscape photography.

Just hit "reply".  Sorry if it came up in the wrong place.  I actually wish DPREVIEW would get rid of the staggered reply system...just leave it as replying to the initial post.  Keep it simple.

J A C S wrote:

You were farther away with the new lens.

I'm not sure, I don't think I would have shot from the street, but perhaps.  Or as has been said, you're seeing the cropping required by the correction.

I should just go out again and shoot it with and without shift.

Also, your geometric correction would look better in DXO View Point.

As I already pay $10/mo for Adobe CC, other software may as well not exist!

Nicely done hand holding your tilt/Shift. have the 24mm TS-E II tilt/Shift. I always use a Tripod to line up correctly and also bracket -/+ 2. No loss of information. 
when I bought the 24 in 2014, I said next year I will buy the 17mm......

I guess it’s next year....

JackM wrote:

J A C S wrote:

You were farther away with the new lens.

I'm not sure, I don't think I would have shot from the street, but perhaps.

Definitely - if you look at the post in the fence to the right relative to the plant-grill in the wall of the car-port, you can see that you are further back with the TS-E.

Not that that necessarily alters your conclusion, but the further distance sorely make the image look less "squashed and weird". If they has been taken from the exact same vantage point, the perspective and hence "squashed and weird"-effect should also be the same

J A C S wrote:

I almost bought the 24TSE after renting it for a while.

Not wide enough for real estate.