Re: Photoshop CS2 it
anyway.....
I do some architectural work and use whatever the client is willing to pay
for, and that will get the job done. That might (rarely) mean 35mm and a
28mm shift lens - 35mm is good for detail shots though - or 6x6 with 45 or
55mm shift lenses. Sometimes those lenses get used on 35mm with a shift
adapter, which gives me a huge total shift potential. Most often though
it's 6x9 or 4x5 (or larger) monorails with a variety of lenses. Part of
this is because architects are very demanding and they expect the quality
that the larger formats provide. Also they often want to see a slide, so
correction for verticals or other aspects of image shape in
'post-production' isn't really an option (OK, I could use a slide-writer,
but the expense isn't worth it.)
But the biggest reasons I don't do the 'corrections' in PS most of the time
are quality and time.
I do do this sometimes in PS, but usually only for small amounts of
adjustment, either because I think my original shot can be improved, or
maybe because I didn't have the coverage with the lens I wanted to use to
correct fully, so I do as much as possible in camera and the last little bit
with PS. This is because of the the quality issue: using PS for PC
correction involves throwing away resolution, and I want to do that as
little as possible. I also feel that because the resulting image ends up
having a higher 'real' resolution at one end of the frame than the other, it
is possible for sharpening that is right in one part of the image to be too
little or too much in another - maybe that's me being picky. (Maybe PS will
offer in future a gradient sharpener, or one that 'remembers' how the image
hasn't been rezed up or down evenly across it's length/width and compnesates
accordingly. Adobe owes me a royalty for the idea if they do.)
The time thing is because to do it right in PS is quite time consuming,
doing the initial correction is only part of it since the image then often
tends to be 'squashed' or 'stretched' in one axis, and this too muct be
corrected. (The old method of doing this, by using tilt on an enlarger,
would have this effect if the enlarger lens FL relative to image distance
didn't match the taking lens relative to subject distance - it's almost as
if PS does the correction with the wrong FL 'enlarger lens' - maybe future
versions will offer a choice, though if they do they own me a royalty on
that idea too.) If my choices were between shooting on 35mm and correcting
in PS, or shooting with a 4x5 monorail and correcting in camera, maybe the
PS route would b faster. Maybe. But since for this sort of work I'm
usually using the LF camera already because of quality considerations, it's
much faster to correct when I take the picture.
One thing I wonder about is whether the public 'requirement' for images to
have parallel verticals will increase because PS means that so many more
people's shots are corrected now, reltively easily and with gear more people
can afford. Certainly the ability to do it in PS isn't something I would
give up willingly, it just isn't the best way for _me_, for _most_ of the
time.
Peter
Bandicoot
|
|
