• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Tilt-shift vs post-processing

KrisCarnmarker

New member
I'm just curious to hear from a professional.

Nicolas, I see you do not own a tilt-shift lens. Are these type of lenses considered obsolete now? Considering today's quite effective and easy-to-use post-processing solutions such as DxO and PS?

It would seem to me that while there are probably quite a few advantages to them, the expense may not be justifiable?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
KrisCarnmarker said:
I'm just curious to hear from a professional.

Nicolas, I see you do not own a tilt-shift lens. Are these type of lenses considered obsolete now? Considering today's quite effective and easy-to-use post-processing solutions such as DxO and PS?

It would seem to me that while there are probably quite a few advantages to them, the expense may not be justifiable?
Hi Kris and "Welcome to OPF!"

Since I'm here, I'll add, if I may, a few words before Nicolas gives his more considered reply.

It all depends on the the final use of the image and the standards you require. For architectural pictures for clients with $100,000,000 buildings, they are often looking for a perfect image with detail and clarity from top to bottom and from left to right without distortion or compromises.

So here, photographers search for the best lenses and often are using medium format and large format, (LF). Cameras like Alpa or LF have lenses with larger image circles and the ability to shift the lens, to get the top of the building in the frame, alter the angle, removing convergence according to Schleimflug principles or change the plane of focus and so forth.

If one, however, one, takes pictures for a Real Estate company at a small fee, to be only in low resolution, then Photoshop may be perfectly adequate.

So, perhaps, the first thing to consider is, perhaps, the final use and size of the image.

Asher
 
D

Doug Kerr

Guest
Hi, Kris,

One aspect of the use of such a lens that cannot be emulated in post processing is the use of tilt to make the plane of object focus fall along the plane where the critical subjects are located (the face of a building, for example).

This allows us to get good focus over that regime without dependency on a great depth of field, which might be incompatible with other criteria for the shot (or just not practically attainable)

It is in connection with this matter that "Scheimpflug's principle" is often mentioned. (Actually, there are a couple of Scheimpflug's principles that are involved in this matter overall.)
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
KrisCarnmarker said:
I'm just curious to hear from a professional.

Nicolas, I see you do not own a tilt-shift lens. Are these type of lenses considered obsolete now? Considering today's quite effective and easy-to-use post-processing solutions such as DxO and PS?

It would seem to me that while there are probably quite a few advantages to them, the expense may not be justifiable?
Bonjour Kris
you've hit a never ended subject!
I'll try my 2 cts on it:
First of all, I'm a complete self made man (may be that's the reason why I like so much good forums and why I'm so thankfull to them!), I left school before being graduated for a transatlantic crossing on a sail boat...
Hence I cannot argue technically a lot, but I'm sure some others around here will do!
So, back to your question, the main reason I do not use tilt-shift lense is that they are not.....wide enough.
BTW this also one of the reason why I went to FF. This goes the cheaper way between APS size sensors and MF.
On the other hand for outside action shots, MF is not the way to go, even if I wonder sometime... and I can't afford having both high end DSLR and MF backs...
Since I've bought a good copy of the Sigma 12-24 I'm quite happy, it is a very uncredible lense, quite cheap and really powerfull, provided that:
you shoot at least ƒ11
do not have something too close on the sides of foreground (still some blured corners).
AND
(this goes with Doug comment just above)
Have sensor plane parallel to the plane your focusing.

Then vertical lines will be vertical.

I also use this ultra wide lense for action shoots when I wish some special effects, like speed.

As for the workflow, I bough DXO a few weeks ago, this is not a very easy software (and so loooooooong), for most of the deraw work I much prefer Capture One (Sorry Michael, still waiting for a RSE for the mAc!), however on some pictures it does wonderfull work, saving file as DNG (direct tifs are awfull, can't get them right..) and opening the DNG file into ACR.
Great job!
 

Diane Fields

New member
Doug Kerr said:
Hi, Kris,

One aspect of the use of such a lens that cannot be emulated in post processing is the use of tilt to make the plane of object focus fall along the plane where the critical subjects are located (the face of a building, for example).

This allows us to get good focus over that regime without dependency on a great depth of field, which might be incompatible with other criteria for the shot (or just not practically attainable)

It is in connection with this matter that "Scheimpflug's principle" is often mentioned. (Actually, there are a couple of Scheimpflug's principles that are involved in this matter overall.)

Hi Doug,

I'm just learning to use a t/s (have a Canon 24 rented for several weeks) so have been following all the t/s threads on several forums and have been doing a good bit of reading/research for close to a year. When I got the 5D--that pushed me over the edge a bit and I"m trying to decide where to go with this. I totally understand the need for using this in architecture (though I suspect I won't) and my experimentation this past week in interiors (where I do more of this kind of shooting), showed me how the shift (rise/fall) is also often needed for architectural shooting--by being able to have correct perspective.

To bring this back to your post about not being able to emulate the tilt mode for focus on a plane in processing--someone on the MR forum suggested using Helicon Focus plugin or Combine Z to essentially 'merge' stacked photos at various focus areas. Yesterday when I was in the mts. practicing with the T/S, I took a number of photos using that idea but haven't tried the software yet (I dled a demo--seems to work a wonder for macros when you look at their samples). I had never heard of either before that suggestion.

I wish that I had found a t/s thread in the lens area but since its here--I'll mention that the 'tilt' for landscape focus from fore to background is one of the reasons I'm considering one also. They are lenses that allow a lot of creativity also--but perhaps that can be discussed on the lens forum. I'll also mention that I learned quickly that to try and focus with an angle C and a better focusing screen is VERY difficult with a 35mm *smile*.

Diane
 

John_Luke

New member
In a strict sense, doing it in PS means data loss as you are interpolating, but sometimes, it is not noticeable. But the edge sharpness form my non-T/S lenses seems to more than make up for any interpolating errors. I have a Leica 15/2.8, a Contax 21/2.8, 28/2.0 and PC35/2.8. I have my prefs set for Bicubic Sharper. I sometimes dislike the fact that I have to crop in and loose file size after a perspective edit. Loss of a tilt is not too annnoying for me. If needed, I can do one exposure at close focus, another at far focus, and layer them together.
 

KrisCarnmarker

New member
So, the consensus seems to be that for the ultimate in technical quality, a t/s lens is still the way to go.

However, this does not automatically mean a t/s lens will produce a higher quality image. As an extreme example, I can assume that a t/s lens on a Canon 10D will not necessarily be better than a standard (HQ lens) on a 1DS Mark II with post-processing.

I can't get my head around how this t/s works :) I mean, the top of the building is still much farther away from the film plane than the bottom of the building, no matter how much I tilt the lens (assuming the camera is relatively close to the building).
 

Diane Fields

New member
KrisCarnmarker said:
So, the consensus seems to be that for the ultimate in technical quality, a t/s lens is still the way to go.

However, this does not automatically mean a t/s lens will produce a higher quality image. As an extreme example, I can assume that a t/s lens on a Canon 10D will not necessarily be better than a standard (HQ lens) on a 1DS Mark II with post-processing.

I can't get my head around how this t/s works :) I mean, the top of the building is still much farther away from the film plane than the bottom of the building, no matter how much I tilt the lens (assuming the camera is relatively close to the building).

Kris, I have to admit after reading, READING (I have LF and MF books, other recommendations, etc)--and checking out web sites about it, etc. for maybe close to a year---until I had the lens in hand, it just didn't gel (though I fully understood what it was 'supposed' to do LOL). Then suddenly, using the rented 24 TS I had a voila' moment and I 'got it'. The rental from rentglass.com is quite reasonable. I suspect they only have one--and I had to put myself on the email notification and missed several opportunities, but just renting a weekend or a day or 2 wouldn't have been enough. Even 2 weeks is just getting me over the hump, so to speak. I'd recommend doing that and see how you feel. I did learn that I would prefer, for myself, something not as wide--the Canon 45 or the Hartblei 35 I suspect. Rentglass has only the 24 though---and it was worth the rental for me to get a grip on its usage.

I, too, have a 10D but haven't tried it on that body, only the 5D since I'm 'thinking/seeing' in FF again. I did some shooting with my 24-70L yesterday but haven't looked at compartisons yet---but, in my limited understanding, a T/S is all about the technical ability of the lens--things you can't do otherwise--or not as well--or certainly not 'in camera'.

Thought I would add--I still am not running out and buying one this minute. I still have almost a week of rental--and then make a decision. Mostly this will be whether I go the 'cheaper' route with a Hartblei or Arsat and get my feet wet and find out if this is a lens that will get used for appropriate times or ends up in my bag----OR if I will buy the Canon 45. Again, in my limited understanding--I 'think' the Hartblei will actually be more flexible because you don't have to do any 'surgery' to get the tilt/shift in parallel--but am less sure if that's important for me (hopefully by the end of the week, I will 'get that' too LOL).
 
Last edited:

John_Luke

New member
KrisCarnmarker said:
I can't get my head around how this t/s works :) I mean, the top of the building is still much farther away from the film plane than the bottom of the building, no matter how much I tilt the lens (assuming the camera is relatively close to the building).


Think of it this way: If the building and the camera's film plane are parallel to eachother, there will be no converging lines. True, the top floors are further away from the camera than the ground floor, so where you decide to place the camera is important. If you are abnormally close and low, it will look wierd if you attempt to parallel the camera to the building. Many shooters will go across the street on a roof top, or shoot out of a window several floors up to even things out a bit.
 

Diane Fields

New member
John_Luke said:
Think of it this way: If the building and the camera's film plane are parallel to eachother, there will be no converging lines. True, the top floors are further away from the camera than the ground floor, so where you decide to place the camera is important. If you are abnormally close and low, it will look wierd if you attempt to parallel the camera to the building. Many shooters will go across the street on a roof top, or shoot out of a window several floors up to even things out a bit.

John explained it well and I remembered a little demo someone did on another forum that makes it quite easy to see what happens using the shift. Give it just a second to load because its set up to have a mouse rollover to show the difference in the 2 examples.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=17471215
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This is a great thread.

Some further information would be valuable on focus stacking software and the OS platforms they can be used for.

This technology was developed originally for microscopy. Here it is used for stacking the very limited planes of focus in microscopy when the objective is focused successively at different levels in a microscopic object.

Thus one can build up the 3D structure, of course in a 2D version, of a tough-to-visualize fiber, bullet fragment, bed-bug, mosquito or cancer cell.

The appplication of such software to our photography is due!

Asher :)
 

KrisCarnmarker

New member
John_Luke said:
Think of it this way: If the building and the camera's film plane are parallel to each other, there will be no converging lines. True, the top floors are further away from the camera than the ground floor, so where you decide to place the camera is important. If you are abnormally close and low, it will look weird if you attempt to parallel the camera to the building. Many shooters will go across the street on a roof top, or shoot out of a window several floors up to even things out a bit.
Aha! The penny finally dropped :)

All the articles I've read have dealt mostly with focus rather than convergence of lines. While I understand the principles about how a t/s lens will eliminate the convergence, I have never understood how it could fix the focus problem. I mean, if we could cheat the laws of physics that easily, then we wouldn't need cars and airplanes anymore :)
 

Diane Fields

New member
Asher Kelman said:
This is a great thread.

Some further information would be valuable on focus stacking software and the OS platforms they can be used for.

This technology was developed originally for microscopy. Here it is used for stacking the very limited planes of focus in microscopy when the objective is focused successively at different levels in a microscopic object.

Thus one can build up the 3D structure, of course in a 2D version, of a tough-to-visualize fiber, bullet fragment, bed-bug, mosquito or cancer cell.

The appplication of such software to our photography is due!

Asher :)

Asher, I can't claim to know much about this software, esp. for the use I plan to experiment with, but here is a link to Lin Evans test for using it for hyperfocal shooting (using the Canon 1Ds with Sigma 15-30). He shot 4 frames of the same scene and focused at different points, then merged them with the software Helicon Focus.
http://helicon.com.ua/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121 It is available for both Mac and Windows, there is a 30 day demo available too (which I've downloaded and plan to try). On their site, there are several demos that are interesting to view--they use a large number of focused shots to combine so it was interesting to see Lin's version with only 4 shots.
http://www.heliconfocus.com/pages/focus_overview.html The software was suggested in a T/S thread on MR's forum--the first I heard of it.

I only 'know of' Combine Z--beyond that I can't relate any other information. Here is an URL that gives more information
http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZ5/Reference/introduction_and_acknowledgement.htm

Hmmm--I wonder if I should have moved this to some other forum since its gotten OT quite a bit LOL.
 
Last edited:
shift lenses

aside the resolution advantages of shift lenses i prefer to see the final perspective and i dont want just to calculate it in my head how it will look after ps corrections. its a pity that there is no really good wa shift lense in the market. even the good reputated olympus 24pc lense is not so perfect... it has the largest amount of CA i ever saw in a lense. so in the end the 12-24 sigma and ps perspective corrections is not a bad solution, at least if you are one from the lucky ones who found a good one which is equally sharp at all 4 edges, but ofcourse its not good enough to go beyond a3 ( with a 1ds2 or a 5d ).
the best solution i found for 35mm architecture shooting is the zoerkendorf adapter together with the pentax 645 lenses. the 35fa is sharp and has not too much distortion ( although it has ).
to go wider than 35mm you have to stitch images with this lense, than the results can be very good,- much better than with all the 24 or 28 shift lenses, the image f.o.v. will be the same, you can stitch 2 or even 3 images with thsi lense together to end up with a 17 - 20mm equ. lense with very hi resolution. ofcourse this means work, but less than it sounds.

here a short resume of the pc lenses i have used or i still own:
canon 24tse. much moustache distortion, unsharp if shifted more than few millimeters.
schneider 28pc. same than the canon, better in the center. also very bad distortion.
nikon 28pc. better corrected but not sharp at all if shifted.
nikon 35pc. better corrected but not sharp if shifted - better than the 28pc.
olympus 24pc. better corrected, sharp but lots of cromatic aberrations- so much that sometimes its not possible to remove it .
olympus 35pc : maybee the best 35mm wa shift together with the zeiss35, ( which shows more distortion as all zeiss wa designs). sharp, also it shows ca, but not as much as the 24pc.
zoerkendorf adapter with mamiya 35mm lense ( for 645 ) . not very sharp if shifted more than 10mm. not bad corrected.
zoerkendorf adapter with pentax 35FA ( the new af lense for 645 ) . very sharp. not bad corrected. a friedn of mine has now the manual version of the pentax lense. he reports it isnt bad also,- i havent tried it.
zoerkendorf adapter with pentax 55mm and 75mmFA mm lenses ( for 645 ) very sharp. very good corrected. very usefull if you stitch images,- really good results are waiting here.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rainer,

So pleased to see your post: a thousand sun-drenched California welcomes!

Let me add that the Zoerk shift adapter with the Pentax 6x7 45 mm lens, (version II), is also very good, although it has received a strange disrespect from some photographers, who go for the perhaps much better 645 Pentax lenses.

The thing about the 6x7 lenses is the huge size of the image circle. One can just keep shifting. I even combine shifting with axis rotation. That works for natural subjects. With the 1DII I have used this to make impressive high resolution images of landscapes.

For architecture, I have no concrete experience!

Asher
 

John_Luke

New member
KrisCarnmarker said:
While I understand the principles about how a t/s lens will eliminate the convergence, I have never understood how it could fix the focus problem.

This is known as the Scheimpflug principle. People who were classically trained photographers know it well. (IE from the school of view cameras).
 

raven

New member
Photoshop this...

This morning I shot 160 shots of an architectural model using a Canon 1DSII and the 24 and 45 TS lenses.

The 45 shots used some tilt to enable maximum focus given the relatively short depth of field normally caused by shooting small objects.

The 24 shots used shift to enable "from the ground" level shots while keeping verticals level.

The tilt shots could not have been done in post, and as the budget for this kind of work is small it would not have paid me to photoshop the 40 or so shifted images rather than shoot them right straight away.

So for professional use, these lenses are a must. They are simultaneously an architectural photographers best friend and, with the 90 TS-E a still life studio in a compact package.
 

Chuck Bragg

New member
I still have my OM 35mm PC lens, from the days I used all-Oly. I'd like to adapt it to my Minolta 5D, but the adapters I see have a central glass element to normalize focus that would make the shift function moot. Does anyone know if it can be adapted properly?
 
it depends more in the approach of the architect as in the pure budget i would say....
i have shot also 500.000$ houses where the architect wanted to have good shots, cause he liked his house and to show it.
 

John Sheehy

New member
KrisCarnmarker said:
I'm just curious to hear from a professional.

I'm not a professional. I make my income elsewhere.

I can't help but notice, however, that if you use a normal lens and perspective correction in software, what you wind up with is an image with compromised resolution. If the base of a building is 80% of the frame wide, and the top is only 40% of the frame wide, by the time you square it off, you have upsampled data at the top of the building, horizontally. This means that you will have lower horizontal resolution toward the top of the building, and details which might render clear and sharply at the bottom may be soft and indistinct at the top. The T/S lens, however, will use more pixels to capture the building, and capture more detail, AOTBE.
 

Don Lashier

New member
John Sheehy said:
I can't help but notice, however, that if you use a normal lens and perspective correction in software, what you wind up with is an image with compromised resolution. If the base of a building is 80% of the frame wide, and the top is only 40% of the frame wide, by the time you square it off, you have upsampled data at the top of the building, horizontally. This means that you will have lower horizontal resolution toward the top of the building, and details which might render clear and sharply at the bottom may soft and indistinct at the top. The T/S lens, however, will use more pixels to capture the building, and capture more detail, AOTBE.

Very true, but the example you give is extreme, usually the corrections are much milder. In any case if you're shooting "up" at a tall building you don't want to entirely square it off or it will look unnatural. You just want to adjust it to "natural" perspective (which a T/S would render).

I think the better argument for T/S is ability to tilt the plane of focus although perserving resolution is certainly a plus.

- DL
 
Top