Do you always correct verticals?

Discussion in 'Large Format Cameras and Accessories' started by Poco, Jul 26, 2004.

Do you always correct verticals?

  1. Yes, I always correct.

    9 vote(s)
    30.0%
  2. No, not always.

    21 vote(s)
    70.0%
  1. Poco

    Poco Member

    Messages:
    653
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Quite often I'll see an architectural shot posted with perfect verticals, that nonetheless looks like they're spreading on the top. The fact is that the eye is used to convergence and, to an extent, even looks for it. So the question is, do you always correct verticals, or are there times when you don't and leave a slight tilt to the camera back?

    Personally, if the verticals fill the view and extend close to the edges of the print, I tend to leave a slight camera tilt, but if there's enough border around the verticals, I go for a completely level back. Not to pick on this photo, but it illustrates the problem for me -- verticals perfect, but seeming to spread:

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=18932284
     
  2. gma

    gma Member

    Messages:
    793
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    When I photograph houses I always correct the verticals because the transparencies are submitted to magazine publishers. For artistic work converging verticals sometimes improve an image.
     
  3. dr bob

    dr bob Member

    Messages:
    871
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Annapolis, M
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    It depends on the effect I wish to present. Sometimes a little convergence lends to a better feeling of uplift or soaring such as one might like in a church steeple. In some circumstances complete correction can result in a looming effect even though the verticals are parallel, which can be disturbing, to me at least.
     
  4. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    18,000
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I think they do spread in that shot. It looks like all the buildings on the left side of E. 4th st. are leaning forward a bit, as if there were a little too much rear tilt.

    I tend to correct verticals most of the time, when I can. Sometimes this has the initial effect of making the scale of the structure ambiguous, but then there can be the secondary effect of noticing a familar object like a car or a person in the picture, and the structure seems that much more impressive.

    Dr. Bob & I posted at the same time, so I'll add that I agree with his statement, and I like the soaring effect sometimes, for instance in that shot of the Bath Abbey organ I posted a while back (now deleted). I did that with medium format, but I would have done it the same with with a view camera. It looks squat and foreshortened if I try to "correct" it in the darkroom.
     
  5. Tom Duffy

    Tom Duffy Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Sinar has a series of technique/example books for large format photography. They recommend that you correct fully for converging verticals if the angle to the top of the building is 40 degrees or less. Higher angle than that and they recommend partial correction, since a full correction would look unnatural.
     
  6. Jim Chinn

    Jim Chinn Member

    Messages:
    2,512
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    Omaha, Nebra
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thas is an interesting question I have also thought about. i have notice that if I shoot a church with very tall steeple and correct for convergence in the print the steeple seems out of proportion with the rest of the church. I guess a little convergence would satisfy the eye while not becoming to obvious.

    When you are talking of no correction if the convergence is less then 40 degrees, I assume you mean with the camera is in neutral position with zero tilt you are measuring the convergence on the gg?
     
  7. mobtown_4x5

    mobtown_4x5 Member

    Messages:
    244
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Interesting thread, I have been always correcting, with sometimes similar results as the example-
    How exactly do you measure the 40 deg to apply the rule of thumb?
     
  8. Loose Gravel

    Loose Gravel Member

    Messages:
    921
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Barbar
    So times the building are so tall that a correction looks goofy. Or it can't be done with the optics I have or cameras that I'm using. Correction is for architects with short buildings.

    I've never seen anybody correct the parallelism of train tracks.
     
  9. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    Exactly, perspective is an element of vision. Straining to "correct" it can make it look awfully unnatural.

    Personally, I don't have any hard and fast rules. It's like any of the dozens of other personal visual decisions that you have to make when setting up a shot, when the image looks good to you... hit the d*mned button :smile:.
     
  10. Poco

    Poco Member

    Messages:
    653
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think one of the other interesting things about perfect verticals is that they create an impression of further remove from the object, like shot with a long lens.

    Obviously, there's a lot of perceptual issues involved in the decision of whether to use movement to get everything absolutely straight. Now, I find myself moving away from an obsession with it (then why start this thread?) :tongue:
     
  11. jss

    jss Member

    Messages:
    200
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    overcorrecting verticals

    i correct verticals because i like the look. i don't overcorrect.. structures that flare out at the top looks bad, unless there's some stylistic reason to do so.. in which case i'd overcorrect much more to make it obvious.