Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Shift-Lenses vs Software: some examples (TS-E 4/17mm L)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:02 pm    Post subject: Shift-Lenses vs Software: some examples (TS-E 4/17mm L) Reply with quote
Some people assume that shift lenses have become useless due to easy software correction of converging lines.

Let's have a look at tha assumption. Here's a typical example, shot with a 4/17mm lens on FF Sony A7II:




Taking the image above and "straightening" it with software results in the following (screenshot):



OOPS -- sum ting wong ...!

Image processed:




Now let's look at the results when using a 4/17mm shift lens (lens shifted):



It's obvious that no amount of "software processing" can give us the result of the shift lens. And yeah, I was leaning against a wall when taking the image - which means it was impossible to simply "step back".


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have experience with these lenses, so I'm not sure by how much I would prefer the compositional aide of having a shift lens, instead of having to visualise how I'd shift an image in post.

Additionally, as the picture above demonstrates- the crop you'd have to make is poor.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PMSL, worthless example, all it shows is you don't have a grasp of the possibilities and techniques that software allows. You haven't even scraped the surface of what can be done with software today, far, far from it.

Your constant desire to always be right and always win the argument is both pathetic and childish.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I take your word for it. Others need examples.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So this shift lens, assuming it is the Canon 4/17mm, has a max. viewing angle of 104 degrees. Assuming further I´d use a M.Zuiko 7-14mm instead with a max. angle of view of 114 degrees would probably (or not) give me the additional angle of view to correct the image in post in a way similar as demonstrated above with the shift lens. In both cases, the result looks poor. Although there are no longer converging lines, the gable of the nave is now oddly and unnaturally distorted, as is the now egg-shaped clock on the tower not exactly a desirable result. I prefer the original image with converging lines being more natural to the human perception. But certainly an interesting demonstration what shift lenses or PP can do - that is, mostly the same, assuming there´s always a slightly wider ultrawide available to give you some leeway in taking the picture in the first place.

So there is the chance that the one method would win over the other, probably by a mere 2% or whatever. But most likely, the outcome would be: depends. Both methods exist now next to each other and have their pros and cons. Not the topic I´m most interested in, but if Ian and Stefan would acknowledge each others proficiency for once and argue the case in a cultivated manner instead of giving each other the stick at any given possibility, even this topic could end in an interesting discussion.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
... Although there are no longer converging lines, the gable of the nave is now oddly and unnaturally distorted, as is the now egg-shaped clock on the tower not exactly a desirable result. I prefer the original image with converging lines being more natural to the human perception ...


This is always an issue with wide-angle lenses. Between the original conditions in the field when taking the shot, and the final viewing conditions of the print / on screen, there is a significant shift in the centre of perspective. This causes the "distortions" you just highlighted in wide-angle shots as well as the "compression" effect in tele-lens shots.

If the print / on-screen image were viewed from the same centre of perspective as when it was taken, it would look perfectly natural. For the image above taken with the shift lens, this means viewing your screen from a distance of only a couple of inches or so, with your eye about an inch above the bottom of the frame.

If a natural look is preferred, then when choosing a lens and perspective, a photographer always has to consider the likely viewing conditions of the final print; e.g. small image in a book vs a huge print on a wall in a gallery viewed from ground level, etc. Sometimes that means using an actual shift lens is the most convenient, quick and predictable way of achieving the desired effect.

EDIT: incidentally; the correction Stephan demonstrates above in PS, is one of those I mentioned that corrects for key-stoning, but does not correct for the corresponding required graduated change in foreshortening, leaving the top half of the building looking too "squat" compared to the bottom half in the final result (at least when compared to the shot with the shift lens.) Whether or not you prefer that effect is matter of opinion / intended use...


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
... Although there are no longer converging lines, the gable of the nave is now oddly and unnaturally distorted, as is the now egg-shaped clock on the tower not exactly a desirable result. I prefer the original image with converging lines being more natural to the human perception ...


This is always an issue with wide-angle lenses. Between the original conditions in the field when taking the shot, and the final viewing conditions of the print / on screen, there is a significant shift in the centre of perspective.


Strangely enough this choice of words makes me think of what you can't achieve in post-process shifting: a significant keystone correction is a significant change in perspective, which you will struggle to achieve for various reasons.

Sure- this is just "you need a lot of resolution to do big changes". But did make me think...


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, you need large resolution images. The way to achieve this is stitching multiple frames. This then opens up a vast world of possibilities.

Using a single frame and applying the most basic keystone correction is the simplest form of perspective correction and to use it to attempt to prove a fallacious point about the possibilities for more complex corrections is disingenuous to say the least.

Claims to be a highly paid pro but seems to not have anything beyond the very lowest level of knowledge about perspective correction in software....

One might find that amusing, or perhaps more sad and pathetic...


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote:
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
... Although there are no longer converging lines, the gable of the nave is now oddly and unnaturally distorted, as is the now egg-shaped clock on the tower not exactly a desirable result. I prefer the original image with converging lines being more natural to the human perception ...


This is always an issue with wide-angle lenses. Between the original conditions in the field when taking the shot, and the final viewing conditions of the print / on screen, there is a significant shift in the centre of perspective.


Strangely enough this choice of words makes me think of what you can't achieve in post-process shifting: a significant keystone correction is a significant change in perspective, which you will struggle to achieve for various reasons.

Sure- this is just "you need a lot of resolution to do big changes". But did make me think...


The best illustrated explanations I have come across re. the distortions introduced by the change in centre of perspective are:

- Optics in Photography, Rudolf Kingslake, 1992, SPIE Press, Chapter 1 "Perspective". He dedicates 26 pages to the subject.
- Applied Photographic Optics, Sidney F. Ray, 3rd Edition, 2002, Focal Press, Chapter 23 "Perspective and projection".
- The Manual of Photography, 9th Edition, 2000, Focal Press, Chapter 4, sections "Geometric Distortion" and "Perspective".

Yes, some significant keystone corrections will lead to a noticeable loss in resolution. It can also magnify lens aberrations.

The (quite common) suggestion that a shift lens is now redundant because software allows for perspective correction in PP, in many ways is not much different from suggesting a tele-lens is nowadays redundant because software allows for cropping in PP. I think there is some truth to both statements, but it also comes with a number of compromises which makes a shift lens still a very useful tool for photographers who can afford one and regularly work on commission.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For this type of photo, perhaps a full-frame fisheye lens followed by defishing and cropping would be an alternative to a shift-lens.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
For this type of photo, perhaps a full-frame fisheye lens followed by defishing and cropping would be an alternative to a shift-lens.


Are you thinking the Fisheye-Hemi plugin?

Only if the type of fish-eye projection matches that expected in the software, which would almost certainly not be a 100% accurate enough a match:

http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Fisheye_history_short/Projections/Various_lens_projection.html


Incidentally, for those not familiar, this is what Fisheye-Hemi does with a fisheye shot; it removes the distortion, but only along a single dimension of the image:

Minolta MD FISH-EYE ROKKOR 16mm f/2.8 on SONY A7S, hand-held at 1/30s at ISO 400, and processed through Fisheye-Hemi (Bath Cathedral)


Last edited by RokkorDoctor on Thu Feb 16, 2023 8:52 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In practice, there is no issue with loss of resolution because with multiple frames being used to create the final image, you have an excess of resolution to work with.

I can't agree that shift lenses still have a place, they are old technology that has been superceded and continuing to use them is akin to continuing to use obsolete methods in an artisanal endeavour for no good reason other than you can tell your customers you still do it 'the old fashioned way' in order to con them the old way was somehow better. You see a lot of this nonsense all over the placethesedays when marketing touts 'traditonal' old school' etc. when the truth is, there are good reasons why we don't use those techniques anymore.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I must agree with ZuikoHex... Ian made a categorical statement of finality. Stevemark challenged it. Their standard passing match ensues. Counterproductive methinks. It would have better if Ian hadn't made such an all encompassing statement and instead gave the reasons he uses the system he does. I find it odd that both Nikon and Canon would continue to sell lenses which are of very limited scope and quite expensive if the proxs in the business could easily alter their workflow and achieve identical results. Or that the used lenes sold on ebay would still trend at high percentages of price of new.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I should have said it was my opinion that shift lenses were obsolete today due to software, but then again, I shouldn't have to continually add caveats and qualifying statements in case the swiss pedant is up to his usual trick of contradicting me whenever posisble.

It shouldn't need to be constantly repeated that something is a person's opinion.

I've posted literally hundreds of perspective corrected stitched images over the last 10-12 years, not just architecture, it's a technique I use all the time.

I just can't be bothered defending myself yet again from the obnoxious, arrogant bloviations of that person I find it too annoying and tedious.

Hence I haven't bothered posting any examples. I know what's possible, I've demonstrated it on a consistent basis for a longtime. I don't have enough ego to care what some arrogant people think.

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
In practice, there is no issue with loss of resolution because with multiple frames being used to create the final image, you have an excess of resolution to work with.

I can't agree that shift lenses still have a place, they are old technology that has been superceded and continuing to use them is akin to continuing to use obsolete methods in an artisanal endeavour for no good reason other than you can tell your customers you still do it 'the old fashioned way' in order to con them the old way was somehow better. You see a lot of this nonsense all over the placethesedays when marketing touts 'traditonal' old school' etc. when the truth is, there are good reasons why we don't use those techniques anymore.


I think we have to agree to disagree here Ian Wink

I don't have customers, but I sure wouldn't want to have to apologise for any stitching artefacts that I missed. Plus stitching is a right pain where there are moving cars/people/waves in the frame.

Just because it can now be done without a shift lens doesn't mean it is easier to do without a shift lens (at least not for me).


Shooting several shots from the same position, making sure I turn around the entrance pupil of the lens using a tripod, then stitch and hope I am not going to get too many stitching artefacts in PP, then do a perspective correction in PP.

or:

A 9mm shift on my shift lens, one handheld shot, takes less than 30 secs with practice. Done. No worries about any moving subjects either.


I can see your point if one doesn't want or can afford the financial outlay of a shift lens, or doesn't want to carry a bulkier lens around, but otherwise I am happy to use one. Plus some of them offer tilt as well, which would be a real pain in the backside trying to simulate in PP.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stitching errors aren't a significant problem in reality, neither are moving objects, good technique and advances in software are why.

Using a shift lens is restricting yourself to the very barest minimum of control over perspective, with software, you can have almost complete control, which changes the game entirely, it opens up whole new areas of technique and possibilities in composition.

Okay, there may be a niche application today for a shift lens, but it will only be a small, minor niche and it really is restrciting yourself to a siingle, crude method - a bit like flint knapping in a world of iron and steel. The flint is as sharp as ever, but has become utterly obsolete apart from the niche application of striking a spark when struck by steel.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Remember the finest surgical blades...


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2023 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Using a shift lens is restricting yourself to the very barest minimum of control over perspective,

I can agree with that, if you want proper control you need a large format monorail Smile


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2023 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
... Okay, there may be a niche application today for a shift lens, but it will only be a small, minor niche ...


That depends entirely on your preferred subject matter, photographic style and, in the case of professional photographers, your main clientele.

For some photographers shift lenses are still the mainstay of their photographic equipment. Technical cameras are still in use for the same reason (which I hazard a guess you also think are completely outdated?)

I think what sparked this discussion is your original comment on the other thread just sounded a bit too absolute, implying that everyone not only could, but now should get rid of their shift lenses, because every sensible photographer now should be using PP software instead. Many would beg to differ, for a variety of reasons.


For me, personally, I enjoy working with photographic equipment. On the other hand, I don't enjoy working with PP software at all. That's just the way I am, and I know I am not the only one. Hence I still try to "get it right in the camera" as much as possible, such as to minimise the time I need to sit behind a computer to go through my photos for any adjustments. Likewise, in the film era I was never too interested in having my own darkroom. So for me (and I stress for me), having a camera with a digital sensor, whilst being able to use old and outdated lenses and techniques, gives me the best of both worlds.

This may sound really bizarre to some, but as an amateur with no clients to satisfy, in some cases I even don't really care too much about the final image; I simply enjoy setting it up with the equipment, as outdated as that equipment may be. Working with shift lenses is part of that.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2023 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:

For me, personally, I enjoy working with photographic equipment. On the other hand, I don't enjoy working with PP software at all. That's just the way I am, and I know I am not the only one. Hence I still try to "get it right in the camera" as much as possible, such as to minimise the time I need to sit behind a computer to go through my photos for any adjustments. Likewise, in the film era I was never too interested in having my own darkroom. So for me (and I stress for me), having a camera with a digital sensor, whilst being able to use old and outdated lenses and techniques, gives me the best of both worlds.

This may sound really bizarre to some, but as an amateur with no clients to satisfy, in some cases I even don't really care too much about the final image; I simply enjoy setting it up with the equipment, as outdated as that equipment may be. Working with shift lenses is part of that.

This! Ultimately an architecture object in any perspective can be realistically drawn by AI already. But what you ended up with is pressing keys and watching screen all day. And that sucks. Besides it is totally detached from reality. It is a joy of procedure and relation to real world why manual lenses are still being used.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2023 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For those who need to go wider: Most 135 format perspective control lens has 5xmm to 6xmm image circle. This makes them a very good lens on 44x33mm sensor.



Sample:


I have also tried the PC 28/2.8. It can shift more than the 35/4.0 before vignetting happens.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2023 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
... Okay, there may be a niche application today for a shift lens, but it will only be a small, minor niche ...


That depends entirely on your preferred subject matter, photographic style and, in the case of professional photographers, your main clientele.

For some photographers shift lenses are still the mainstay of their photographic equipment. Technical cameras are still in use for the same reason (which I hazard a guess you also think are completely outdated?)

I think what sparked this discussion is your original comment on the other thread just sounded a bit too absolute, implying that everyone not only could, but now should get rid of their shift lenses, because every sensible photographer now should be using PP software instead. Many would beg to differ, for a variety of reasons.


For me, personally, I enjoy working with photographic equipment. On the other hand, I don't enjoy working with PP software at all. That's just the way I am, and I know I am not the only one. Hence I still try to "get it right in the camera" as much as possible, such as to minimise the time I need to sit behind a computer to go through my photos for any adjustments. Likewise, in the film era I was never too interested in having my own darkroom. So for me (and I stress for me), having a camera with a digital sensor, whilst being able to use old and outdated lenses and techniques, gives me the best of both worlds.

This may sound really bizarre to some, but as an amateur with no clients to satisfy, in some cases I even don't really care too much about the final image; I simply enjoy setting it up with the equipment, as outdated as that equipment may be. Working with shift lenses is part of that.


I own and sometimes use a couple of large format cameras and enjoy the movements they allow, I tend to enjoy using just about any and all photographic tool as I tend toi view them all as strings to the bow or tools in the box, to mix metaphors.

I enjoy using photographic software, I also enjoy spending hours in the darkrrom playing with chemicals, as I said, I tend to enjoy all aspects of photography.

Quote:
I think what sparked this discussion is your original comment on the other thread just sounded a bit too absolute,


Yes, I could or perhaps should have added the 'in my opinion' caveat, but it should go without saying that it's just my opinion. The problem is the swiss pedant who actively looks for any opportunity to attack me, he's done it so many times now, if I say anything at all that gives him the openingto have at me, he will. Sad, pathetic and childish.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2023 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I should have said it was my opinion that shift lenses were obsolete today due to software, but then again, I shouldn't have to continually add caveats and qualifying statements in case the swiss pedant is up to his usual trick of contradicting me whenever posisble.

It shouldn't need to be constantly repeated that something is a person's opinion.

I've posted literally hundreds of perspective corrected stitched images over the last 10-12 years, not just architecture, it's a technique I use all the time.

I just can't be bothered defending myself yet again from the obnoxious, arrogant bloviations of that person I find it too annoying and tedious.

Hence I haven't bothered posting any examples. I know what's possible, I've demonstrated it on a consistent basis for a longtime. I don't have enough ego to care what some arrogant people think.


The problem with shift lenses is that most people don't use them in meaningful scenarios and therefore are often barking up the wrong tree as to how they are used in practice. This thread also starts from the wrong place, at least in terms of the subject matter. So, granted, if you are fannying about town taking pictures of church steeples then, using shift lenses is probably a waste of money. It's use case that, in most cases, just needs a spirit level, a high res camera, a modern UWA zoom & your image editor's crop tool never mind stitching software either.

Where 'PC' actually matter is when you have a couple of hours to get deliverables of 20-30 architectural interiors per a written shot list, in restricted spaces. Then lateral shifts (both axes) allow the photographer to avoid obstacles or shoot from a slightly different position to avoid reflections while reviewing the finished composition. You need to be 100% that you have that correct composition too as it's potentially expensive to go back and shoot again. I've used live view on an iPad to preview the image on a camera where adjusting shift leaving the room to remote fire because I cannot get to the back of the camera, cannot be out of view within the room, in the only place the composition works.

It's also not jus about 'the widest' The bread and butter lens for this is 24mm, and almost all pro architectural photographers use it and no, they don't market their lens collections to their clients; Serious pros know architecture and talk about architecture with their clients then go make great images and videos to the brief (OTOH I'm a photo geek and dig into the EXIF data...).

Another use case - I'm currently working on a long exposure timelapse project where the images must be rectilinear and will be printed very large, therefore I'm shooting Bronica 65mm & 80mm PS lenses on a shift adapter to frame the compositions, getting the full sensor resolution in one shot without the attendant risks of moving the camera.

The 17mm & 15mm toy lenses typically provide ugly, exaggerated perspective anyway so it's unfortunate that the view that wider is better and it's all about fitting more in has propagated so widely that camera makers, most of whom will never do real architectural photography, continually go wider and never update the lineage of 35mm PC lenses. It's a hugely useful FOV but, no, novelty lenses like the 15mm, 17mm and wider seem to be all we ever get at the wide end.

And while we are at the wide end, there is a case where stitching currently can't equal the shift lenses. A flat stitch from the widest TS lenses do have wider FOV than the theoretical 120 degree limit for rectilinear corrections of nodal panoramas; The flat stitch on Full Frame from the 17mm shift lens can in theory achieve a 122 degree effective horizontal FOV. By extension, this should apply even more so with a flat stitch from the Laowa 15mm.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2023 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Finally, someone who really does know what they are talking about with architectural photography. Thankyou for your contribution, it was very useful.

I prefer to use a 28 or 24mm lens over anything wider and stitch shots together instead of a wider lens to shoot a single frame. I like the 28 or 24 because it has less distortion and that makes things much easier for the stitching software.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2023 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bp_reid wrote:
This thread also starts from the wrong place, at least in terms of the subject matter.


In fairness to Stephan, this was a continuation related to the debate started in another thread...

bp_reid wrote:
So, granted, if you are fannying about town taking pictures of church steeples then, using shift lenses is probably a waste of money.


Unless you still own a few shift lenses from way before the PP software became available, and continue to use them for fun. Not all of us are professional photographers; some of us are amateurs and engineers and like the mechanical engineering aspects of using these legacy lenses.

bp_reid wrote:
It's use case that, in most cases, just needs a spirit level, a high res camera, a modern UWA zoom & your image editor's crop tool never mind stitching software either.


This I can partially subscribe to, as in that shifted images where a building just fits inside the frame (like the church steeple above) often look awkward and lack foreground balance; most architectural shots benefit from a balanced foreground, and shooting with an UWA kept level often results in a much a more pleasing composition compared to a shifted shot (unless the client stipulates otherwise).

bp_reid wrote:
The 17mm & 15mm toy lenses typically provide ugly, exaggerated perspective anyway so it's unfortunate that the view that wider is better and it's all about fitting more in has propagated so widely that camera makers, most of whom will never do real architectural photography, continually go wider and never update the lineage of 35mm PC lenses. It's a hugely useful FOV but, no, novelty lenses like the 15mm, 17mm and wider seem to be all we ever get at the wide end.


Again I agree; I have 14mm and 17mm rectilinear lenses (regular, not shift), but they rarely leave the cabinet (I wouldn't call them toy lenses though; they need careful use to work and they can be made to work well). Especially with landscape subjects, with careful composition re. any visible horizon, I find the image resulting from a fisheye lens often to be preferable to that taken with an UWA. The curvilinear distortion of a fisheye lens in a nature shot is often not noticeable, but the angular distortion in the corners of a rectilinear UWA shot most certainly is.

But as I mentioned before, a key consideration for all this are the final viewing conditions of the image, and how different the viewing conditions are from the centre of perspective compared to when the image was taken. Some viewing conditions absolutely require the exaggerated perspective of an UWA in order for the image to look natural from where it is being viewed.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4