Wide-Angle Weirdness

Hi All - I'm looking for a little help here...Please disregard the artistic/aesthetic merits of the shot - I'm well
aware it has none. I'm just trying to figure out how to use a WA lens with a foreground object(s) while maintaining a more realistic background.


I see the "environment" shots in magazines all the time, where there's a person in the FG and the BG looks realistic. I never know the location of course, I'm not familiar with it like I am the East River and the Manhattan skyline. But it seems I should be able to do better than this.


Doesn't this shot look goofy to you? The way the buildings practically look like toys? Technically speaking is this shot "all wrong?"


Or am I overreacting and it's actually not bad, or at least not unexpected?


I realize with a wide-angle lens, when you have a foreground object like I do it "pushes" the background away ...I was just surprised by how much. I have shots at 50mm that are much more realistic.


Anyway...as always, "Thanks!" for any thoughts you'd care to share.


5D 17-40mm @26mm 6sec @ f/5.6 ISO 100, PP in DxO 6.1.1


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/5D_5F00_20100703_5F00_13_5F00_dxo_5F00_02_5F00_web .jpg[/img]

I think the issue might be the direction the boat is facing, I think the nose of the boat leads your eyes out of the frame. If somehow you could put the boat in the bottom right corner of the frame pointing left, and the city in the top left, I think you have a standout picture. I give this advice well aware that due to the position of the dock and the fact that it's probably not your boat that this is potentially not possible. Just my advice, otherwise good shot!

First thing I noticed was the rather large aperture. Try shooting at f/22 and focus at the hyperfocal point (or just before the boat, as I like to guesstimate). I think the buildings will look sharper.


Nice location, btw.

The first thing that comes to my mind is distortion.


The closer the subject to a wide-angle, the heavier the distortions are. In this case, the boat is close to the lens and that means the boat will be stretched out due to distortion. It's called barrel-distortion and the 17-40 has quite some of that.


Since the background is much further away, it doesn't suffer that much and so the background looks relatively realistic.


With for instance a 50mm prime, you will see that distortions are way lower, even close to nothing and so your image will be more natural.


What I try to say is this: the effect of a wide-angle on close subjects [;)]


I don't know if I'm correct here, but I truly think this could be an issue for you.


Good luck next time [:D]


Jan

By the way in the test you can see that at 28mm your lens practically doesn't suffer from distortions, so you might want to give that focal length a try?

Everyone has added some great input, but personally the first thing that struck me was the lighting on the boat. The skylinelooks likea twilight/night scene, while the boat almost looks like it was taken midday. Too me it looks as if the boat was lit by a flash or other light source.


If the world was perfect I would of moved the boat into the water either flipped so it was placed in the lower left faceing in, or moved into the right corner, the people that owned the boat would of had the lights on to illuminate the interior and i would of lit the boat via a gelled off camera flash.


I agree with the distortion with a wide angle lens I have done some group shots with my 10-22 and the people near the edges were extremely distorted, almost unprintable.


Thanks


My 2 cents


Joel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

Doesn't this shot look goofy to you? The way the buildings practically look like toys? Technically speaking is this shot "all wrong?"

---

Looks perfectly normal for a 26mm (wide angle) shot. Technically, Jan is on track - perspective distortion is a 'feature' of wide angle lenses. Elements in the foreground are emphasized much more strongly in relation to the background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

I see the "environment" shots in magazines all the time, where there's a person in the FG and the BG looks realistic. I never know the location of course, I'm not familiar with it like I am the East River and the Manhattan skyline. But it seems I should be able to do better than this.

---

You don't know the location, but more importantly you're not seeing the EXIF data. Those shots where 'there's a person in the FG and the BG looks realistic' were probably not shot with WA lenses, but rather with short telephotos from a reasonable distance from the subject - in that case, the 'compression' effect of telephoto lenses equalizes FG/BG elements (and as the focal length gets longer, the FG is minimized relative to BG).


Basically, this is the classical relationship between focal length and perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

I have shots at 50mm that are much more realistic.

---

Ummmm...that's why 50mm is called "normal". [:P] It's 'normal' because that focal length (on FF) approximates the field of view, and thus the perspective, of human vision.

I actually Like this picture---especially the background colors, lighting etc---again, nice location. I even like the boat and the and the accentuated bow. If I had to critique it, I would say two things---1. Clone out the little piece of the dock in front of the boat, and as others have said, try a capture the boat with the bow leading into the picture (of course you would need a willing skipper or lucky timing to do this)


What I would not say is that the boat looks unnatural---It looks as it is expected to look with this lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

perspective distortion is a 'feature' of wide angle lenses

---

I couldn't agree more.---Take advantage of this feature. If you want to get better with this lens and be able to anticipate how the scene will look, try one of Bryan Peterson's exercises in learning to see what your lens sees: In your own home, lens affixed to camera, lay on your stomach and start shooting, move from room to room shooting this way, then roll over on your back---go room to room, then on your knees etc.......practice this with all of your lenses---you would be amazed what you will discover. Just a note----my wife thought I had lost my mind when I started doing this, but it really did help me understand my lenses better.


One great use of this lens is the classic flowers in the forground and rocks, buldings or mountains in the background---then shoot low and shoot wide.


Also, if you want wide but want to avoid gross distortion, try and make sure there are no straight vertical elementson the sides of your frame---i.e., telephone poles, light poles, straight pine trees etc---these will lean toward the center of your frame----Just some things I have learned with my 10-22


Lastly, Lets talk about what looks "natural". In my opinion few great pictures look natural, thats what makes them great pictures. For example--a simple family portrait with everyone in white shirts with a white background----when was the last time you saw your family like this (other than for the portrait)?. Another example---those wonderful, dramatic black and white Ansel Adam photos----Great Photosbut not natural or realistic.---those magazine fashion shots---perfect skin--its not natural, its photoshoped, but the models look good....How about those great full frame wildlife shots with the subject in mid air and wonderfully smooth out of focus background---great photo, but not natural. Even in our most basic post processing, we adjust tones, colors, contrast and brightness usually to a point of looking really good, but not natural.


My point---natural is overated---get creative, have fun and use thecharacteristics of your lenses to create really cool un-natural images.


Bob

Hey Canoli,


I actually like this shot. It doesn't look goofy to me. I think you don't like it because the boat looks larger than the buildings. But, I don't think you did anything wrong. I think the others have eloquently explained why this is so.


As stated above, I would probably just try a smaller aperture for landscapes to achieve a greater DOF next time; like f/11 to get the buildings sharper. It appears that you were working with limited ambient light, so perhaps f/8 would have worked also. Since, 6 sec. is a fairly long exposure, I see that the boats flag was showing some wind motion which is fine, and the radar antennae and lettering on the boat are showing some motion as the water current and/or wind rocked the boat a little.


I think the buildings are slightly OOF or soft, due to the larger aperture and narrower DOF and perhaps some wind motion on the tripod as I could see that the flag is flying full mast and strongly from the wind coming off of the water. Yes, I am a Sailor, so I am into this sort of thing. This shot would probably have also worked with a slightly higher ISO and a faster shutter speed as there appears to be plenty of light exposure emanating from the tall center/pointed building. I'm not sure if that is the Empire State building?


But I do like this overall shot; as well as the composition and the ambient lighting. I also like the reflections of the buildings on the water and your waterline/horizon is also straight which is hard to do with a wide angle. In other words, this all works for me.


<span style="font-size: 11.8056px;"]Rich

I must have posted at the same time as Bob, but I like his idea of removing the other piece of boat or dock in front of the big boat.


I would also like to add that, since you didn't like how far back the buildings were pushed, then you could also crop out some of the water in the foreground, which will focus the viewers eye more on the Manhattan Skyline.


I tried this at home and i liked the effect, but I didn't want to alter your photo without your permission. If you would like, I could post the cropped version or you could try it yourself.





Rich

Thanks Everyone - for your thoughts and suggestions.
I've learned quite a bit reading over your comments.



Maybe my familiarity with the scene clouds my judgement of the shot. In reality those buildings are huge. Standing across the river you "feel" their presence; it's imposing, like a wall along the river's edge. Now that I've read your comments and thought about it more, I can see there was no way I was going to capture any of that quality with this shot.



Thanks for pointing out some of the things that do work about the image. I like the texture in the water and the colors/reflections.



I was especially interested in your comments regarding the softness of the buildings and the motion blur showing up in the boat's lettering. I hadn't really noticed either one. Your guesses were right on the money though, it was quite windy that morning, and the East River flows at a rapid rate in any case. I never even thought of raising the ISO. I've never dealt with such a sensitive subject before like this boat in the water. A 6-sec shutter speed... I should've known...




I'll have to try your suggestions of a faster shutter/higher ISO/tighter aperture for better DOF... I really appreciate all of your comments and I can't wait to put them into practice.


Thanks again! You guys are the best!

hey Rich - by all means - I'd love to see what you come up with.


That's a great idea - cut out some of the FG water and maybe the buildings loom a little larger. It sure can't hurt; there's not much happening in the dark FG water anyway...


thanks again for your comments and your help!

Something like this you mean?


My crop ends up at 1.7 aspect ratio. To keep the 3/2 means cutting off the tall bldg on the right side. I didn't even try it - I figured the image would just get weaker without that "anchor" on the edge.


Anyway - you were right, it looks much better without all the FG water.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/5D_5F00_20100703_5F00_13_5F00_dxo_5F00_02_5F00_crp pd.jpg[/img]

Hey, I'm back!


All I did was crop out the foreground water and move the left side over slightly to eliminate that other boat. I unchecked constrain image, so therefore the final crop was not constrained.


Now.., I'm cropping a 164kb file that I downloaded from here, so the quality won't be as good as you cropping the original, but at least you will get an idea of what I am talking about.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.44.62/5D_5F00_20100703_5F00_13_5F00_dxo_5F00_02_5F00_web .jpg[/img]


Compare this to your original post, and I think you will agree that the skyline is now more the focal point as opposed to the rear-end of the boat. It's really not about right or wrong, it's more about personal preference.


I hope this helps,


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]Rich

Wow, unless I'm quite mistaken I think I just learned something here... Is it possible I'm seeing the "push in tight to your subject" effect just with this crop?


I'm referring to the advice you always read about wide-angle lenses, about pushing in tight on a subject (with a WA lens), how it can pull an image together.


I didn't realize it could work on an image like this, one with a distant BG like these buildings. I guess I always assumed it was strictly an indoor guideline.


I sure didn't follow the advice when I took the shot but I swear I'm seeing some of the possibilities now, just by viewing the effects of this crop. Does that make any sense?

Hmmm, very interesting! Seriously. Did you use the 3D function in Photoshop? Or the geometric distortion controls in DxO?


I can't figure out how you kept all the BG buildings on the RH side...


Nice work, whatever you did!

Yes, you're right, because before.., your foreground object was the water and now it is the water and the boat.

No, actually I just did a simple crop in iPhoto and I unchecked the box that says keep Image Constrained, by doing this it keeps it more like a landscape/wide look instead of a constrained/square.


In aperture you would just use the pull down window in the crop feature and when you see Aspect ratio, you would select "Do Not Constrain."


If you crop without constraining the image then you could just crop from the top or bottom only, and leave the right side or left side of the image alone. You could also crop from the sides and leave the top and bottom alone.


When you use Constrain the image, it changes the width when you change the length and vice versa, to keep a certain aspect ratio.

Ah okay, gotcha. It really looks much better.


I wanted to follow-up on the sharpness question. I know you mentioned using a tighter aperture next time and your reason was the softness of the buildings.


Does the hyperfocal distance help me at all here - even if I can calculate it on the spot?


Your comments suggest I can expect f/11 to keep both the boat and the buildings sharp. I assume you mean by focusing on the boat right? And the HFD? Does it even matter with a shot like this?


Thanks again!

This is more like what I thought I'd get with the other shot- regarding the size of the boat/buildings that is.


5D 70-200 2.8 IS @ 70mm 4sec @ f/22 ISO 100


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/5D_5F00_20100703_5F00_42_5F00_web.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

This is more like what I thought I'd get with the other shot- regarding the size of the boat/buildings that is.


5D 70-200 2.8 IS @ 70mm

---

Yep, 70mm on FF = short telephoto = mild perspective compression, versus the perspective distortion of a wide angle focal length. It's apparent how much closer the boat appears to the buildings. You can imagine (or try) cropping the original 26mm shot to give the same framing, and you'll really see the effect of perspective distortion/compression. It's a good lesson in how to decide what focal length to use for a shot, depending on the effect you want to convey.

When using wide angles for landscapes and you want to get the "in the picture" feel, get close and go low with an interesting foreground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ehcalum

When using wide angles for landscapes and you want to get the "in the picture" feel, get close and go low with an interesting foreground.

---

Great suggestion! I'll sometimes shoot landscapes with my 7D +EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 right on the ground. Live View helps, but that's one type of shot where my Angle Finder C comes in handy.

Yes, the hyper-focal distance can help you decide, but I usually just use a small enough aperture to achieve the desired DOF.


As you could see in your f/22 shot the buildings are now sharp. If you have plenty of light thats not a problem, but at twilight you will probably have to go with a little larger aperture like f/11 give or take a stop and focus about half way into the shot. If there is a strong foreground object (like the boat) anchoring your shot, pun intended, then you want to make sure that that is in focus, because that will obviously be more of a problem then an OOF distant background, since we are used to seeing closer objects in focus, unless of course you do the opposite for artistic reasons.


You will probably rarely require f/22, as it's often not necessary and the sweet spot of most lenses usually lies in the middle of the aperture range.


But it's still good to try all of the different setttings and then go home and look at the computer to see what works best for that particular situation.


Rich

Thanks Everyone - I'm getting some great stuff from this thread...


This is 17mm and the buildings and the Brooklyn Bridge appear realistic (aside from the muddy coloring - hasty ACR conversion). This is true mostly because I held the camera perpendicular to them? If I'd angled it downward to capture a boat going by (underneath the bridge I was standing on) then the distant buildings and the bridge would've definitely come out distorted...true?


What I'm getting at is - someone mentioned getting down low and shoot your foreground object from that vantage point to "tie in" the foreground and background. (the Angle Finder C is my next purchase, been coveting that thing for too long! w/out Live View it's almost essential for flat-on-your-stomach shots it seems to me). Anyway, now I'm wondering - when there isn't a foreground object, the angle you hold the camera is the most important thing right? Assuming you're going for an accurate representation of the scene of course...


5D 17-40mm @17mm, f/8 @ 1/200 ISO 800


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/_5F00_MG_5F00_0198_5F00_17mm.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

This is 17mm and the buildings and the Brooklyn Bridge appear realistic (aside from the muddy coloring - hasty ACR conversion). This is true mostly because I held the camera perpendicular to them? If I'd angled it downward to capture a boat going by (underneath the bridge I was standing on) then the distant buildings and the bridge would've definitely come out distorted...true?

---

Sort of. The thing about perspective distortion is that you need both foreground and background elements to see the effect. In this shot of theBrooklyn Bridge, there's really no foreground. If you'd angled down to include a boat in the frame, you'd perceive the distortion of the bridge and buildings - not because of the angle, but because of the foreground element.


If you look at the car in the extreme lower right (and ignore the barrel distortion which 'twists' it, since that's a different kind of distortion), you'll notice that objectively, it's the almost as big as some of the buildings. Here's a cut and paste to illustrate -thatis perspective distortion.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Car_2B00_Bridge.jpg[/img]


Since the car is barely visible in the frame, and a reasonable distance from the camera already (i.e. it's not really a foreground element), the perspective distortion is minimized.

Exactly! The UWA lens will distort the objects. When the lens is perpendicular to the bridge it will distort its width, making it appear wider and further away, since the lens is parallel to the road on the right it will distort its length making the road appear longer (just like that maroon minivan on the right) and wider.


Now, if the camera is neither parallel or perpendicular to the object, in other words on an angle like you suggest, then you will distort the width and length simultaneously at different ratios, thus accentuating either width and/or length separately to varying degrees depending on the angle of capture, and thus, that will certainly leave a lot of room open for creativity.


By the way, I think you're doing a great job with your composition! I love this photo too! If I were you, I would try to crop out a small amount of sky about 1 inch and then crop a small amount of water and road in the foreground, just above that maroon minivan on the right.


Just like yesterdays photo, this will have the affect of raising the focal point of the bridge up towards the center of the frame, as well as pulling the viewer into the photo more. It doesn't have to be completely centered.


If you don't mind, kindly give it a try using the non constrained crop (just crop top and bottom only) and post it and let me know what you think about it.


As you've stated above, I think you're starting to see a pattern developing here.


Rich


PS. You may also have dirt on your Sensor in the upper right hand corner of the above photo, its that small darker circle.

Neuro - Rich - Thanks very much for your help - I think maybe I'm almost starting toget it (nothing like certainty!).


Seeing the minivan's apparent size nearly identical to a 20-story building was an eye-opener. I assumed I'd captured "reality."


I followed Rich's suggestion and cropped away the minivan and some sky. I think the composition is much better, definitely. I feel like I'm looking from nearly the same horizontal plane as the bridge, as opposed to viewing the scene from above. Am I crazy or do I see the bridge bulging out a little now though - bulging out toward the viewer? something I hadn't noticed before cropping...


ps - that is ("was" I'm happy to report!) indeed sensor dust. A pack of Visible Dust sensor swabs and a bottle of Eclipse were the first "accessories" I bought - a day after buying the body. One swab and a few drops took care of the dust invasion.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/_5F00_MG_5F00_0198_5F00_17mmCrop.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Here's a cut and paste to illustrate -thatis perspective distortion.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/...da9c5fc1_m.jpg

---

I don't think I entirely agree with you on this one. Yes I believe the 17mm gives you a little bit of distortion, but not in the way you make it seem like. I do agree that for instance 50mm would give you a more natural look. Hmm a little test would come in handy here [A] Same framing and composition, different focal lengths(and therefor some foot-zooming).



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

I assumed I'd captured "reality."

---

I believe you did pretty well. Just think of it this way, when you stood over there, the cars looked pretty much like they do in your shot.


Back to John[:P]I think the best example of perspective distortion is the sun or the moon. Effectively they are always just as far from the earth. But how does it happen that somethimes the moon or sun looks enormously big?.. Perspective distortion [:P] In your mind you have the idea of a moon being an enormous planet you can see at night which looks like a small ball, however, the closer the moon gets to the horizon, the bigger it seems. In fact it's just as far away, relatively and so it should be just as big. The fact that you see the moon in context close to objects that you know the size of, the moon seems a lot bigger, because unintentionally you compare the item you know the size of with the moon. Same counts for the sun. I believe that's called perspective distortion, but if I'm wrong, please correct me [;)]


Jan
</div>

There's something to that Jan - thanks for your comment. I remember hearing about the "moon paradox" years ago, and the way to understand the illusion was to look at the moon through a tube when it's on the horizon. Once you get rid of the visual cues telling your brain the moon is bigger it shrinks back down to the same size it appears at the zenith.


I suppose there's more than one effect going on in any shot but the main one (after exposure and focus) seems to be camera position - how close you are and the relative angle of the camera to the subject.


Now about that "foot-zooming" expression... ah well n'mind, I know what you meant. [:)]


Thanks again for your comments!

Hey Canoli,


Nice job with the crop! You're certainly getting it! Now, the bridge anchors the photo better. Ok.., now to keep it real, I think you over did the color adjustment a little on the cropped photo. The water, clouds and some of the buildings now look too green to me.


It's probably an optical Illusion that is magnified as we get closer and you're probably staring at it more since it's more of a focal point.


Since you are enjoying this thread, one other pointer that I noticed, would be to lower your tripod slightly in order to create some space or air in between that Island and the lower span at the center of the bridge, the same concept applies for boats or buildings, that may be visible under a span or archway. Sometimes, it's not possible because you can't move a fixed object, or as you lower your tripod the wide angle lens will catch a piece of the railing that you're standing in front of, but I just figured it's something to look for.


Keep up the good work!


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]Rich

Thanks Rich! I appreciate your help and your encouraging words.


I agree the color in the crop is worse now - went a little overboard on the Curves adjustment...


good suggestion about lowering the tripod. Unfortunately where I was (on the Manhattan Bridge) there's only 2 spots you can shoot at all. The rest of the walkway is bordered by a 6' wall - chain-link, steel, etc. Someone cut 2 holes in it, one at either end - presumably a photographer - so there are those 2 places - but that's basically it along the span...


What's funny about using a tripod on the Man. bridge (and all the NYC bridges) - you can use it until about 5:30am. After that the traffic gets so heavy that the bridge is constantly bumping up and down. I was surprised any of the shots were sharp after 5:30...


Thanks again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I don't think I entirely agree with you on this one. Yes I believe the 17mm gives you a little bit of distortion, but not in the way you make it seem like.

---

Here's another example, lifted from Wikipedia's article on Perspective Distortion, this is 18mm on FF.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...1/Gondolas.jpg


Obviously, the gondola in the foreground is the same physical size as the gondolas in the background. Yet, visually you could probably fit 10 of those little gondolas in the distance into the single one in front.

Yes I get what you mean John, the angle of view from the wide-angle vs the "normal"angle of view from a human being, right?(the 50mm on FF story)


At this time I'm not seeing it as unnatural or so called distorted, right away and I must say I'm not bothered by the image. However I was bothered by the initial posters image of the boat in the water. Perhaps distance and size matter more in that shot?


Hmm I really have to do this perspective distortion test don't I? If I have some more time this week, I'll go for it...


I'm probably talking about a whole different phenomenon when I mentioned the big moon-thingy so just leave that one [:P]

Oh never mind, I don't have to do the testing, I've just seen the best example of what I wanted to see(the bidons). However it is an extreme example at these close focus distances, I'm now seeing how it would affect at larger scales. But I still can't believe it's that bad [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Yes I get what you mean John, the angle of view from the wide-angle vs the "normal"angle of view from a human being, right?(the 50mm on FF story)

---

That's my point exactly. But you're right that different elements in the image can either enhance or reduce the effect of perspective distortion. It's a good point - the position and angle of the boat in the original shot give it a lot of visual weight, adding to the distortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I'm probably talking about a whole different phenomenon when I mentioned the big moon-thingy so just leave that one

---

Well, sort of. The 'moon illusion' seems to be a complex and not completely understood phenomenon, but it's based mostly in perception rather than optics. Here's a scientific journal article on the topic, if you want to delve into it... [8-|]

I just read a couple of lines and it seems very interesting, however reading it all would take me some time. I'll read it later on.(It's comparable to reading some of Daniel Brownings, very interesting theories, to me...reading a paragraph like 4 times before I totally understand it all [:P])


Funny thing with taking pictures is that sometimes this moon or sun illusion is barely visible. For instance I made a time-lapse a few weeks ago of a sunset and in my eyes the sun was enormously, larger than I've ever seen it here. But in the photos it's just a small ball. I guess the 2D photo works against the illusion as well, it probably is explained in the article so I'll understand the idea of it later on [;)]