Converging verticals... Yay or Nay?

[Dr Croubie]

Okay, so everyone knows that converging verticals can be a distracting photographic element.

See, that's something I've always wondered about.
I've seen photos taken with various Shift lenses, generally in Shifted and Unshifted comparisons, and sometimes the unshifted-with-converging-lines actually looks better to me. It looks more real, shift-lens shots just look 'fake' somehow.
Has anyone else had this?

On another note, my mum bought a 35mm Soligor lens for her Spotmatic back in 1970 or so. She didn't like it, said it 'distorted' buildings too much, so bought a Takumar 35mm instead, and liked it. Many years later, she was telling me about this, I immediately presumed 'barrel distortion'. But I put both lenses (and various others) on my camera, shot a few poor-man's-distortion-charts (printed from Excel), and couldn't see any barrelling. So I asked again, and she said it was more that "the buildings looked like they were falling over" (ie, unshifted pointing upwards). So she can see the problems, but to me it's more aesthetically pleasing to have a vanishing point of perspective I suppose.

Meanwhile, as for your shot, I like it, it definitely gives that "worm's eye view" perspective...

[w349]

I've seen photos taken with various Shift lenses, generally in Shifted and Unshifted comparisons, and sometimes the unshifted-with-converging-lines actually looks better to me. It looks more real, shift-lens shots just look 'fake' somehow.

I know what you mean, but I think that is user error. Have a look at this article from Luminous Landscapes: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...using-ts.shtml

The author writes: "For those new to camera movements; my opinion is to never correct converging verticals into perfect parallels. It is the best way to make a building look as if it will fall on top of you and one of my long-time pet hates in architectural photography. I almost always leave a little convergence. After all, it is a normal visual phenomenon!"