Tilted BG Revisited

GraphyFotoz

Ok I did what DEE and a few others recommended.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=49780
No offense but it still looked a bit off and bugged me.

I got the latest copy of PS User Jan 07 at B&N last nite and found a fix I tried.
Filter menu>Distort>Len Correction

Here is the results.
Mid level still looks off...but with a grid snapped across it...according to the grid it's dead on. :dunno
Look at the doorway and windows on brick building to the right....dead on.
Soooooo the car behind the tender musta wobbled as I snapped the shot thus giving the eye the illusion of distortion at mid level. :scratch :dunno

Comments?

ORIGINAL



SUGGESTED FIX



MY NEW FIX

Richard

I don't want to discourage you, but it doesn't look right to me at all. Given the angle you were shooting from, the verticals are the key to being believable. The horizontals will show foreshortening perspective except for those that are bounding a plane parallel to the focal plane. In this shot, there are a number of strong verticals. Moving from left to right, there is the corner edge of the building with a sloping roof, the light drainpipe, the iron girders, and the corner edge of the brick building at the right. To my eye, all of these are rotated clockwise from true vertical, and it seems to get worse as you move from left to right. Now lens distortion is probably responsible for some of this, but the fact that they all seem off in the same direction seems to point to a rotation problem as well.

You are going to have to choose which lines you use as the true verticals. I wouldn't trust anything on the train. It is going around a curve, so it is not unreasonable to see the second car to be tilted somewhat to the right. The buildings are probably a more reliable reference point.

Regards,

GraphyFotoz

Ok Rsinmadrid what you say makes sense....well I guess?

Ok sooooo I Image>Rotate canvas>Arbitrary>CCW>5 looks pretty good before my my crop...resize and correct.

I'm off to CS2....will post NEW results.

Man that was one thing I didn't like about my 828....barrel distort.
What a PITA! :bash

GraphyFotoz

OK UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!

Hopfully this is the "final fix"??

Here is my result.....brick building still looks off kilter to me but I guess this is as good as it gets.

Normally I'd say the hell with it but.........
This is one of my favorite Steamer shots and other than the BG plain being off it wasn't a bad shot.
Wasn't like it was outta focus or some "non fixable" problem that would cause it to go to the recycle bin.

Whadya think now?

Richard

Looks much better. I would leave it that way. BTW, it's a nice shot.

Cheers,

GraphyFotoz

rsinmadrid wrote:

Looks much better. I would leave it that way. BTW, it's a nice shot.

Cheers,

Thanx!
Also thanx for your input on the matter.
Hopefully I don't hafta do this again!
My Sigma 28-70mm don't seem to have this problem at wide angle.

DavidTO

The reason it still looks off to you is that you didn't shoot the building face on, but at a downward angle, and there's keystone distortion in the image.

GraphyFotoz

DavidTO wrote:

The reason it still looks off to you is that you didn't shoot the building face on, but at a downward angle, and there's keystone distortion in the image.

Explain what Keystone Distortion is.

I'm not as well versed as you Guru's out there I'm still a rookie!

DavidTO

GraphyFotoz wrote:

Explain what Keystone Distortion is.

I'm not as well versed as you Guru's out there I'm still a rookie!

Well now it's getting ridiculous. Try google, try the wikipedia. At least try to help yourself.

GraphyFotoz

DavidTO wrote:

Well now it's getting ridiculous. Try google, try the wikipedia. At least try to help yourself.

Well thanx for the rake tines up in the yard!
I'll get my help elsewhere from now on.
My apologies everyone for being a idiot and trying to learn something by asking questions in a public forum.

Nuff said.

Richard

GraphyFotoz wrote:

Well thanx for the rake tines up in the yard!
I'll get my help elsewhere from now on.
My apologies everyone for being a idiot and trying to learn something by asking questions in a public forum.

Nuff said.

Now, now, no need to get all sulky. People here are more than willing to help explain things, generally. David did make a good point, though, which is that it's often faster to look up the meaning of specific terms than wait for a reply. I understand what keystoning is, but just out of curiosity, I searched for it on Google and in the Wiki. The first Google link was a concise definition from Photonotes.org, perhaps a bit too concise if you don't actually know what it is. There were many other links as well, of course, which I didn't look at. The Wiki was interesting to me because although I understood the term keystoning in photography, I never knew where the term originated. A keystone--for those who don't know--is the stone in the center of an arch whose trapezoidal shape holds the arch together. Ya learn something new every day.

Andy

GraphyFotoz wrote:

Well thanx for the rake tines up in the yard!
I'll get my help elsewhere from now on.
My apologies everyone for being a idiot and trying to learn something by asking questions in a public forum.

Nuff said.

Graphy, you gotta understand something here - David's being helpful here - Wikipedia or google pull up immediate great links to the terms in question. And explain it much better than David could. David's probably one of the most unselfish people I've ever met, and puts out 7 days a week here on Dgrin, helping around.

Sorry you didn't like his answer. It was a valuable bit of advice, IMO - Use the tools that are out there to assist!

GraphyFotoz

Andy wrote:

Graphy, you gotta understand something here - David's being helpful here - Wikipedia or google pull up immediate great links to the terms in question. And explain it much better than David could. David's probably one of the most unselfish people I've ever met, and puts out 7 days a week here on Dgrin, helping around.

Sorry you didn't like his answer. It was a valuable bit of advice, IMO - Use the tools that are out there to assist!

Understood.
Just the way it was put across to me.

I have learned a ton here!
Just now and then it seems like I'm a SFB among genius's.

StevenV

rsinmadrid wrote:

the verticals are the key to being believable.

the verticals are almsot always the key, I believe. we humans are ok with the ground - especially background horizons - being uneven, but we get all wierded out if things that are "supposed" to be vertical aren't. I look for corners of buildings, light poles, trees... even if they weren't in "real life," photos just look "right" if they're "properly" verticle.

as in this instance, the trick is to find the right verticles to get lined up :-)

GraphyFotoz

StevenV wrote:

the verticals are almsot always the key, I believe. we humans are ok with the ground - especially background horizons - being uneven, but we get all wierded out if things that are "supposed" to be vertical aren't. I look for corners of buildings, light poles, trees... even if they weren't in "real life," photos just look "right" if they're "properly" verticle.

You are correct!
Earth don't seem round but when your near a HUGE span of water you notice it.
Odd sometimes how the mind and eye play tricks on ya.

LuckyBob

I did a quick PS job on your image and this is what I came up with after rotation, perspective, curves, and color corrections. I'm not quite satisfied with the sky, but so be it . Whaddya think?

GraphyFotoz

LuckyBob wrote:

I did a quick PS job on your image and this is what I came up with after rotation, perspective, curves, and color corrections. I'm not quite satisfied with the sky, but so be it . Whaddya think?

Looks great!
Yeah that's the only slight turn off with the shot is the sky.
I continue to play around with the original and trying to find a proper "punch" for the sky.
It was just one of those days where the sky wasn't working with me.

GraphyFotoz

Ok Bob I THINK I have the FINAL on this now!

With risk of beating a dead horse....:deadhorse

From my original:
Rotated Canvas CCW 4...Cropped and Saturated for better effect.
I used nik Color Efex Pro 2.0 (Graduated Blue) for the sky.
Noiseware then USM.

I'm pretty happy with the results now!

lynnma

THAT looks great!

LuckyBob

Yeah, I think you've got a winner now