Assignment #34: Vanishing Point

Nikolai · May 4, 2007

Honestly, what did you think when you saw the theme? :wink

Well, VP is not only the name of a very powerful filter in PS CS2/CS3, it's also a classic way to compose a picture (Renaissance painters were masters of that technique).

Wikipedia defines it like this:
"A vanishing point is a point in a perspective drawing to which parallel lines appear to converge. The number and placement of the vanishing points determines which perspective technique is being used.".

This week task is to shoot a picture with a clearly defined Vanishing Point(no more than 3 VPs, please).

If unsure - google for it, you'll find plenty of examples.

As usual: fresh pictures, moderate post-processing.
For the rest of the basic rules and index please check out this sticky.

Let's get some VPs! :-) :wink

pyroPrints.com · May 4, 2007

my image hosting site (divshare) is down =c( which is very disconcerting. I guess I gotta use photobucket.

Nikolai · May 4, 2007

Pyro,
Nice 1-VP entries, thanks!

pyroPrints.com wrote:

my image hosting site (divshare) is down =c( which is very disconcerting. I guess I gotta use photobucket.

Get Smugmug, man! Then you can use S*E

pyroPrints.com · May 4, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

Nice 1-VP entries, thanks!

Get Smugmug, man! Then you can use S*E

I've been meaning too. "S*E"?

Nikolai · May 4, 2007

pyroPrints.com wrote:

"S*E"?

Come on... Star*Explorer... Like you never heard...

BTW, it also comes with the $5 coupon for SM

anwmn1 · May 4, 2007

Nikolai · May 4, 2007

Aaron,
Thanks!

#2 and #3 - definitely

, #1 - no so much

pyroPrints.com · May 4, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

Come on... Star*Explorer... Like you never heard...
BTW, it also comes with the $5 coupon for SM

I have not... I know the quality of my images makes me look like a pro

, but I'm a relative noob. I know a lot, but I also don't a lot as well.

Anyhow, here is another VP, it's a bit blurry since I decided to use a long exposure, plus my windshield is dirty =c)

Nikolai · May 4, 2007

pyroPrints.com wrote:

I have not... I know the quality of my images makes me look like a pro , but I'm a relative noob. I know a lot, but I also don't a lot as well.
Anyhow, here is another VP, it's a bit blurry since I decided to use a long exposure, plus my windshield is dirty =c)

Another good one:-)

Antonio Correia · May 5, 2007

Is this any good ?

Bayer-Z28 · May 5, 2007

Ohh! I wanna play! :ivar

I just took these two. It was difficult to control the narrow DOF. It was even more pronounced as I brought the camera closer to the wall.

My first one was off, so I reshot it. I'm going out side to try a couple more..

First attempt..

Re shoots.

Nikolai · May 5, 2007

Antonio,

Antonio Correia wrote:

Is this any good ?

#2 is acceptable.

#1 - sorry, you gotta have more perspective convergence

...
Shallow DOF is not what we're shooting for this time.

Nikolai · May 5, 2007

Bayer,

Bayer-Z28 wrote:

Ohh! I wanna play! :ivar
I just took these two. It was difficult to control the narrow DOF. It was even more pronounced as I brought the camera closer to the wall.

My first one was off, so I reshot it. I'm going out side to try a couple more..
First attempt..
Re shoots.

#1 is nice. Good use of WA

As I have already mentioned to Antonio, the VP shots usually benefit from deep DOF, not the shallow one. You need to be able to see the convergence going on and away...

dlscott56 · May 5, 2007

Do any of these qualify?

Bayer-Z28 · May 5, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

#1 is nice. Good use of WA

As I have already mentioned to Antonio, the VP shots usually benefit from deep DOF, not the shallow one. You need to be able to see the convergence going on and away...

How's this for a reshoot?

Nikolai · May 5, 2007

dlscott56 wrote:

Do any of these qualify?

Thanks, Dave!
#1 - nah, don't think so. The curvature of the bridge kills it for me.
#2 - better, but something else is bothering me, I cannot figure out what. Maybe the curve again..
#3 - this one does it:-)

Nikolai · May 5, 2007

Bayer-Z28 wrote:

How's this for a reshoot?

You know, frankly - I like the "original" better.
I'd suggest to go wider and have only the wall in the frame. You may need to really close the aperture down, like f/20, so tripod may come handy. You really need to catch the convergence, so your nearest bricks should be huge and your furtherst bricks should diminish..

HTH

Bayer-Z28 · May 5, 2007

^ I need a better camera... My f stops only go to 8.0 ... =\

I've made the best out of what I have, although I am still learning techinque w/ some help from the assignments and reading threads.

Nikolai · May 5, 2007

Bayer-Z28 wrote:

^ I need a better camera... My f stops only go to 8.0 ... =\

I've made the best out of what I have, although I am still learning techinque w/ some help from the assignments and reading threads.

P&S? I see.. For some reason I have only noticed Rebel XTi in your sig and thought you're using DSLR. Yeah, I know... had the same problem myself when I was shooting Sony...
Oh well, bigger buildings, brighter sun and lower angle will still help you to get a good VP entry...

Good luck on that! And get that dSLR!

BeaKeR · May 5, 2007

My first time turning in my homework and I'm already trying to break the rules. This first one was actually taken Thursday evening. Does that count as "fresh", or does it not count since it was just a lucky shot?

This one, well, I meant to do that, mostly. I liked the texture, but it's got some VP action too...

Nikolai · May 5, 2007

Beaker,

BeaKeR wrote:

My first time turning in my homework and I'm already trying to break the rules. This first one was actually taken Thursday evening. Does that count as "fresh", or does it not count since it was just a lucky shot?

This one, well, I meant to do that, mostly. I liked the texture, but it's got some VP action too...

Sorry, no cigar this time.

#1 does not count due to the lack of fresnhess
And #2 bears a convergence illusion, but the point of this class is to get the real thing.

BeaKeR · May 5, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

#1 does not count due to the lack of fresnhessSorry, no cigar this time.
And #2 bears a convergence illusion, but the point of this class is to get the real thing.

#1 - Fair 'nuff, rules is rules. I'm assuming it's OK to stay or you would've taken it down?

#2 - I'm missing the distinction. Can you edify me please?

Ken Lapp · May 5, 2007

A shot of a sidewalk along main street in Port Gamble, WA.

Nikolai · May 6, 2007

BeaKeR wrote:

#1 - Fair 'nuff, rules is rules. I'm assuming it's OK to stay or you would've taken it down?

#2 - I'm missing the distinction. Can you edify me please?

#1. Sure, no worries. It's better when the other folks see whta's in and what's out.

#2. Well, the point of this exercise is to catch of an existing classic effect of vaninshing point, when a few imaginary (or real) lines converge to infinity at one or more points. It's obvious that any such case actually forms a triangle or at least a trapeze (i.e. a triangle with the least angle cut off) when projected on a 2D surface of the film/sensor/screen/paper, yet the idea is only to have it in a perspective, not just a real triangle/trapeze.
Clear as mud?

Nikolai · May 6, 2007

Ken Lapp wrote:

A shot of a sidewalk along main street in Port Gamble, WA.

Thanks, Ken, nice 1VP entry!

BeaKeR · May 6, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

#2. ... Clear as mud?

Um.... yeah, pretty much.

It's a picture with parallel lines that appear to be converging. Granted they don't actually converge, but then infinity doesn't actually exist either. Still not getting the difference.

Rereading your response, it seems like maybe you're under the impression that the lines in the picture aren't actually parallel? They are, at least to the limits of the building trade. That's a long window. (Edit: And I do mean a rectangular window, not a trapezoidal one. Although if I found a trapezoidal window I'd probably take a picture of it.)

Nikolai · May 6, 2007

BeaKeR wrote:

Um.... yeah, pretty much. It's a picture with parallel lines that appear to be converging. Granted they don't actually converge, but then infinity doesn't actually exist either. Still not getting the difference.

Rereading your response, it seems like maybe you're under the impression that the lines in the picture aren't actually parallel? They are, at least to the limits of the building trade. That's a long window. (Edit: And I do mean a rectangular window, not a trapezoidal one. Although if I found a trapezoidal window I'd probably take a picture of it.)

Oh.. Is it, really? Well in that case, sorry, my bad (I thought it was a triangular piece of textured glass under some fancy light) and this shot is getting A+

BeaKeR · May 6, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

Oh.. Is it, really? Well in that case, sorry, my bad (I thought it was a triangular piece of textured glass under some fancy light) and this shot is getting A+

Yep, it really is. Just to prove my point...

IMGP1380-bad.jpg

Glad to know I'm not completely off my rocker about vanishing points. But now I'm so tempted to go back and enter this in the #26 Triangles assignment, just to see if I can make you scream.

Nikolai · May 6, 2007

BeaKeR wrote:

Yep, it really is. Just to prove my point...

Point wel taken...:-)

BeaKeR wrote:

Glad to know I'm not completely off my rocker about vanishing points. But now I'm so tempted to go back and enter this in the #26 Triangles assignment, just to see if I can make you scream.

hey, no cross-posting

limey-g · May 6, 2007

My attempt at VP
Geoff

Nikolai · May 6, 2007

Geoff,

limey-g wrote:

My attempt at VP
Geoff

Another good 1VP entry!

BTW folks, VP does not necessarily means "dead symmetry"...

Assignment #34: Vanishing Point

Comments