[Leica] IMG: face to face

[robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier)]

Ted,

I do agree that having the verticals straight would improve the picture. 
The point I was making was that that would change the way the foreground 
looms so large in the frame, and that would be worse to lose than what would 
be gained by straightening the verticals.
You make a good point about bringing the whole foreground into focus -- that 
would definitely be better.   So, if he had used a Canon Tilt and Shift lens 
(or a view camera), he could have tilted to bring the foreground into focus 
and he could have shifted down to keep the verticals straight while still 
shooting from the higher viewpoint.   And, of course, shooting in B&W. 
Voila -- the perfect picture!

Robert

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:55 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] IMG: face to face


> Robert Meier Offered in rebuttal:
>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] IMG: face to face
>
>
>
> Ted,
>
> If he had bent his knees to get a lower viewpoint, then he would not be
> looking down on the foreground as much, and it would not loom so large in
> the frame. That is an important part of the picture, while the slanting
> verticals are trivial and of no importance.  I think he made the right
> choice.   When you're making an architectural shot on a tripod, you worry
> about the verticals.   He was concerned with very different things that 
> are
>
> far more important to the image.
>
> Ted had offered as critique:
>
>> Bon jour Philippe,
>
>>
>
>> Very interesting. I like it because of it's simplicity and question "well
>
>> OK
>
>> who left the chairs?"
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> But do you know what? I'd like it a whole lot better if you had bent your
>
>> knees and squatted down rather than tilting the camera down!
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> If you look at the buildings in the background they are distorted and all
> bend outwards! Yes I know I'm knit picking and it's hardly noticeable.
>
>>
>
>>However as simple or knit picking as some may think my comment is, I'm
> explaining the difference between doing it absolutely correct in camera
> handling as a skilled photographer or looking like a rookie!
>
>
>
>> I always check the sides of the viewfinder to make sure the building
> vertical lines are straight and not tilted as we see them here. It only
> takes a second as a quick scan of the eye around the frame to make sure
> everything is straight.
>
>> It maybe a small inconsequential item in the eyes of some, however it's
> the difference between doing it right or half assed! Or maybe to be more
> polite,not perfect!
>
>>
>
>>Other than that it's an interesting photo and as someone asked. "I wonder
>
>> what it would look like in B&W!" Hey and there aren't any people, so it
> might make an interesting "art photo."
>
>>ted
>
> No Robert if he'd lowered himself by squatting it would've still kept the
> foreground as strong because the camera would've been closer and still
> filling the frame.
>
>
>
> Regardless of tilting or not, what do you want to do, use the equipment
> correctly or half assed? My point is, how do you want your pictures to 
> look?
>
>
>
> Do you want to be seen as a competent user or not? It's tiny little things
> like this that sort out those who create interesting and talented work.
>
>
>
> If you have no problem with the tilting then why not go all the way and
> really tilt it right down, stop down to 16 or 22 and have it crispy sharp
> inches from the lens to infinity.
>
>
>
> The distortion would be really wild and the funny thing? Acceptable! Why?
> Because it's so obvious compared to a little bit that makes the shooter 
> look
> incompetent.
>
>
>
> I don't know about you, but when I'm shooting where buildings are in the
> frame  I make sure the verticals are correct. Even though the structures 
> are
> of secondary aspect. And that's hand holding!
>
>
>
> The worse thing is a tiny bit off rather than a major tilt of great
> distortion as the eye will accept the wild angle because it and the brain
> understand it isn't supposed to be straight.
>
>
>
> In any event I see this as one of those discussions that can go on for 
> some
> time without settling anything because basically we're of differing
> opinions. Actually it should be by the fire and a cold beer in hand. :-)
>
> ted
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>