Leaning buildings UWA lens

[David Kilpatrick]

First, why would that never get past QC? Unless it's just a 3 megapixel shot or something, it would sail though. QC has no problems with creative artefacts like lens flare and iris stars.

 

There's only rule with angles - the image must look intentionally composed. No matter how slight the amount of convergence, getting the central or pivotal vertical correct (balance) indicates that the composition is deliberate. In fact the weaker the convergence, the more important it is to get the central alignment and symmetry correct. 'Dutch angles' work from around 10 degrees overall. The difficult area is between 0 and 10 degrees, where it just looks as if you have not got the horizon/building straight. I routinely correct all very slight errors like 0.25° off horizon in EVERY shot we put through. That way, if the image is used for print it will never be just out of line with text etc.

 

When designing magazine pages, sometimes I need to tilt a picture because a square grid of image does not work and the page needs more 'jazz' to it. I nearly always use 10 or 15° and occasionally 5 or 20°. Sometimes, I may want the picture to be tilted like this, but I'd like to have the horizon straight , as if the viewer has an angled framed on a normal view. Here, the 'Dutch angles' help. I keep the image dead straight on the page, but the frame is angled. So they have a use.

 

When correctly verticals, the most common mistake is to use a grid and do this perfectly. Trained architectural photographers don't do 'perfect'. They back off the correction by maybe 0.25°, so there remains just a hint of convergence. This prevents the picture looking completely wrong to the eye. A skilled Photoshop operator should do the same. Balance remains the critical control. If you correct the verticals precisely at one side and have the other side of a building converging in by a couple on mm on the height of your screen, it will look bad. You need a good eye and the help of the the grid, or Photoshop rulers.

 

Looking back I realise I am now far too unwilling to use extreme wides. I started out in the 1970s owning the widest you could buy and using them all the time, even for editorial portraits. Then I learned commercial large format photography and did catalogue and advertising work in the 1980s and pretty much forgot those origins. Yet I see plenty of photographers today discovering ultra-wide perspectives the same way, and realise I lost a bit of what was seen as 'style' by becoming more technically accurate and neutral.

[Paulstw]

Thanks for that David. Nice write up. 

 

Maybe I'm just edgy with my 3 fails on QC this month. Haven't uploaded anything else since my last batch went through. Actually come to think of it, since this was taken I haven't taken much in the way of interesting shots since I had my fail spell. 

[John Mitchell]

"When correctly verticals, the most common mistake is to use a grid and do this perfectly. Trained architectural photographers don't do 'perfect'. They back off the correction by maybe 0.25°, so there remains just a hint of convergence. This prevents the picture looking completely wrong to the eye."

 

Interesting comment. I find that that perfectly straight buildings can look even more unnatural than ones with heavily converging verticals. You see some pretty severe corrections sometimes, even in architectural magazines.

[MDM]

There's only rule with angles - the image must look intentionally composed.

I think it's the same with many so-called compositional rule breakers (tops of heads chopped off for example). It's got to look intentional

 

When correctly verticals, the most common mistake is to use a grid and do this perfectly. Trained architectural photographers don't do 'perfect'. They back off the correction by maybe 0.25°, so there remains just a hint of convergence. This prevents the picture looking completely wrong to the eye. A skilled Photoshop operator should do the same. Balance remains the critical control. If you correct the verticals precisely at one side and have the other side of a building converging in by a couple on mm on the height of your screen, it will look bad. You need a good eye and the help of the the grid, or Photoshop rulers.

That is really interesting.

[losdemas]

I think it's the same with many so-called compositional rule breakers (tops of heads chopped off for example). It's got to look intentional

 

That is really interesting.

 

Funny, that's just what I said to the coppers; they failed to take the artistic view.  Damien Hirst did alright.

 

But seriously, folks: I love these rule-breakers, including chopped-off heads in portraits, just not sure how well they sell as stock?  Great and very helpful insight from DK as usual though re: angles in architectural shots.

[dustydingo]

 

I think it's the same with many so-called compositional rule breakers (tops of heads chopped off for example). It's got to look intentional

 

That is really interesting.

 

Funny, that's just what I said to the coppers; they failed to take the artistic view.  Damien Hirst did alright.

 

But seriously, folks: I love these rule-breakers, including chopped-off heads in portraits, just not sure how well they sell as stock?  Great and very helpful insight from DK as usual though re: angles in architectural shots.

 

Rule-breakers certainly can sell as stock.

 

One of my higher-earning, multi-selling images with deliberate (obviously) askew-horizon:

 

 

dd

[MDM]

So it's true then. Everything really is upside down in Australia.

[dustydingo]

So it's true then. Everything really is upside down in Australia.

 

Everything . . . except for the drop-bears . . .

 

dd

[Paulstw]

 

 

I think it's the same with many so-called compositional rule breakers (tops of heads chopped off for example). It's got to look intentional

 

That is really interesting.

 

Funny, that's just what I said to the coppers; they failed to take the artistic view.  Damien Hirst did alright.

 

But seriously, folks: I love these rule-breakers, including chopped-off heads in portraits, just not sure how well they sell as stock?  Great and very helpful insight from DK as usual though re: angles in architectural shots.

 

Rule-breakers certainly can sell as stock.

 

One of my higher-earning, multi-selling images with deliberate (obviously) askew-horizon:

 

 

 

dd

Not surprised that sells to be fair. It's a very saleable image  

[Paulstw]

I think that image above of the mansion house has failed QC. emailed MS and they kind of hinted and gave me the whole 28 days wait default text email. 

Actually at a loss with ALamy now. 6 QC fails in a month. Nothing about my workflow has changed in 850 images. No idea how heavily edited images make it through QC at all. 

[losdemas]

I think that image above of the mansion house has failed QC. emailed MS and they kind of hinted and gave me the whole 28 days wait default text email. 

Actually at a loss with ALamy now. 6 QC fails in a month. Nothing about my workflow has changed in 850 images. No idea how heavily edited images make it through QC at all. 

 

Paul, obviously I can't say why you are having these ongoing QC problems, but surely it would make sense to leave off any photo which has had any level of post-processing apart from the basics necessary - at  least for a while?

 

Go back to the basic principles you applied when first submitting images here (good, but unchallenging light, aperture at f8 / f11 or whatever, minimal PP, view at 100% ensuring no dust spots or CA, etc. etc.) and get a few submissions through successfully.  You're clearly on some kind of watch list owing to number of fails, so I guess the slightest of errors will have you sin-binned.

 

Onward and upward !

[Paulstw]

 

I think that image above of the mansion house has failed QC. emailed MS and they kind of hinted and gave me the whole 28 days wait default text email. 

Actually at a loss with ALamy now. 6 QC fails in a month. Nothing about my workflow has changed in 850 images. No idea how heavily edited images make it through QC at all. 

 

Paul, obviously I can't say why you are having these ongoing QC problems, but surely it would make sense to leave off any photo which has had any level of post-processing apart from the basics necessary - at  least for a while?

 

Go back to the basic principles you applied when first submitting images here (good, but unchallenging light, aperture at f8 / f11 or whatever, minimal PP, view at 100% ensuring no dust spots or CA, etc. etc.) and get a few submissions through successfully.  You're clearly on some kind of watch list owing to number of fails, so I guess the slightest of errors will have you sin-binned.

 

Onward and upward !

 

Cheers Danny. The only thing I've changed is now I own a 7D and a 70-200 2.8L IS II. All my other pics were taken with a 600D, and a combination of 18-55 kit, 17-85 IS, tamron 70-300VC. I have PP'd my pics in the same way since the start. All in DPP and a handful in LR. 

 

Think if this fails I'm going to go back to basics and sack it for a while. Whatever I'm doing is not working, not for sales or acceptance. 

[Ed Rooney]

What I find most disconcerting, Paul, is the fact that you are a very hip computer person . . . and still you keep failing QC. I don't get it. Are you very careful to review every image at 100%? And if so, why don't you see the problem? I have maybe one foot in the digital world, yet I've never had a QC failure. What are you doing wrong?

[Paulstw]

What I find most disconcerting, Paul, is the fact that you are a very hip computer person . . . and still you keep failing QC. I don't get it. Are you very careful to review every image at 100%? And if so, why don't you see the problem? I have maybe one foot in the digital world, yet I've never had a QC failure. What are you doing wrong?

 

I'd love to know. Both image fails were because of lack focal point or definition but because I had 7 or so submissions they all failed. One shot was of a toaster turned on with toast in it. It was under-exposed deliberately to show the glow of the toaster. It was a rubbish image. The other was of an Emirates Plan taking off with the light from the sunset hitting it. I even used the right focal point in AI Servo but it failed on lack of definition. 

 

This might not fail, as MS have said it just takes longer now cause I have failed submissions. I can't ask for the image to be deleted which I read on here has been done in the past, so I'll just need to grin and bear it. 

 

I'm currently working with a photographer in Glasgow to document Kingfisher populations on the local river so snapping them is fun. I'm more Involved in that just now that anything else. 

 

Kingfisher Perched2 by Campsie Photography, on Flickr

 

Can't use that on Alamy as its a small crop, about 10% and it's far too noisey. ISO6400 to be exact. 

 

I'm going to have a little rest from Alamy and work on what I got into photography for in the first place. I'll probably return uploading again in a few months. 

[Allan Bell]

Going back to converging verticals. Don't know if anyone knows this, but going back to my school days, a looong time ago, I seem to remember being told that the ancient Greek architects would make the tops of their columns wider than the bottom with a continuous taper all the way up. This, we were told, was to give a more pleasing perspective to the viewer as the columns did not appear to taper in towards the top so much when viewed from ground level.

 

Don't know if the information given was true, but if it was then perhaps we should take our architectural pics in Greece.

 

Allan

[David Kilpatrick]

Check out some Greek columns and you'll find they are not wider at the top, but they do have a gentle curve so they kind of bulge, and this makes them look straighter from ground level. What they did do was create statues to go on plinths which would never be seen from any other angle, and have slightly odd proportions (big head) compared to statues meant to be seen at normal human size, eye level.