Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes I did like it. You captured it well, because IMO there aren't many angles one can shoot the Millenium Bridge in a beautiful way, even if it begs to be shot from no matter what angle. I didn't comment on it because I have a tendency to go for more contrasted images, but 1) computerscreens (even calibrated ones) can be deceptive; 2) most of the people on the LUG seem to like more "balanced" thus not (so) contrasted images. Philippe > From: Peter Dzwig <pdzwig@summaventures.com> > Organization: Summa Ventures Ltd > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:41:03 +0100 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] PAW 20 Millenium Bridge and St. Paul's - Try this!! > > Philippe, > > "Verticals" can be deceiving. This was taken from the other end of the > bridge: > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/album28/StPaulsSteps200505 > > the building nearest you on the St. Paul's side of the road actually has > verticals that DO slant back by 2 - 3 degrees (check against the pillars, > the > buildings opposite on the left, buildings behind etc). The path is > cambered. > > It would appear that the steps aren't exactly centred on the window (not > main > entrance. > > See also: > > http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=532057&Y=180754&A=Y&Z=1 > > where it is very apparent that St. Pauls doesn't run sue East-West (altar > at > East end, but slightly North of East and the river and buildings run ESE. > > The plate glass in the original photo means that there are all sorts of > deceptive lines and planes and half-mirrored images floating about which > also > give (and gave the photographer) optical illusions. I was interested in > trying > to maintain reflections and also to get St. Paul's in place. > > But in any case, did you like the shot? which after all is what it is all > about. > > Peter > > > > Philippe Orlent wrote: > >> The strange thing with the shot is that if you level the horizon (1.72? >> CCW) >> it still doesn't look horizontal. If you put the verticals at 90? (as is >> the >> original), it isn't either. If you level the pavement in front of the >> bridge >> (0.85? CCW), it starts to look horizontal. But the verticals aren't 100% >> vertical any more. >> >> So it might have something to do with cam tilt. >> Then again, if it were cam tilt, the verticals wouldn't be parallel. Which >> they are. >> >> So it might have something to do with your VF frame that isn't 100% >> parallel >> with your cam body. Which would be strange because it would have shown up >> in >> other shots, too. >> >> So it migh have something to do with the fact that (if so) it is a RF: the >> main entrance of St. Paul's is slightly of centre, as often happens when >> you >> try to frame objects behind each other in one axis in the centre of the >> VF: >> the final result is seldomly dead on and plays strange optical tricks with >> the eye. But that wouldn't explain everything. >> >> I'm pretty sure that you saw it dead centre through your VF and that it >> looked symmetrical when you shot it. >> >> So my guess is that the bridge is a bit to the left of the axis of St. >> Paul's. Thus, you being in the centre of the bridge and following the >> bridge's axis, the horizon tilted a bit CW, keeping the verticals >> parallel. >> This rises an interesting question: did Foster make (apart from the >> oscillation issue) an architectural mistake? The bridge sure doesn't seem >> out of the axis of St-Paul's at first sight, but it might be. I can't >> remember what the situation was when I visited Tate Modern, but I would >> have >> seen it, though. I suppose he chose to be perpendicular to the Thames, and >> St. Paul's is just not parallel to the river. In other words, Sir >> Christopher Wren made the "mistake"? >> >> I seems to be the latter: >> >> http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/1859map/map1859_j-l_19-21.html >> Or >> http://tinyurl.com/a2fcy >> >> In any case: I don't think it is possible to get it perfect when shooting >> or >> by just tilting the horizon: some more Photoshop fiddling might be needed, >> if you feel like it :-) >> >> Hey, this is fun! >> >> >> >>> From: Peter Dzwig <pdzwig@summaventures.com> >>> Organization: Summa Ventures Ltd >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:18:11 +0100 >>> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] PAW 20 Millenium Bridge and St. Paul's - Try this!! >>> >>> Douglas Sharp wrote: >>> >>> This could infer a tiny bit >>> >>>> of lens distortion, that the camera was not quite in the horizontal >>>> plane, possibly tilted up a bit, or that the scanned negative was not >>>> quite flat. >>> >>> Think I was sober..no seriously since I have a slight astigmatism it's >>> not >>> inconceivable that I didn't notoce that I was slightly off level. >>> >>> Thanks for your help. >>> >>> Keep looking, >>> >>> Peter >>> >>>> cheers >>>> Douglas >>>> >>>> Peter Dzwig wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Douglas Sharp wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> An excellent shot Peter, >>>>>> love the symmetry! >>>>>> but couldn't it take a slight correction of the horizontal? >>>>>> I think its about 1 or 1.5 degrees out of kilter. Otherwise perfect >>>>>> for me. >>>>>> cheers >>>>>> Douglas >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Douglas and List, >>>>> >>>>> see which one you you think is straight... >>>>> >>>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/album164/MilleniumBridge200505 >>>>> >>>>> the original >>>>> >>>>> or: >>>>> >>>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/album164/MilleniumBridge200505Rot1 >>>>> >>>>> I think that it is it straightened...it took 0.4 degrees of rotation. >>>>> If that does truly fix it (I am not entirely sure) Douglas you have >>>>> very sharp eyes!! >>>>> >>>>> All the best, >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >