Does Photoshop replace view camera movements?

[Steve Singleton]

As a non-digital photographer, I can't evaluate claims I've heard about doing pe rspective correction in image-editing software like Photoshop. Obviously, many high end digital back manufacturers produce products for the view camera. What' s the story today and into the foreseeable future?

[Ellis Vener]

I think your second sentence answers your question. remapping an entire image is tedious and why do it if you can make the corrections when you are making the i mage (either on digital or film media).

[Brian Ellis]

Unless you're in a position to spend megabucks, IMHO digital and large format photography don't mix very well. Forgetting about the digital backs (megabucks), you have to be able to scan the negative or transparency into your computer. Large format scanners even approaching the quality you're used to with film start at about $8,000 (the Nikon 4500) and go up from there. Service bureaus want approximately $15 or more per large format scan. If you're willing to accept very poor quality, use a desk top scanner (or, better yet, switch to 35mm).

[J Greely]

If you have plenty of bits to spare, you can emulate some movements in Photoshop, and they even give a n example (http://www.adobe.com/studio/tipstechniques/keystone/main.html) on their web site; note that it will cost you image resolution. You can't reproduce swings and tilts, since Photoshop can't focus your picture, and you can't precisely emulate many shifts, since it may not be possible to stand in a position that would give you the right bits to work with.

For the canonical example of photographing a mirror straight-on without the reflection of the camera appearing in it, fixing it in Photoshop would require painting over the camera with a realistic-looking scene, which could be quite a chore! I think the only way to do that well would be to shoot a second frame from the mirror's position and paste it into the first picture, and the layout of the room may not permit it.

For product and architecture work, I don't see "digital movements" offering anything but pain and expense.

[Alan Gibson]

If you have a choice of doing a movement with the camera, or later in software, the camera choice will always give you better quality. This applies whether you have "real" or "digital" film, and will always apply.

[Tarek El Baradie]

I know for sure that the Adobe Photoshop does perspective control. However, this eats up the sides of the image. You can shoot your vertical subject without any perspective correction with the camera back and count on the photoshop, but make sure that you leave "extra" space on the film sides around your distorted subject to allow for computer perspective control.

[Lot Wouda]

No, not for perspective-control and not even for selective sharpness or DoF. Digitally implemented sharpness after the picture was taken has its limits.