A more important question for you is whether or not there is room to move back significantly and whether or not your intended composition and arrangement of items in the frame will be possible with a different focal length (or by changing angle, using shift to move the circular building off-center, etc.).Originally Posted by simdil
There's no free lunch here.
To expand a little on Bryan's response, distortion is an off-axis aberration. The farther off axis, the worse it is.
With that in mind, compose with the vertical spire (what is it?) nearer to the center of the frame.
I don't understand the suggestion to use a longer lens. Would one of the people who made it please explain how and why that would help?
Even a 180 should resolve most of that issue.
If you are to have the same elements in the picture, move backwards with a longer lens. Figure 34 of page 40 shown above shows the effect of moving the tennis ball towards the center.
Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk
This photo was taken at very close distance with a very wide angle lens (14mm) on a full-frame camera.
These individuals may appear to have Dolichocephaly but in fact it's only an apparent stretching due to projection, as described by Doremus.
Based on Figure 34 of page 40 shown above, shouldn´t the focal lenght be irrelevant as long as the sphere subject is positioned towards the center?
Yes, you are right. Back to your pictures, if the sphere is going to be positioned that far out, backing up, the sphere will look more round. To keep the sphere and the building in picture, you need a longer lens, or use a part of the negative -cropping.
Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk
Dan,
It's the off-axis angle that determines the extent of the distortion. Since longer lenses see and project a more acute angle, the subsequent off-axis distortion at the same distance off axis is less. Hope that's clear.
Doremus
An illustration of two focal lengths showing the difference in angles. Consider the angle of the film/back to the spherical object in frame.
My issue with the suggestion of longer focal lengths is that, in my experience, backing up and getting the same or even similar composition is very unlikely, if even possible (something in the way, or a hill makes the height change, or an errant tree is in the composition suddenly). This also messes up the size relationships if you have anything in the foreground.
No almost not visible, but with 300mm it would be a bit better!Even a 180 should resolve most of that issue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks