I am interested in images of skyscrapers where the photographer "tilted the filmplane" to remove the vertical convergences of the sides of the buildings. Can someone point me to online pictures of this. Also, is it still common for photographers and illustrators to avoid vertical convergences...I remember reading that people seem to think the building is "falling over" when their is a lot of convergence.

• ID# 7.2 (reply to #7.1) - 18 Jan 1998
  There must be images and web pages on the topic of converging verticals, but I've got to do some studies to find any... When it comes to professional or 'serious' architecture photography, avoiding converging verticals is indeed still the way to go. Browse through any 'serious' photo study on architecture, and you'll see that the equipment and method is especially chosen to avoid the convergence (and the equipment is expensive). Yes, the convergence of vertical lines does make the subject look like it is 'falling over' to the back -- in fact, the convergence is present even when viewing a subject with one's own eyes instead of a photo, but brain simply adjusts the view and the subject seems to have vertical lines. The problem with photography comes from the simple fact that film can't be 'fooled' that way -- it shows the verticals as converging. ED.

• (On the subject - 19 Jan 1998) ED.

• ID# 7.3 (reply to #7.1)
  From: Frank Gerlak ([email protected]) - 1 June 1998

  Perspective control can be applied to normal photos in "Photoshop" under the Layer menu - skew. See my photo of Nelson Tower elsewhere on this home page. You need a good scanner ($300) and a good film camera helps - I use Nikons and Rolleis, the youngest of which i own is 30 years old. I get the film processed and a minimum set of prints made. I then scan the picture, make corrections in Photoshop, and voila. I also can print them out on the new HP color printers, I have an HP 1000, onto glossy paper and have a photographic quality picture. Forget digital cameras for now unless you have $20,000 to spend.