Stitching vs Tilt-Shift

[Ron Kruger]

I was asked to step out of my comfort zone (outdoor photography) and shoot some rooms for a local B&B's website. I got by pretty well with a 15mm lens, though this does distort the rooms somewhat, making them look larger than they are (pretty small rooms). But this is what the client wanted.

This was a learning experience, and I learned some tricks and lighting methods in the process, but I certainly don't feel comfortable. So I'd welcome some advice from experienced shooters here, because the clients and the web designer what me to do more of this. I need all the work I can get these days, but if I'm going to do this, I want to do it right.

My main problem is the web designer likes to spread the lead photograph all the way across the top of the room pages. For this, and actually for standard rooms shots, I'm thinking I would do better with something like two shots from 35mm lens stitched like a pano than either the 15mm or an expensive tilt-shift lens. But this is just theory at this point, and I was hoping for some experienced input.

While my 15mm is one of the best lenses I've ever owned, and it is just wide enough to cover the most important parts of a small room, there is a slight bending or "keystoning" on vertical items on the left and right edges and a stretching of distant items in a scene that bothers me a bit. I have a slight tilt-shift feature built into my camera (sort of a smaller version of a tilt-shft lens), but I find there are trade-off with using this as well, and the composition is a bit tricky, while stitching is very simple.

That's why I was thinking two stitched images with a 35mm would take in as much or more of the scene without any distortions that make the room look so big.

[Pacerr]

Coupl'a thoughts by PM, Ron.

[blackcloudbrew]

Sorry, I'm not sure how I'd approach it but I'd be using my DA 14 f2.8 as that was one of the reasons I bought it - indoor shots like that. However, as that's not an option for you, I'm thinking the stitched image might be the way to go.

[davidhampshire]

ron,   i know diddly about all this stuff, myself,     but you could ask cindy ,   who posts sometimes to dpreview forums,   she's done some great interior shots,   i especially liked her olson house interiors;    anyway,   here is a link to her site and you can probably email her from the dpreview forum:    http://cfwphotography.smugmug.com/Architecture ;
don't know if that is a help.
dave

[Ron Kruger]

I really appreciate the imput. Keystoning and barrel distortions are very slight with my 15mm, as long as I am careful to have the camera level. The most serious problem is drastic changes in exposure between panned images, especially where windows are involved, which usually is the case.
I've been experimenting with stitching images in my own small rooms. First I took a shot with my 15mm. Then I shot from the same tripod with my 35mm, lining up the right side with the right edge of the 15mm perspective, then panning to just overlap the left side of the 15mm image for the second shot with the 35mm. The stitched pan of the two 35mm images covered almost exactly the same horizontal perspective as the single shot from the 15mm. However, I lost considerable space vertically with the 35mm stitched image, as Hank suggested I might in a PM.
Next I cropped the 15mm image to match the verticle perspective of the stitched 35mm shot. It was basically the same, but with a little more head room. So, I consider the stitching idea a failure. Since I'm shooting plenty of MPs that a cropped image from my 15mm is more than adaquate for internet, and it is so easy, there is not advantage to stitching, plus more potential problems and more time at PP.
So many things sound good in theory, but fail in practical application.
However, I am now wondering if stitched images from a wider lens than the 35mm, say around 21mm, would work and offter more head room than the 35mm? I don't have this FL. I could rent one to test it, but at this point, I think I'll just stick with a simple crop of the 15mm.
For a better idea, I have posted the original 15mm shot and the cropped one that was used to headline the page.

[Ron Kruger]

By the way, this is the shot I liked best from the ones selected. Was trying to create a more romatic mood with all the shots, but achieved it most with this one. If you are wondering about the lighting. I had early morning light coming through the window behind the camera and layed a flash slave on the bed aimed at the book. Used the K10D for this one, the K5 for the wider shots.
Clients loved what I did over the technically perfect, but Canon-like flat image an out of town and expensive professional crew did for them originally. They have asked me to shoot other rooms over for them and do pics of their trail ride services.

[blackcloudbrew]

Ron, short of a DA14, the other lens that comes to mind is the DA 12-24 (or Tamron/Sigma lenses in the same range). Both the DA 14 and DA 12-24 are rectilinear. The DA 21 Limited would not be good in my opinion as it does show some barreling in these kind of shots.

[Ron Kruger]

I'm actually getting by fine with the 15mm, and when you finally get one, you will see why. However, I do think the wider rectilinear 12-24 would be great for this type of shooting, and Jimbo sold me on the IQ of this lens long ago. I've seen mixed comments and results from the 14mm and certainly wouldn't consider it, unless you can show me a site with hundreds of pages of "the 14mm contols my mind."
Anyway, the bottom like is...well, the bottom line. Unless I get a great deal of this type of work, I can't justify any lens purchases at this point.

[blackcloudbrew]

Oh, I already know the virtues of the DA 15. I promise to do a comparison when I get one (and I'm working towards that now as I'm starting to sell things). I like the DA14 and I think it's often overlooked and considered too big and heavy, which really it isn't. Whatever, it's all about the right tool for the job I suppose.

[Ron Kruger]

Well, the right tool would be a $3,000 to $4,000 tilt/shift lens, I suppose, but there is no way I can justify that, so I figure out ways to get the job done with what I have. Sometimes this leads to something better than one can just buy, as I think it did with this job. The crew that shot their place before showed up with tilt-shif lenses and all kinds of lighting, triggers, stands, etc., and what they produced was something I thnk is better left to product photography: no shadows, almost no contrast--lots of detail, but no mood.
Because all my shooting is outside, I don't have that kind of equipment, so after I played around with the two external flashes I have (used as slaves), what I finally settled upon was a long exposure at f-11 captureing natural light with infinite DOF, which gave me enough time to hand-hold my 360 flash, point it toward the areas that needed more light and hit the test button while the shutter was still open.
I'll admit I'm still on a learning curve here, but I learned a lot on this first gig, and the clients liked it better than the professional crew that specializes in this kind of thing.
I do think, however, if I get enough of this kind of work, I will invest in a 12-24 for a little wider POV.

[davidhampshire]

nice shots,   nice work,  ron;     i really think you are showing your experience with the shot of the book,  especially,    that is a cool photograph;   and from how you describe things shows that with your experience you can improvise and be creative and adapt,  and make great photos. 

dave   

[Pacerr]

Knowing your propensity for primes and approach to the set-up issues, I'd recommend you investigate the older Sigma 10-20/4 as a most satisfactory (and economical!!) alternative to the 12-24 for that use. If you were going UW-zoom for your outdoor stuff I'd not have been tempted to comment, however. There's plenty evidence of its capabilities and reputation on-line and I've never seen a problem with re-selling it at a fair price if necessary. Never considered the DA 12-24 -- good, too expensive for my limited uses.

I had both the Sigma 10-20 and the Tamron 10-24 in hand last year and the Sigma definitely excels for technical situations and apparent sharpness -- more "prime like" IMO. And a somewhat cooler color cast. I kept the Tamron, but for reasons other than technical superiority -- I liked the Tammie's color match and "lens family" feel -- but would have kept the Sigma for purely technical purposes.

The difference between 10 and 12mm wasn't that apparent in outdoor use which had been my intention. But I'm not a UWA kind'a guy anyway and eventually sold the 10-24 as well and make do with the DA 16-45 and an occasional pano-crop or stitch when I'm fellin' kinky.

H2

An' as I said somewhere else recently, I became a lot happier with zooms when I learned to approach 'em as a few selected primes at known sweet spots rather than a trombone slide convenience.

[Ron Kruger]

Thanks David. And I appreciate the lens suggestions from Hank and Tim. From what I've seen, Sigma lens rival, and sometimes surpass, Pentax for sharpness, but I am turned off by what you describe as "cool" colors. I switched to Pentax mainly for the "Pentax look," and a big part of that is the lens coatings, just as it is with Zeiss.
I've already figured out what pleases clients most in this speciality is warm, inviting shots. Most try to sell romance in lush or charming furnishings. That is accomplished with rich colors and high contrasts. If I get any zoom, it would be the 12-24 because I like the way it "renders" images. In these small rooms, I was backed tightly into a corner to get enough in the frame and could have used a wider FL, but for this, any lens I choose must be rectiliner.

[Pacerr]

I've regretted that I didn't explore "PP pre-sets" more with the Sigma, and used it more, but I'd promised myself if I had two on the counter I'd sell one. The  physical 'feel' of the lens and the initial impression of the cool(er) color and the self-imposed need to make a choice lead me to choose a lens that I was more "in tune" to.

This choice process was the best lesson I've had in the difference between "like" and "ought'a like" lenses.

I made a rational decision when I sold both lenses because I wasn't using the FL well. But I still occasionally regret selling the Tamron simply because it rendered the selected imaged as I liked to see it. It ALMOST joined the "Old Lens Retirement Home" with too many others and I still question the decision.

OTH, however, the recovered funds allowed acquiring a bargain Tamron AF SP 24-135 that's proven very useful for my uses so I can't complain -- not being afflicted with LBA you understand.

[blackcloudbrew]

I've shot with the Tamron 10-24 last year at a photo workshop put on by Tamron and my daughter has a Sigma 10-20 for her Canon 40D. Honestly, I didn't really find the Tamron that inspiring. It wasn't bad or anything just not much difference than my DA 12-24. My daughter get's great results from the Sigma and I've regarded it as a good one too although because it's a Canon version I can't really get a sense of how it would do on my Pentax.

I was looking at reviews of all of these and the Pentax one rates higher, is in the middle of the three in weight (differences are very small though). The main difference is that the Pentax is constant aperture and the other two aren't. Long ago, I became a fan of constant aperture lenses.

Pacerr - I understand the OLRH reference. I have now traded two lenses I've really liked (DA 70 limited and most recently the DA 21 limited) for others I come to really like (the DA 12-24 and just this week an 8mm fisheye). I do miss the limited but their replacements have become equally as welcome.