Own this 16th century castle near Paris

They said I was daft to build a castle in a swamp. But I built it anyway, just to show 'em.


Also, I don’t have that sort of money or anything near that. But if I did, I’d find a nice castle to rent a couple of weeks a year. A quick search shows castles in France you can rent for $5K a week, sleeping ten people. Again, beyond my means right now – but hardly insane.

1 Like

Which is exactly why this actually might be a good deal - France is at a pretty low point with the economy, so prices are undoubtedly depressed. And when L’AirBetB takes off there, I’m sure this place will be a goldmine!

1 Like

This thing needs to be a club / rave venue!

1 Like

Buy it and turn it into a school for witches and wizards.


Hell, even the “camscanner” app on my android phone can fix this :slight_smile:

You and your bloody android phones. What about Lightroom? What about Aperture? No, it’s always Android this and Android that.

Look I can get Bokeh worth of a noctilux by blurring! Wow, I just saved myself $10,000…

Here’s a video that explains Tilt Shift Lenses-- you’d think that anyone hired to make a castle in the middle of nowhere look good for sale would have this sort of thing.

I never really liked that canon tse 17mm. First f/4 meh, second it’s very limited compared to the large format cameras it’s mimicking and third It’s $2500. Better off just buying a nice piece of glass and correcting in digital-post-production. Or shoot your elevation with a 4x5 if your a real in camera purist.

Fist a disclaimer. I have’t used tilt shift glass, nor have I really done much with architectural photography-- I’d probably start with a lensbaby-- provided that the lensbaby can be used for perspective correction-- a lot of reviewers have said that they can’t.

When you read Ansel Adams talk about lens movements, a lot of what he was trying to achieve was sharpness across his images-- no fancy blurriness. He belonged to the f/64 group. Of course, narrow apertures are somewhat more common on large formats than they are on 135, and the tyranny of optical design suggests that a f/1.4 300mm portrait lens is a pipe dream.

Architectural photography is about nonmoving subjects that cannot escape their backgrounds. If the light’s low, use a tripod-- preferably a level tripod. If the background is ugly enough to be blurred, perhaps it would be wiser to consult a landscape architect than it would be to deal with clients who can visit the site and see that the background is ugly.

If the f/4 17mm is sharp (and f/4 lenses can be [sharper than f2.8 lenses stopped down,] (https://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8) ), and the angle of view is useful for my subjects that’s all that matters…

[quote=“jerwin, post:30, topic:52669”]
f/4 lenses can be sharper than f2.8 lenses stopped down
[/quote]/\ interesting thank you for that!

Still for $2500 you can get something far more useful.

On the upside, for a cool 25.6 mil you could name the castle Radio Shack, and be the Viscount of Discounts.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.