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.
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!
This thing needs to be a club / rave venue!
Buy it and turn it into a school for witches and wizards.
Hell, even the “camscanner” app on my android phone can fix this
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.