'Checking', like 'clocking', you mean?

It's hardly second hand with a shutter count of 2, otherwise

If your group shot above is the whole frame, you can see exactly where the camera was pointing. If it was mounted on the tripod higher than that, you'll get the effect.

It's surprising how little you need to see it.

At 35mm the effect is *much* less pronounced, since, as you say, you're further away.

Yes, it does look a little strange. Is the fence at the left further away than the fence on the right? It certainly looks so, if the fence panels are the same size If so, the effect will be more pronounced with the closer post.

Hopefully these diagrams will illustrate the point I'm making about the camera pointing down:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/ConvergingVerticals-Horizontal-1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/ConvergingVerticals-PointingDown-1.jpg[/IMG]

The wider-angle the lens, the closer you're likely to be, so the more exaggerated the effect appears.

Here are some shots I took at 10mm to illustrate this:

Camera horizontal:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/IMGP9460-sm.jpg[/IMG]

Camera pointing down:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/IMGP9462-sm.jpg[/IMG]

However, note the curved edges in the first house shot. My walls are really straight.

This is lens-induced distortion - known as barrel distortion.

Forgive me, but I would take issue with the term 'distortion', since used in this way it falsely gives the impression that it's a lens problem.

You'd get converging verticals with the lens axis pointing down or up even with a perfect rectilinear lens, and it happens simply because with the camera pointing down, the top of the fence post is closer than the bottom, so it appears bigger.

Was the image captured as a JPG?

I notice from the EXIF on that group shot that you've got contrast and sharpness both set to 'hard'.

I wonder if that exacerbates the effect of the CA you refer to.

I can see what you mean about the fence posts, but I don't think that's lens distortion. I think that's converging verticals, caused by pointing the camera down a bit.

The wider the angle, the more obvious this will be if the lens axis isn't parallel to the ground.

You mean the Brillo pad wasn't the best thing to use then?

Just kidding, it's just a bit of editing. The converter is in perfect condition - I'll be selling it soon, in fact.

It's a funny thing, this 'leaving in a strop' thing.

They say they're going, but obviously the only point of saying anything, is to elicit a response... so it's clear that they aren't going to go at least until they've checked out the responses.

Then if they don't go, they look a bit silly.

Best if you're going, just to go, really - at least there are no bridges burned. Unless you're leaving for another brand, with no hard feelings. Then it's nice to say farewell, and be wished well in return, especially since, chances are, the people here will have all your old gear. And if anyone remembers you, there's no problem coming back.

Was it McBrian, who left for Nikon, since that's what his children had? I have his SMC-A 400 F5.6 still

Yes, but I never let the lack of something sensible to say stop me.
I bet it's a Pentax one

There's only one thing to do with shots like this...

... convert to black and white, whack up the contrast, and before you know it, the adoring fans will be waxing lyrical, using words like 'moody' and 'atmospheric'.

You gave the game away, really, with 'Have been working on this for a while'

That and the crop...



I have loads in the same 'almost' category. And I'm just as rubbish at making the painful decisions...

Do you think I removed all the residual oil?

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/IMGP4930s-1.jpg[/IMG]