You cannot shoot everything. Even with a true wide angle lens (35 mm equivalent focal length below 20 mm) 3 m it's not enough for 30 m. At 20 mm for 3 m distance you get only 5.4 m (portrait orientation).VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..

The results might look a bit strange, but you could try a vertical panorama. Take a series of overlapping shots, covering the building from ground to sky..

Then use stitching software such as Autostitch (google it) to join the pictures into a single image. Inevitably with this approach, the straight vertical lines will be rendered as curved lines. But it is a possibility...

Thanks  Just hoped I missed something obvious. Unfortunately, looks like I didn't...

Sounds like the way to go, but it will require some kind of tripod, I suppose....

As for that perespective warp... Couldn't that be corrected? Building is nearly flat all the way up to the spire, so it should be straightforward enough, I guess. Or am I wrong?.

And how to deal with clouds? (to wait for perfectly sunny or "perfectly overcast" day, or there are some other solutions?)..

It's not a viable option since the perspective changes dramatically because of the closeness. The brain can create that panorama but the camera don't without looking very odd.VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..

As for that perespective warp... Couldn't that be corrected? Buildingis nearly flat all the way up to the spire, so it should bestraightforward enough, I guess. Or am I wrong?.

The 'converging verticals' perspective problem can be corrected for to some extent in Photoshop Elements, although I'm not sure what the result would be like in a case as dramatic as yours!.

BTW I notice in some of your shots that the camera isn't exactly horizontal (lines of brickwork are sloping downwards slightly). It's easy to do this by accident, but also easy to avoid - just remember to make sure that horizontal lines are parallel to the top / bottom of the frame when you are composing, and squeeze the shutter button carefully so the pressure of your finger doesn't tilt the camera..

Mike..

Mike703 wrote:.

And squeeze the shutter buttoncarefully so the pressure of your finger doesn't tilt the camera..

Thanks, that's really helpful. Didn't think about that...

Stitched from 4 photos..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Thanks for an example. So, it could be done, after all....

Of course perespective doesn't look 100% natural, but much nicier than I imagined is possible.....

Undoubtedly a lot of work went into that and it looks spectacular, but it still has an Escher quality to it for me...

With an SLR, you could put a wide angle lens on that offers a tilt/shift perspective control, too.

..

Snycer wrote:.

It still has an Escher quality to it for me..

That's why I like it...

A panarama shot is when you goin several pis together, usualy a landscape, but you can do a verticle panarama shot, it's just in a different direction.but the realy easy way is to stand back a bit more, Like 3 mile , sorry ha haMike Rudge..

It have this Escher look because the camera was in P mode. Better to shoot in Manual with same settings and to use RAW. Also shooting using bracketing can help. Then you will have three sets of photos with different exposure ...

That would put the building below horizon. (if we aren't talking aerial photos.) ..

You need to take about three pics of the tall building, first pic from ground to 1/3rd way up, then second pic from 1/3rd to 3/4 way up, then from 3/4 way up to top.then you need panarama software to join them togethershould work out OKMike Rudge..

You shoot a tall thing exactly the same way as you shoot a person or a wine bottle. You get a suitable distance and height from the thing until you get a correct looking perspective. So, a portrait photographer may have a camera at chest or waist height when taking a full-length portrait, to keep perspective right..

Unfortunately, short of hiring a cherry picker and closing a road or two, that doesn't seem possible here. So you have three options:.

1) try to get as much of the building in as possible, and correct using the Filter>Distort>Lens Correction option in Photoshop (I assume it's a similar thing in Elements, but I don't have Elements, so I am not 100% on this). You will end up with a long, thin image and still have a building falling away from you..

2) try to take as many images as possible of the building, correcting them as above and then stitching them together in whatever way you like to stitch them together..

3) Ignore the scale of the building altogether and go for detail shots in close up. This is the one that everyone misses..

But, short of using a camera with movements or a tilt/shift lens and be able to get some distance between you and the building, this is always going to be a compromise.You name it, I've broken it...