Steve'sDigicams

Gumnut · Jun 16, 2007, 9:14 PM

the water being vertical is important

(it could go a tad more clockwise i think)
i personally prefer perspective in buildings
it looks more "natural"
corrected ones can look top heavy

this is an excellent photo
nice composition

Herb · Jun 16, 2007, 11:59 PM

Gumnut,

I tried it rotated 0.5 degree more & I think you're right - it does look better. And I agree with you about the water too - I hadn't even noticed it!

Herb

danielchtong · Jun 17, 2007, 3:31 AM

While on this subject, I would like to have the forum view as well
Here is an obviously fishy pict

And here is an almost completely defished version

To defish a pict is just one click away. But would that be more appealing?

Daniel

bilybianca · Jun 17, 2007, 4:22 AM

I have looked at the two for quite a while, and I can understand why you are uncertain of which one is the best. After giving it quite some consideration this is my temporary opinion:

The defished one is a tad "overdefished", the left column bends a little (very little) outwards. Besides from that I think I prefer the defished version. Next time you go to France, could you try the shot again going one step closer to the statue to emphasize the wide angel? If so I think the fishy version would have worked even better. But it is a tough race anyway.

Kjell

danielchtong · Jun 17, 2007, 6:57 AM

bilybianca wrote:

Quote:

I have looked at the two for quite a while, and I can understand why you are uncertain of which one is the best. After giving it quite some consideration this is my temporary opinion:

The defished one is a tad "overdefished", the left column bends a little (very little) outwards. Besides from that I think I prefer the defished version. Next time you go to France, could you try the shot again going one step closer to the statue to emphasize the wide angel? If so I think the fishy version would have worked even better. But it is a tough race anyway.

Kjell

I have defished less this time (80 pov) and see if it is better. But it will be tough.
Also you may notice that defishing means cropping out part of the periphery of the pict as well. That may affect the framing - I did little anyway as I was shooting like crazy there.
I did this after looking some sample shots of DA14mm - a rectilinear lens rather than a fisheye. Distortion in both in a different way no matter what.

Daniel

danielchtong · Jun 20, 2007, 6:08 PM

This is a Canon 10mm rect lens. Yeah. Sure. There are straight lines. Personally I would rather have slight spherical distortion. Any input?

Daniel

Wingman · Jun 20, 2007, 7:21 PM

Daniel, I agree that the distortion looks appropriate for this type of picture...except that in thisspecific case itmakes the person in the image look distorted as well...a little bit disconcerting to my eye. If there was no person in it, the elongated perpective sure adds a sense of greatness to the image.

Jay

ennacac · Jun 20, 2007, 7:46 PM

Harriet, I like the original, the fixed version looks kind of distorted for some reason, possibly the water.

Tom

mtngal · Jun 20, 2007, 9:21 PM

Thanks for everyone's input - the more I look at the two the more I like the original better - by not straightening the lines it makes the building look more majestic to me, I think. By the way, the building is another one of the 1920's buildings and the one where I found the stained glass windows. This just re-enforces my opinion that every picture needs to be evaluated on it's own, and there's always the exception to the rule.

Daniel - I didn't answer when you first posted your defishing examples. Here's another one where I think it depends. In the past I always disliked the bowed lines, but so often you've posted really outstanding pictures with the distortion left in, so I'm really on the fence about how much de-fishing to do. That's also the reason why I keep hesitating about buying a lens that is wider than the kit lens. Would I be happy with the 10-17, which is really capable but has quite a bit distortion or not? I still haven't decided.

bilybianca · Jun 25, 2007, 10:04 AM

I was requested to shoot this for a friend who have recorded music for a CD in this church - he wanted a picture for the cover.

There was too little space for my 28 mm shift lens, had to use the 16-45.

Here aretwo verisons ofoneshot. First one without correction, second corrected in PS2. What do you think?

Kjell

First:

Jun 25, 2007, 10:04 AM	#20
bilybianca Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Hassleholm, Sweden Posts: 3,457	I was requested to shoot this for a friend who have recorded music for a CD in this church - he wanted a picture for the cover. There was too little space for my 28 mm shift lens, had to use the 16-45. Here aretwo verisons ofoneshot. First one without correction, second corrected in PS2. What do you think? Kjell First: Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jun 16, 2007, 9:14 PM	#11
Gumnut Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 1,259	the water being vertical is important (it could go a tad more clockwise i think) i personally prefer perspective in buildings it looks more "natural" corrected ones can look top heavy this is an excellent photo nice composition

Jun 16, 2007, 11:59 PM	#12
Herb Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Victoria, B.C., Canada Posts: 1,018	Gumnut, I tried it rotated 0.5 degree more & I think you're right - it does look better. And I agree with you about the water too - I hadn't even noticed it! Herb

Jun 17, 2007, 3:31 AM	#13
danielchtong Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,893	While on this subject, I would like to have the forum view as well Here is an obviously fishy pict And here is an almost completely defished version To defish a pict is just one click away. But would that be more appealing? Daniel

Jun 17, 2007, 4:22 AM	#14
bilybianca Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Hassleholm, Sweden Posts: 3,457	I have looked at the two for quite a while, and I can understand why you are uncertain of which one is the best. After giving it quite some consideration this is my temporary opinion: The defished one is a tad "overdefished", the left column bends a little (very little) outwards. Besides from that I think I prefer the defished version. Next time you go to France, could you try the shot again going one step closer to the statue to emphasize the wide angel? If so I think the fishy version would have worked even better. But it is a tough race anyway. Kjell

Jun 20, 2007, 6:08 PM	#16
danielchtong Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,893	This is a Canon 10mm rect lens. Yeah. Sure. There are straight lines. Personally I would rather have slight spherical distortion. Any input? Daniel

Jun 20, 2007, 7:21 PM	#17
Wingman Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG Posts: 4,355	Daniel, I agree that the distortion looks appropriate for this type of picture...except that in thisspecific case itmakes the person in the image look distorted as well...a little bit disconcerting to my eye. If there was no person in it, the elongated perpective sure adds a sense of greatness to the image. Jay

Jun 20, 2007, 7:46 PM	#18
ennacac Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,198	Harriet, I like the original, the fixed version looks kind of distorted for some reason, possibly the water. Tom

Jun 20, 2007, 9:21 PM	#19
mtngal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Frazier Park, CA Posts: 16,177	Thanks for everyone's input - the more I look at the two the more I like the original better - by not straightening the lines it makes the building look more majestic to me, I think. By the way, the building is another one of the 1920's buildings and the one where I found the stained glass windows. This just re-enforces my opinion that every picture needs to be evaluated on it's own, and there's always the exception to the rule. Daniel - I didn't answer when you first posted your defishing examples. Here's another one where I think it depends. In the past I always disliked the bowed lines, but so often you've posted really outstanding pictures with the distortion left in, so I'm really on the fence about how much de-fishing to do. That's also the reason why I keep hesitating about buying a lens that is wider than the kit lens. Would I be happy with the 10-17, which is really capable but has quite a bit distortion or not? I still haven't decided.