Since when does the fisheye effect need to be obvious
or tiresome? Putting modesty aside, I could display
for your consideration:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760021
Rick
--- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/17/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's a fun
Good one! You might consider cloning out the feet and white clothing on
the right. But, overall, a very good example of how fisheyes can
produce desirable results.
Paul
On Mar 18, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Rick Womer wrote:
Since when does the fisheyeoody aside, I could display
for your
G'day Rick,
Great shot, but the fisheye effect isn't that obvious. So in that
series of yours it isn't tiresome.
Dave
On 3/19/06, Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since when does the fisheye effect need to be obvious
or tiresome? Putting modesty aside, I could display
for your
That's the point. The fisheye makes some shots work
that otherwise wouldn't, but one has to be careful.
Rick
--- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day Rick,
Great shot, but the fisheye effect isn't that
obvious. So in that
series of yours it isn't tiresome.
Dave
On 3/19/06,
On Mar 18, 2006, at 6:10 PM, Rick Womer wrote:
Since when does the fisheye effect need to be obvious
or tiresome? Putting modesty aside, I could display
for your consideration:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760021
Yes, it's a good shot and shows that excellent work not
On 3/17/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a fun lens, but you will probably want to become familiar with ways to
de-fisheye the images.
William Robb
That's the plan. In general the fisheye effect gets tired quickly.
By any chance would have a high res. jpg with the exif info or
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 09:37:50 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
On 3/17/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a fun lens, but you will probably want to become familiar with ways to
de-fisheye the images
On 3/17/06, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's the plan. In general the fisheye effect gets tired quickly.
Why does there need to be a fisheye effect?
http://www.dvdtechcameras.com/gallery/zenitar/1/14.htm
There doesn't need to be, few of those examples show it though.
Dave
From
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: Re: OT 4 months
Why does there need to be a fisheye effect?
http://www.dvdtechcameras.com/gallery/zenitar/1/14.htm
Not every picture can be so carefully contrived as to hide the lens
curvature as some of the ones
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/03/17 Fri PM 12:52:08 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Re: OT 4 months
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: Re: OT 4 months
Why does there need to be a fisheye effect?
http
David J Brooks wrote:
I told my wife, no camera equipment for 2006. So far i have ordered
the D200, bought the Sigma 10-20 and am this close to getting the
Tamron 90 macro for the Nikon mounts
Damn i hate this list.
lol
This list is making you buy all that non-Pentax stuff?
How? I'm
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
By any chance would have a high res. jpg with the exif info or DNG
file that you wouldn't mind emailing me to practice with?
www.komkon.org/~wrobb/IMGP0391.PEF
It's a full 13mb file.
William Robb
On 3/17/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
By any chance would have a high res. jpg with the exif info or DNG
file that you wouldn't mind emailing me to practice with?
www.komkon.org/~wrobb/IMGP0391
Quoting E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This list is making you buy all that non-Pentax stuff?
How? I'm puzzled ...
Just trying to even up the bags.:-) Besides, i confuse easly.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
Thanks Bill,
Very much appreciated. I owe you a drink.
Buy John Forbes a drink instead...
It evens things out a bit.
William Robb
G'day All,
In early November last year, after I got my FA 80-200 f2.8, I said to
myself. Davo mate, no more lenses for 12 months.
The DA10-17 is the only lens that has tempted me to break my
resolution. But when I was told that the local distributor didn't even
know if the were going to import
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: OT 4 months
The DA10-17 is the only lens that has tempted me to break my
resolution. But when I was told that the local distributor didn't even
know if the were going to import it I felt safe. My local camera store
kindly offered
-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16. mars 2006 23:13
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: OT 4 months
The DA10-17 is the only lens that has tempted me to break my
resolution
- Original Message -
From: Tim Øsleby
Subject: RE: OT 4 months
Why de-fish? Why order fish, if you want meat?
I'm not trying to be a smartass here. I don't get this.
The 10-17 is a fisheye zoom. It's nice and wide, but the fisheye effect gets
tired pretty quickly.
William
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17. mars 2006 00:48
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
- Original Message -
From: Tim Øsleby
Subject: RE: OT 4
I agree with Tim. I have the Zenitar 16/2.8 fish eye and it's a fun
lens for occasional use, but when I want ultrawide and rectilinear, I
use the DA14/2.8 which is far superior. I bought the Zeni because it
was fishy and would never de-fish it; I had the DA14 already.
Godfrey
On Mar 16,
Enjoy it.
I almost made my no new cameras for 12 months plan last year ...
but I bought the Panny LX1 at Thanksgiving time. Didn't last long: I
sold it and bought the Sony R1.
I'm pretty much done with Pentax purchases until the DA50-135/2.8 and
the new 10Mpixel body are released. With
I told my wife, no camera equipment for 2006. So far i have ordered the
D200, bought the Sigma 10-20 and am this close to getting the Tamron 90
macro for the Nikon mounts
Damn i hate this list.
lol
Dave
On Mar 16, 2006, at 6:23 AM, David Savage wrote:
G'day All,
In early November last
-
From: David J Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17. mars 2006 02:32
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
I told my wife, no camera equipment for 2006. So far i have ordered the
D200, bought the Sigma 10-20 and am this close to getting the Tamron 90
macro
I bought my Zenitar after seeing Franks at GFM last year.
Bought as a fun lens only, but, its a decent lens non the less
Dave
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree with Tim. I have the Zenitar 16/2.8 fish eye and it's a fun
lens for occasional use, but when I want ultrawide
thanks to your hard work, i got one yesterday (together with *istdl) --
i like it quite a bit -- it seems to cover ~ 180deg at 10mm and it's
still seriously wide (when defished) even at the long limit.
best,
mishka
On 3/16/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a fun lens, but you
the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: David J Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17. mars 2006 02:32
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
I told my wife, no camera equipment for 2006
- Original Message -
From: Tim Øsleby
Subject: RE: OT 4 months
That's the reason why I never have (and probably never will) owned a
fisheye.
Why order fish in the first place, when you will convert it to meat later?
Feels like a broken record here ;-)
It's a lot wider than
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: OT 4 months
thanks to your hard work, i got one yesterday (together with *istdl) --
i like it quite a bit -- it seems to cover ~ 180deg at 10mm and it's
still seriously wide (when defished) even at the long limit.
Yer welcome
29 matches
Mail list logo
