On 8 Mar 2005 at 15:16, Bob Blakely wrote: > Ah, the "digital age" crap again. The world is full of folks who think they > can > get something for nothing. > > When you use Photoshop or other software to correct perspective because you > didn't shoot the shot correctly in the first place, one of two things will > happen... > > either: > > the photograph must be "stretched" to perform the correction > necessitating the synthesis of pixels (information) not in the original > shot, leading to a photo where some scene details are (essentially) the > computer's best guess. > > or: > > the photograph must be "compressed" to perform the correction > necessitating the loss of pixels (information) that were in the original > shot, leading to a photo where some scene details are (essentially) lost. > > A shift lens eliminates both of these conditions by performing the > correction as a mater of photographic geometry when the image is formed. > > This has got to be at least the tenth time this subject has come up in the > last > several years.
And you still don't get it? The loss (ie compression/stretch) is but a very small percentage in most but extreme cases of correction that no 35mm PC lens could achieve anyhow. I've made digital corrections to quite a number of images over the last few years and none have exhibited visible image degradation. Also you will find that any image must be equally compressed and stretched in order to preserve the aspect ratio when digitally correcting distortion. Pentax have a grand total of one expensive (and on the *ist D pretty much useless) shift lens, I sold mine some years ago and I haven't regretted it for a minute. The "digital age" crap simply lets me fulfil my photographic visions better than the tools available in the "golden days" of film. Cheer up Bob. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
