chill out. what i meant was that if i see the walls being parallel, with no distortion, to my (my brain) this means that i am looking at the building in a direction strictly perpendicular to the walls. now, if i see that, and i also see the ceiling showing in the windows or some other detail that clearly indicates that i am looking from the street level up -- that's what is weird to me.
but then again, often fisheyes look natural to me, so i must be conditioned by some kind of distortionist propaganda. best, mishka On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:11:57 -0500, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you are just so conditoned to the perspective distortion > that when the distortion is removed you think something is wrong. > Shift lenses and corrected perspective look great to me, uncorrected > looks unnatural! > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 9:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Shift lens > > somehow, many PC'ed shots look very unnatural to me. > to me this is an effect that's applicable to very special situations > (basically, when you are shooting flat-looking objects). any 3d-ness > ruins it. seems even more special-purpose then fisheye... > > best, > mishka > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:45:32 -0500 (EST), John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > David Oswald mused: > > > > > > I just noticed a 28mm Pentax shift lens on eBay. I've always > > > wondered about this lens (but not enough to shell out the cash). It > > > > seems that nowadays, in the digital age, a shift lens *may* be one > > > of those things that has become obsolete. Are they still getting > > > use like they did "back in the day"? > > > > > > Just curious... > > > > You can pretty much deal with perspective correction in Photoshop, so > > unless you take a lot of architectural shots it's hard to justify the > > price you'd probably have to pay for such a lens (and while it is a > > pretty good general-purpose wide-angle lens as well, it's also quite > > large and heavy). > > > > Digital correction won't look quite as good as optical correction on a > > > sufficiently large print, but there again it works at any focal > > length. > > > > <http://jfwaf.com/PDML/images/PDML10.jpg> > > > > is a shot from our recent photo-outing where a shift lens (and a film > > body) would have been in their element. This shot was taken at 16mm > > (pretty much equivalent to that 28mm on a full-frame body), and > > required some significant correction. > > > > > >
