| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/23/2006 01:30:04 AM · #1 |
I am just getting used to my new Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens
I took this image last night in beautiful melbourne, but I am disturbed by the angle of the building. Is there any way that i can avoid this in the future.
cheers nick
 |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 01:40:01 AM · #2 |
I have a Nikon so I don't know about the Canon RAW software but it may hve a setting to fix les distortion. If you have photoshop you can straighten out lens distortion in it too.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 01:43:45 AM · #3 |
One of those things you have to fix in post-production unless you use a shift-tilt lense.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 01:45:24 AM · #4 |
looks like I need photoshop hey!
thanks |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 01:49:16 AM · #5 |
If you want to avoid having to pp your shots then keep the wide end of the lens for non-linear subject matter where the distortion won't have as much of an impact. Architecture and sky-lines will always show the distortion off to the worst effect. The other useful trick is to have a pominent foreground to draw the viewer eye away from the distortion.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 01:53:16 AM · #6 |
| thanks PaulE will give it a go. And im still waiting to see your nz pics with your 10-22! |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 01:57:33 AM · #7 |
I have this lens and I have to admit that it's great for landscapes. Architecture shots on the other hand is a different matter. As PaulE had mentioned, any time you have verticals, at the widest, parallax will be completely evident. However, used correctly, "leaning" verticals sometimes doesn't matter as much ;)
Enjoy your lens. It's definitely worth every penny ;)
  |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 02:01:10 AM · #8 |
| thanks rikki, would you say that it matters in this shot? |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 02:05:53 AM · #9 |
I know you were asking Rikki, but the shot looks good to me. The curves give it a stylized look but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve.
I think the majority of people who view photos know that this can happen with fish-eye type lenses so it's pretty forgivable in most situations.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 02:11:25 AM · #10 |
I left this comment:
--------------------------
The shot in itself is a great one. There is a bit of blurry-ness in one area but I can't tell what it is. The rest however is great. The curve adjustments seem to have helped out a lot. The sky could be burned a tad to make them look a little angrier which would be such the opposite from the stillness of the grass.
I would adjust the tilting verticals with PS. If it only tilts a little, fix it if you can. If you're planning of having it intentionally tilted, then exagerate it ;)
Cheers,
Rikki |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 02:35:42 AM · #11 |
Here's one thing you can do that helps a lot: If you can get far enough from your subject to shoot in vertical orientation, you can square up the camera, the convergence will go away, your subject will be at the top of the frame, and then you crop out all that extra foreground to get a horizontal picture. For the shot you showed us, imagine stepping back 20 feet or so and framing a vertical shot with all the good stuff at the top.
This is effectively turning the 10-22 into a "shift" lens shooting to a smaller sensor. The results are perfectly acceptable until you go bigger than maybe 11x14 on the print; after that you can see a difference viz full frame resolution.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 02:41:58 AM · #12 |
thanks Bear Music i will give it a try.
p.s. i would never have thought of that, but i guess thats why i asked! |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 05:03:17 AM · #13 |
Here is a quick fix in Photoshop using the "Edit/Transform/Distort" command. Took just a few minutes. Of course working with the original will give better results, and a new border would need to be added.
 |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 05:12:33 AM · #14 |
If you want to avoid that effect, keep the camera totally levelled. And try to avoid using the lens below 12mm. It just distorts the image too much unless you are very careful.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 05:21:20 AM · #15 |
An alternative to fixing the distortion is to take advantage of it. Imagine a cross-hair across your lens. Horizontals and verticals on the cross-hair should remain true. The lens suits a central subject, which will remain relatively undistorted, if it sits on the cross hair. By moving your horizon off the horizontal, you will curve the horizon up or down, and objects either side of your central subject will lean in to focus attention on the central subject.
Here are a couple of (admittedly reasonably extreme) examples (horizon up and horizon down):
If you wish to take images using a more traditional rule of thirds composition, then PS may be required to keep the distortion down.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 05:23:07 AM · #16 |
Man, I need an ultra wide angle lens or fisheye. Anybody willing to give one up for a song? :P
Great pics posted in this thread btw.
Message edited by author 2006-06-23 05:23:33. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 08:55:07 AM EDT.
