TheMaggedy Goldmember  1,145 posts Joined Oct 2009 Austin TX MORE INFO | I took these shots over the weekend using the 10-22 on my T1i. There is quite a bit of distortion around the edges of some of the photos and the bottom where the people are. Is that part of using wide angle or should I have done something differently?     Dec 03, 2009 07:05 [LIKE] this post (members only) 5D MkII | 5D MkIII | 24-70 2.8L Mk II | 50L | 85 1.8 | 135L | 70-200 2.8L Mk II | 580 EX II | YN560 x 2 | PW Plus III LOG IN TO REPLY |
neilwood32 Cream of the Crop  6,221 posts Joined Sep 2007 Sitting atop the castle, Edinburgh, Scotland MORE INFO |
SkipD Cream of the Crop  19,922 posts Joined Dec 2002 Southeastern WI, USA MORE INFO | The perspective distortion is not due to the focal length per se. It's actually due to being far too close to the buildings and far too low relative to the building's faces to be able to make an image that looks undistorted. If you keep the camera's film plane (sensor) parallel to the building faces, a lot of the "distortion" can be reduced. Dec 03, 2009 07:21 [LIKE] this post (members only) Skip Douglas LOG IN TO REPLY |
EtherealZee Senior Member  364 posts Joined Aug 2009 Sydney, Aus MORE INFO | Use the distortion to aid the pics. People don't look too good stretched, but I actually like jamming my 10-22 right up next to buildings and other objects. Learn where the most distortion occurs, and then take advantage of the effect.
Both those were taken at 10mm, I wouldn't have put a person in either of them, but objects where the scale is not obvious, that sort of thing works well.. Z... Dec 03, 2009 07:36 [LIKE] this post (members only) LOG IN TO REPLY |
bohdank Cream of the Crop  14,060 posts Joined Jan 2008 Montreal, Canada MORE INFO | Everything to do with realtives angles and less to do with how wide the lens is. The 10-22 actually has very little distortion.  Dec 03, 2009 07:51 [LIKE] this post (members only) Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong. LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sometimes I use the WA distortion, & sometimes I don't. If you want to minimize it, the thing you have to remember is to not tilt the camera, & to keep the back vertical to avoid keystoning. Dec 03, 2009 10:35 [LIKE] this post (members only) FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything... LOG IN TO REPLY |
DStanic Cream of the Crop 6,140 postsJoined Oct 2007 Canada MORE INFO | As others have said it's all about the perspective. UWA lenses IMO are the most difficult to use, because it's easy to mess up a shot and there is not much you can do about it afterwards. Try to center yourself or shoot at certain angles. Make sure you look carefully through the viewfinder what you see is what you're gonna get. Dec 03, 2009 12:23 [LIKE] this post (members only) Canon 60D, 30D LOG IN TO REPLY |
rdenney Rick "who is not suited for any one title" Denney 2,399 postsJoined Jun 2003 MORE INFO | The easiest way to level the camera, by the way, is by putting the horizon right in the middle of the image.  Horizon closer to center of image = less distortion:  The more the camera is tilted, the more the perspective will be exaggerated. What makes the wide-angle lens do this more noticeably is that it allows you stand much closer, and tilt the camera back much farther, to include the subject within the frame. To get that church with a 200mm lens, for example, you'd have been on the other side of town, and were it not for the intervening buildings, the perspective would have been no issue. In the second image above, the lens was even wider than in the first, 12mm versus 24mm on a full-frame camera. So, it's not the short focal length that is exaggerating the perspective, it's leaning the camera back to see the top of the church. In the second image, I just backed up so I could get the church in the image, but of course it meant I got a lot of car park, too. The alternative is a lens with movements, as Skip described. Here's a shot where I was standing too close, again as Skip describes. I corrected for the vertical perspective by holding the camera level, but the horizontal perspective is still too exaggerated, because I'm too close. The 12mm lens is what made it possible to be that close:  Rick "Rick's article on camera movements for Canons  " DenneyLOG IN TO REPLY |
Excellent advice as always from everyone. Thank you. I'll feel better prepared next time. 5D MkII | 5D MkIII | 24-70 2.8L Mk II | 50L | 85 1.8 | 135L | 70-200 2.8L Mk II | 580 EX II | YN560 x 2 | PW Plus III LOG IN TO REPLY |
The easiest way to level the camera, by the way, is by putting the horizon right in the middle of the image. For images like the example, that's true. For closer shots, I try to put the center focus point at my eye level after I stupidly bought one of those little levels for my Nikon. Dec 04, 2009 08:21 [LIKE] this post (members only) FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything... LOG IN TO REPLY |
chauncey Cream of the Crop  8,510 posts Joined Jun 2007 MI/CO MORE INFO | With all due respect to those that have already responded...you don't have the op's difficulties if you take multiple images with a longer lens and photomerge them. The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever. LOG IN TO REPLY |
rdenney Rick "who is not suited for any one title" Denney 2,399 postsJoined Jun 2003 MORE INFO | chauncey wrote in post #9134688 With all due respect to those that have already responded...you don't have the op's difficulties if you take multiple images with a longer lens and photomerge them. Sure you do. The back of the camera still has to be vertical, or you have to distort the image in software (which is what Photomerge does). You could also take the images he made and correct the perspective using something like Panotools (or even the perspective envelope transformation in Photoshop), but again there would be a lot of pixel interpolation going on.  ...I had a single, 6x12 transparency made in one exposure using an ultra-wide lens in my view camera. My Nikon film scanner only scans up to 6x9, however, so I scanned this as two 6x7 images with plenty of overlap. The two scans were absolutely identical in scanner parameters, and since they came from the same exposure, they were identical in the overlapped areas down to the pixel. But when I tried to merge them with Photomerge, I found that it missed by a very large margin in aligning the images, and I had to do it manually (not easy with a file that ended up with about 57 megapixels). And I had to manually go in and set merge points when putting these nine images together. It was worth the trouble, but it took many hours to get it right. With these, the trees still needed to be vertical, so I carefully leveled the camera to eliminate vertical perspective convergence. But horizontal perspective was handled by the cylindrical panoramic projection, though that required LOTS of pixel interpolation.  These tools seem to have been designed for images for web display--at web resolutions the automatic merges were acceptable. But for large prints, a miss is as good as a mile, and they missed (or I didn't know how to use them, despite following instructions from experts carefully). Rick "not to mention the problem of blending clouds that moved between exposures" Denney Dec 04, 2009 13:38 [LIKE] this post (members only) LOG IN TO REPLY |
chauncey Cream of the Crop 8,510 posts Joined Jun 2007 MI/CO MORE INFO | Denney, I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you have those difficulties. This was done in CS4 from about 10 handheld images, 1Ds MkIII with a 300 f/2.8 lens.
Was done automatically in CS4's photomerge.  On this one, 4 images with the aforementioned body and lens, I did apply manual alignment.  The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever. LOG IN TO REPLY |
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s | |||
| Latest registered member is ipphoto 984 guests, 902 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014 | |||
