The Photography Thread

  • Thread starter CDailey
  • 3,605 comments
  • 158,313 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
tait
AMPMFINAL2.jpg
Click to expand...

Excellent shot.
 
skylineGTR_guy
Canon 10-22 :) My favorite lens for shooting cars.
Click to expand...

Nice. It seems to pull the outsides like a fisheye almost. I don't know all too much about lenses (my optics class was several years ago), but don't all lenses do to a certain degree? Your shots look like they do a lot for a normal lens, which is a good thing.
 
I believe fisheye's have a different distortion. The distortion from a wide angle is caused by the extremely short distance the light travels from the lens to the sensor. The light gets stretched to fill the frame of the sensor.


Random art piece.
20080129005606_cross%20copy.jpg
 
exigeracer
Nice. It seems to pull the outsides like a fisheye almost. I don't know all too much about lenses (my optics class was several years ago), but don't all lenses do to a certain degree? Your shots look like they do a lot for a normal lens, which is a good thing.
Click to expand...

All lenses should do it, but the ultrawides have internal elements that correct this distortion, and try to bring the image back into a more normal shape, whereas fisheyes have a huge curvature on the front element that exaggerates the distortion.

A well-used fisheye leads to some really cool shots, but like any "effect" it quickly becomes tiresome when used bluntly.
 
GilesGuthrie
All lenses should do it, but the ultrawides have internal elements that correct this distortion, and try to bring the image back into a more normal shape, whereas fisheyes have a huge curvature on the front element that exaggerates the distortion.
Click to expand...

So the closer the subject, the harder it is to correct the distortion on a wide lens?
 
exigeracer
So the closer the subject, the harder it is to correct the distortion on a wide lens?
Click to expand...

Correct. This is why wide angle lenses (say, less than 30mm on full-frame, or 20mm crop) aren't really suitable as portrait lenses: you get strange perspective distortions that are almost always unflattering.
 
I realise this is nowhere near the standard of photos in this thread (kudos to everyone as well) but this makes me happy. :)

100_0652.jpg
 
I'd recommend Photomatix and 3 bracketed RAW exposures (that's if you only used one, or 3 .jpgs).
 
F1GTR
I'd recommend Photomatix and 3 bracketed RAW exposures (that's if you only used one, or 3 .jpgs).
Click to expand...

No I tend to use 5 exposures or more, (Ev: -2,-1,0,1,2, or -3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3, the -3 & 3 are total guesstimates), I also stick to .jpg, RAW is cool and all, but RAW kills my system when I process them for anything, even my 40D's sRaw.

Nitrof1
try this
http://www.nill.cz/index.php?set=tu1
Click to expand...

I saw that along time ago, but it doesn't look right on any image when i run them through that process (manually, or with the PS action script).
 
Just been messing about with the photoshop action and a couple of old photos. I think these came out alright, maybe a little overdone...

img0326sb1.jpg

img0337ph5.jpg

img1283qx0.jpg


Opinions?
 
bondy i like the composition of the first one, and i really like it in the second one; but ease up on the hdr. you too spock. i don't know if you're into that kind of thing; but they just look like mud to me. everything becomes so mid-gray and unnatural.
 
tait
bondy i like the composition of the first one, and i really like it in the second one; but ease up on the hdr. you too spock. i don't know if you're into that kind of thing; but they just look like mud to me. everything becomes so mid-gray and unnatural.
Click to expand...

I Know, I Like The Effect. For 99% Of My Photo's I Shoot Several Different Exposures Anyways. The Unnatural Look Is Exactly What I'm Looking For.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back