Old 01-24-2012, 02:42 AM   #76
Indecline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 168
Default

For the most part, I'm with Ron. I use my wide angles because I'm looking for a specific effect. That is one reason why I ended up with a full frame digital - so my wide angles would still be wide angles. I do some adjusting in Photoshop for certain photos to take away some of the perspective distortion, but never go all the way to "fix" it. I can't think of any rejections as a result of using a wide angle either, at least none where that I could infer that was the reason for the rejection.
Indecline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 03:50 AM   #77
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
NO! I found the lens choice to be questionable for that type of shot (I know it was just a "quickie" to make a point). The "corrected" shot is what you would have gotten had you used a "normal" lens to begin with.

So....here's the big question: why use a wide angle lens if the objective is to use lens correction to make it appear as a normal lens shot? Why not throw away your wide angles and just use a normal all the time?
Ron, my comparison photo above is a crop of a wider image where a wide angle lens WAS necessary. What you're seeing is not the full frame that I shot. I only cropped it in tight like that to show the difference in correction.

Otherwise, I would agree with you.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 03:51 AM   #78
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
C'mon Ron, surely you know better. Were you just sloppy?
I'm merely asking why the urge to correct lens distortion...because an RP screener just happens to reject someone's shot.

A recurrent theme on these forums is doing whatever it takes to gain the acceptance of RP, as if life will not be worth living otherwise. Goodness knows I've done my own share of "tweaking" to improve a shot here and there (if it were rejected)---but only to a point, and only if I thought the rejection was valid. Many times, it's not (in my judgement, that is)...so I usually just let it go.

I've seen rejected shots posted here for "poor composition" go through more recrops than sexual positions portrayed in the Kama Sutra. Why? We should all agree this is a wildly subjective aspect of photography. "Rules" ain't really "rules" in this stuff.

In this case (and this is what started the thread), a perfectly acceptable wide angle shot of Chicago Union Station was rejected...and after much snot slinging....it was "corrected," and resubmitted. The accepted shot is no better---and in fact, doesn't have the classic look and feel of a cool wide angle now.

But...it's fine by me, guys. "What me worry?"
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 03:59 AM   #79
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
I'm merely asking why the urge to correct lens distortion...because an RP screener just happens to reject someone's shot.
I have yet to see a rejection on RP for "wide angle distortion." Most people don't correct the distortion, but a few of us here like to. When presented with a photo that looks like it could use some correction, regardless of the original rejection reason (like Andrew's shot that started all of this), some of us are going to chime in with our opinion about fixing the distortion. That's just personal taste and has no bearing on whether the shot is going to be accepted or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
In this case (and this is what started the thread), a perfectly acceptable wide angle shot of Chicago Union Station was rejected...and after much snot slinging....it was "corrected," and resubmitted. The accepted shot is no better---and in fact, doesn't have the classic look and feel of a cool wide angle now.
It still looks like a wide angle distorted image to me. As far as I can tell upon a casual glance, he just leveled it to satisfy the original unlevel rejection.

Edit: Ok, so I just compared the two. I see a problem with the accepted image that might be making it look odd to some. Aside from the distortion being about half corrected, he didn't adjust for the squashing effect created by perspective correction. The image needs to be stretched upward a bit to account for that.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias

Last edited by JimThias; 01-24-2012 at 04:04 AM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 12:02 PM   #80
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
So....here's the big question: why use a wide angle lens if the objective is to use lens correction to make it appear as a normal lens shot? Why not throw away your wide angles and just use a normal all the time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
C'mon Ron, surely you know better. Were you just sloppy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
I'm merely asking why the urge to correct lens distortion...because an RP screener just happens to reject someone's shot.
I guess I was myself sloppy in giving a curt reply rather than explaining. Your statement at the top makes no sense. There are two differences (well, more, but two relevant here) between wide and normal. One is the field of view, the other is the degree of perspective distortion. By correcting the latter, you in no way make a shot look like one using the former, because the field of view is still different. Adjusting for the latter, by moving backwards when shooting the normal lens, you can end up with the same field of view but the perspectives on that view will be different because of the different shooting positions.

You know that, of course, and perhaps I was not in a sufficiently light-hearted or droll or unserious mood to just take what you meant rather than what you said. It happens.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 05:46 PM   #81
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
The buildings in the background are still leaning inward. You may have reduced the wide angle effect, but you didn't "fix" it.
It's for a website not a print. I already spent wayyy too much time on it than I should have.
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960

Last edited by Andrew Blaszczyk (2); 01-24-2012 at 05:47 PM. Reason: Grammar sucks.
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 06:19 PM   #82
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Blaszczyk (2) View Post
It's for a website not a print. I already spent wayyy too much time on it than I should have.
Fair enough. And as long as YOU like it, that's all that matters in the end.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.