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. > >
