I think you are just so conditoned to the perspective distortion that when the distortion is removed you think something is wrong. Shift lenses and corrected perspective look great to me, uncorrected looks unnatural! JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 9:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Shift lens 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. > >
