Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Earth is Round, Earth is Flat
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 2:47 pm    Post subject: Earth is Round, Earth is Flat Reply with quote

The fisheye lens was born as a scientific optical instrument. At first, many saw the fisheye only as a curiosity, but with time the photographers started to learn how to take advantage of its unique qualities. To efficiently use a fisheye, you must learn what works, and what does not work photographically speaking. But that goes for any lens ...

The first picture is more or less as it came out the camera. Since the girls are in the center of the frame, they practically don't suffer from distortion. In contrast, the curved horizon and the waves breaking on the sand convey an idea of the immensity of the ocean.

The idea behind the second photo was to achieve a 3D effect through defishing and change of perspective. The defishing effectively transforms a fisheye into an ultra wide angle lens. This type of technique has become very practical with the emergence of digital post-processing. It is somewhat surprising that camera manufacturers have not incorporated so far the defishing into the camera software.

The picture was taken with a Sigma fisheye XQ 16mm F2.8 on a Sony A99, ISO 1250, 1/320s, aperture not recorded.






PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Happy Dog Like Dog Like 1

Excellent work! I like the idea of transforming the photo into a pseudo-3D.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 Wow. Very nice effect. How did you do? Where can I find a tutorial with this type of PP?


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes it's so interesting~ I want to know how too!


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83, edri, grainy, Thomas,
Thank you!




edri wrote:
Like 1 Wow. Very nice effect. How did you do? Where can I find a tutorial with this type of PP?

Well, the procedure I used is relatively simple:

1) defish the image using any suitable method.
There is a lot of information on the Internet about how to defish a picture. There are specialized softwares for that, but plain Photoshop can do the job by using, for example, the commands Filter - Lens Correction - Auto Correction. Then you "borrow" the profile of a fisheye lens, for example, the Canon 15mm F2.8 or Nikon 16mm F2.8. Check the Geometric Distortion square, so defishing is made automatically.

2) Crop the defished image to a rectangular shape.

3) Use the commands Filter - Lens Correction - Custom.
With the slider Vertical Perspective tilt the vertical edges to give the effect of perspective.

4) Select a narrow band at the bottom of image. This band will be used to produce the thickness effect.

5) Use the commands Edit - Transform - Perspective to produce the effect of folding of the selected band.

6) Darken the band to simulate an illumination effect.

7) Create a black background, or any other color you like.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool!! Like 1 small Like 1 small Like 1 small


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great idea with second photo! I like. Smile

Here's another idea. Take the 2nd shot and cut away the top little bit of ocean, around the height of the girls' shoulders (of course keep the girls themselves intact). Should look even more convincingly 3D.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:

...
Well, the procedure I used is relatively simple...



Thanks for explanations. Friends


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shocked Cool (Attila, I think we need Emoticon for "Award")


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Shocked Cool (Attila, I think we need Emoticon for "Award")


Indeed.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Klaus, miran, visualopsins, edri,

Thank you for your kind comments! Thank You Dog



miran wrote:
Great idea with second photo! I like. Smile

Here's another idea. Take the 2nd shot and cut away the top little bit of ocean, around the height of the girls' shoulders (of course keep the girls themselves intact). Should look even more convincingly 3D.


I agree with you. In fact, that idea also occurred to me but I was feeling a little tired (aka lazy Smile ) and ended up not implementing it.

I have just tried to lower the horizon to emphasize the girls, but in doing so their hairs end up blending with the black background Sad , as you can see in the picture below. If the background is changed to a medium gray, it might work, I don't know.



PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a super technique. The first picture is great the second is awesome!

I also thought about doing what Gerald has done. Well done sir.

I think however I prefer the second shot.

Very inspiring!


PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you! Laugh 1


PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

edri wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
Shocked Cool (Attila, I think we need Emoticon for "Award")


Indeed.




PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What an honor! Thank You Dog

Cheers!


PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very effective & thanks for sharing the post processing!
I tend to try & minimize the distortion on fish-eye horizons - I've obviously been missing something.

Friends


PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DConvert wrote:
Very effective & thanks for sharing the post processing!
I tend to try & minimize the distortion on fish-eye horizons - I've obviously been missing something.


Cheers!
You have two options with regard to the distortion of the fisheye: accept it or fight it. The goal of a photographer should be to produce images that work photographically, no matter how. I think there are two ways to efficiently use a fisheye lens: 1) observing the work of other photographers, and 2) trying yourself.

I was just thinking about what really is that "distortion" of the fisheye lens. The Wikipedia article "Fisheye Lens" begins with the following statement:

"The fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic image or hemispherical"

I emphasized the word "distortion" because it is a commonplace to characterize the fisheye as a lens that produces distortion par excellence. Of course, "distortion" is not being used in the Wikipedia article in a positive sense. That kind of prejudice has been afflicting the fisheye lens since the beginning of its popularization 50 years ago. The irony is that in a broader sense, ALL photographic lenses produce distortion. In fact, the passage from the 3D space of the real world to the 2D space of a photographic image necessarily implies a distortion. For example, circles in the real world appear as ellipses in the photograph, but this is not considered as distortion. Also, the bokeh, which is very prized in a photograph today, is something that simply doesn't exist in the real world.

Many photographers consider the fisheye lens a little more than a photographic gimmick, not suitable for "serious"photographic work. However, I have the impression that the situation is changing slowly. Maybe the huge popularity of cameras of type GoPro will produce in the future a great photographer who will be called Master of Fisheye, like Ansel Adams was the master of the large format, and Cartier Bresson was the master of the small format and the "decisive moment" captured by a 50mm lens on a Leica camera.

Willen Jonkers is a Dutch photographer who has been producing excellent street pictures with a fisheye. Check it out here:

http://www.willemjonkers.com


PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:

Cheers!
You have two options with regard to the distortion of the fisheye: accept it or fight it.


I'd say your shot is more than just accept it, it's gone right into emphasise it
Most of my landscape shots would have the horizons been carefully centered to reduce the distortion.
For fun portraits I do tend to work with the distortion - works well with the kids & the cats, not so recommended photographing the wife, or friends Smile

Distortions from my 360° adapter are even more radical, but rarely manage to leave people looking natural.

IIRC this is the only one I've managed to have people reasonably undistorted:
NEPW - P1080495 small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DConvert wrote:

Distortions from my 360° adapter are even more radical, but rarely manage to leave people looking natural.

IIRC this is the only one I've managed to have people reasonably undistorted:
NEPW - P1080495 small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr


Mike, that Kaidan 360 seems to be a very radical but difficult lens to tame!

In my opinion, the key to success with a fisheye is a good composition. There may be more or less bent lines in the image, but the "fisheye distortion" shouldn't be the dominant feature of the picture. To draw a parallel, a dessert can be sweet, but the sugar shouldn't be the dominant taste. In other words, a good fisheye photo shouldn't trigger the reaction of "Look, Mom, another photo taken with a fisheye!".

I intend to open another topic with some photos, including portraits, in which the composition with a fisheye worked fairly well in my opinion. Who has time (the video is lengthy) may want to watch this video in which Gene Ho presents his interesting techniques on how to use a fisheye lens to shoot a wedding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-WxCoDewbY


PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Appreciate your explanations. Wink Wink

Will work on old wide-angle shots (17mm) displaying distortions (17mm) to see how they react to same process.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More info on how to defish an image here...

http://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/


PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

listera wrote:
Will work on old wide-angle shots (17mm) displaying distortions (17mm) to see how they react to same process.

Good luck!

CBokeh wrote:
More info on how to defish an image here...

http://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/

Good information! Thanks!

I mentioned earlier how composition is important in fisheye photography. I remembered then the Henri Cartier-Bresson's response to the NY Times. As we know, Cartier Bresson was a photographer who almost exclusively shot with 50mm lenses.

Q. Why the 50-millimeter lens?

A. It corresponds to a certain vision and at the same time has enough depth of focus, a thing you don’t have in longer lenses. I worked with a 90. It cuts much of the foreground if you take a landscape, but if people are running at you, there is no depth of focus. The 35 is splendid when needed, but extremely difficult to use if you want precision in composition. There are too many elements, and something is always in the wrong place. It is a beautiful lens at times when needed by what you see. But very often it is used by people who want to shout. Because you have a distortion, you have somebody in the foreground and it gives an effect. But I don’t like effects. There is something aggressive, and I don’t like that. Because when you shout, it is usually because you are short of arguments.

from: http://jeremiahrogers.com/2014/07/bresson50/

Cartier Bresson considered "extremely difficult" to compose with a 35mm lens, which he also thought as a lens that "shouts"! I just wonder what he thought of ultra-wide angle and fisheyes lenses… Well, when Cartier Breson speaks, we pay attention. He was a genius of street photography with little interest for other types of photography.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1


PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
...

Cartier Bresson was a photographer who almost exclusively shot with 50mm lenses.

Q. Why the 50-millimeter lens?

A. It corresponds to a certain vision and at the same time has enough depth of focus, a thing you don’t have in longer lenses. I worked with a 90. It cuts much of the foreground if you take a landscape, but if people are running at you, there is no depth of focus. The 35 is splendid when needed, but extremely difficult to use if you want precision in composition. There are too many elements, and something is always in the wrong place. It is a beautiful lens at times when needed by what you see. But very often it is used by people who want to shout. Because you have a distortion, you have somebody in the foreground and it gives an effect. But I don’t like effects. There is something aggressive, and I don’t like that. Because when you shout, it is usually because you are short of arguments.

from: http://jeremiahrogers.com/2014/07/bresson50/

Cartier Bresson considered "extremely difficult" to compose with a 35mm lens, which he also thought as a lens that "shouts"! I just wonder what he thought of ultra-wide angle and fisheyes lenses… Well, when Cartier Breson speaks, we pay attention. He was a genius of street photography with little interest for other types of photography.


50MM LENS HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS THE NORMAL LENS FOR HIS CAMERA (I needed tg shout that Laughing)

In modern terms he refers to the "normal" lens, i.e. for crop sensor camera that is 28mm or 35mm focal length...