tomoko's post listing a 35mm shift (after which i have been lusting for
some time) (though i've never been able to justify it) made me start
thinking...
i took a shot of the national cathedral with my cheap P&S during our
recent snows. i wasn't expecting much, but i didn't have time to rush
home and grab the whole kit and kaboodle to take a nice shot.
the picture was surprisingly good, but due to my proximity to the
cathedral and the wide-angle lens, the perspective was completely
banananoonies. so i scanned the neg in and went at it with photoshop.
by stretching the image into a trapezoidal shape, i was able to
correct the perspective to a large extent.
other than some minor loss of detail toward the top of the frame,
what am i really giving up by correcting the perspective this way
as opposed to investing wayyyy too much money in a shift lens?
please, don't get me wrong: i'm not claiming there's no use for the
shift lenses...in fact, i'd *love* for somebody to give me a reason
to spend more money on lensflesh.
--
joe jackson | Life is right in any case.
e3ujxj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | My heart is as open as the sky.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|