 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2008Canon 10-22 part 3
Hmm. I have this lens for a second day. Having Sigma 18-200 I'm asking myself why I need C10-22 if wide end make such a huge distortion. Some guys criticise Sigma for pic quality, but so far I'm happy with my Sigma. I think that I need some discovery time with C10-22 to appreciate it. I had similar situation when I did buy my Rebel, 1st SLR so far. Believe me or not but from purchase day it took me 1.5 year that I start to like my pic and I start to understand what SLR photography is about. During this time I even put it few times on classifieds, but I'm glad I didn't sell it:) I'm still in learning procces (hm, who isn't?:) I'm planning to go somewhere in the weekend to make some shots. When should I go first, cityscape or landscape or...? Do you guys remember when you first time start to work with wide angle (particular question to C10-22 owners) did you like it at first time you attached to your camera? cheers > Hmm. > I have this lens for a second day. Having Sigma 18-200 I'm asking myself why [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (particular question to C10-22 owners) did you like it at first time you > attached to your camera? I've loved my sigma 12-24 since I got it. It did take me time to really learn to use it though: knowing how to emphasize or minimize the fun-house look. Distortion isn't really the right word for what you are describing: perspective, or 'wide angle perspective' is better. Here's a few exercises to play with: Shoot an interior scene first tilting up, then holding level, then down. Try cropping the straight one. Shoot perpendicular to the far wall, then at an angle. Put things in the foreground & take advantage of the ability to put those objects in context. Shoot a subject near the center of the frame, then put it in the edge, and then in the corner. Again, play with whether you are aligned perpendicular or the subject is angled. Try some closeups, notice how close you can focus & how deep the field of focus is when stopped down to f/11 or more. Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject on a parallel plane to the camera, then put those protrusions at a diagonal so one is much closer than the other. Big difference.  SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat > subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject > on a parallel plane to the camera, then put those protrusions at a > diagonal so one is much closer than the other. Big difference. This sounds interesting, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about. :-) Please explain more ... or show us an image? Thanks! >> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Please explain more ... or show us an image? Thanks! My camera is back in the shop again :-( Simply: things change size dramatically in a wide angle frame depending on their distance from the camera so you can exaggerate that way. Putting those things parallel to the sensor plane keeps them more normal looking, less 'distorted'. 3D objects in the corners can get really weird. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >>> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >>> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > those things parallel to the sensor plane keeps them more normal looking, > less 'distorted'. 3D objects in the corners can get really weird. Umm, not sure I'm any closer to understanding what you said. Would you give me some definitions, please? 3D relief = ? shooting plane = ? those protrusions = ? Thanks! > Would you give me some definitions, please? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > those protrusions = ? This is all related to Dancing With The Stars. I saw a few minutes of the show this week and realized these are the answers you seek; 3D relief: after a few minutes of being slapped in the face by the whirling bosom of a well-endowed dance partner, a guy realizes why flat-chested ballerinas are so popular shooting plane: in the disco competition, the winning move is to make "finger guns" and act like you're shooting planes out of the sky (left-right-left-right) those protrusions: see first answer Signature"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." > Wilba said: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > whirling bosom of a well-endowed dance partner, a guy realizes why > flat-chested ballerinas are so popular Right. > shooting plane: in the disco competition, the winning move is to make > "finger guns" and act like you're shooting planes out of the sky > (left-right-left-right) Got it. > those protrusions: see first answer I see. "Put those protrusions at a diagonal so one is much closer than the other", makes complete sense now. >> Wilba said: >>> Would you give me some definitions, please? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "Put those protrusions at a diagonal so one is much closer than the other", > makes complete sense now. Try it with a face and a hand instead of 'those protrusions' if you prefer :-) equidistant (parallel) to the sensor or one further away than the other (diagonal). SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >>> Wilba said: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > :-) equidistant (parallel) to the sensor or one further away than the > other (diagonal). When I said it makes complete sense to me now, I was playing along with Tully's joke. I still don't have a clue what you are describing. I guess I only will when I see an image (and I know your camera is being fixed). >> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Please explain more ... or show us an image? Thanks! http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/43504181/large David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >>> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/43504181/large Okey doke. Where is the "protrusion at a diagonal" which is "much closer than the other"? >>>> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >>>> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Okey doke. Where is the "protrusion at a diagonal" which is "much closer > than the other"? The 'protruding' tile paving is diagonal to the sensor: exaggerated in the foreground with a steep perspective. If you crop where the tile meets the building on one of those doors, the tiles look about the same size in the foreground & background: like a long lens. The parallel building looks square and undistorted. Even if it was angled, putting it in the center keeps it realistic looking. Here's an exaggerated diagonal: http://edgehill.net/Misc/misc-photos/11-4-06-sunroom/pg1pc3 Here's a missed opportunity for a superwide: http://edgehill.net/human-world/2-Objects/pg2pc9 Here's one with the subject close to parallel but stair-stepped: http://edgehill.net/human-world/2-Gardens/pg2pc8 This shows how things in the middle of the frame look straight but it falls apart in the edges: http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/4- 6-05-archeology/pg1pc2 Exaggerating the sense of looking *down* from a mountaintop fire tower: http://edgehill.net/human-world/2-Gardens/more/pg19pc112 SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >>>>> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >>>>> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > meets the building on one of those doors, the tiles look about the same > size in the foreground & background: like a long lens. http://edgehill.net/temp-/wide-long.jpg The left side original has the doors the width of 2 foreground tiles, the enlarged crop at right has the door almost 10 tiles wide. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >>>>> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >>>>> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Exaggerating the sense of looking *down* from a mountaintop fire tower: > http://edgehill.net/human-world/2-Gardens/more/pg19pc112 You're just talking about perspective, right? I have no problem with that, just with understanding the incomprehensible gobbledegook about "protrusions" and "3D relief". > You're just talking about perspective, right? I have no problem with that, > just with understanding the incomprehensible gobbledegook about > "protrusions" and "3D relief". The gobbledygook about "protrusions" and "3D relief" is just saying to have things at a range of distances in the frame to get the most effect from a wide angle lens. Extreme wide angle can get gimmicky and old fast. But I like it. A lot. I'd love to have a 35mm lens with a bit of shift and tilt on a 6x9 film camera. There's a 47mm lens on a 6x9 camera with shift (but no tilt) at a camera store here, but they want 15,000 bucks for it. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> You're just talking about perspective, right? I have no problem with >> that, just with understanding the incomprehensible gobbledegook about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have things at a range of distances in the frame to get the most effect > from a wide angle lens. I wish he'd just said that. :-) > Extreme wide angle can get gimmicky and old fast. But I like it. A lot. > I'd love to have a 35mm lens with a bit of shift and tilt on a 6x9 film > camera. There's a 47mm lens on a 6x9 camera with shift (but no tilt) at a > camera store here, but they want 15,000 bucks for it. Yeah, I've not worked with anything like that. I'm sure it would be interesting. >>>>>> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >>>>>> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> Exaggerating the sense of looking *down* from a mountaintop fire tower: >> http://edgehill.net/human-world/2-Gardens/more/pg19pc112 > You're just talking about perspective, right? I have no problem with that, > just with understanding the incomprehensible gobbledegook about > "protrusions" and "3D relief". I think you may be suspecting these words of having some special obscure technical meaning. They don't. They're ordinary standard English words which you can find in dictionaries, and in the posting in question when interpreted in that way made sense to me without any difficulty. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >>>>>>> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >>>>>>> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > in question when interpreted in that way made sense to me without > any difficulty. Great! Please paraphrase Paul's paragraph. >>>>>>>> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >>>>>>>> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D subject [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >> in question when interpreted in that way made sense to me without >> any difficulty. > Great! Please paraphrase Paul's paragraph. Why would substituting other words and phrases with the same meaning help? I suspect you're asking for explanation, but without knowing what you don't understand I don't know what bits of a possible page or two of general explanation you might be asking for. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >>>>>>>>> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a >>>>>>>>> fairly flat subject. Align the shooting plane to put [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > what you don't understand I don't know what bits of a possible page > or two of general explanation you might be asking for. Let it go, Mr Malcolm. No point in getting involved in a "discussion" with a burr who's either sub-literate or purposely obtuse. I'd like to see a contest between Draco and Focus (Come to think of it, anyone seen them in the same room at the same time?). That'd be like Prince and Michael Jackson going at it. I'd pay money to watch that. Someone must be able to imagine a subject they'd disagree on. Whudday think? SignatureFrank ess "reSIST the URGE to exPLAIN" —Screenwriter and Oscar nominee in an AOL chatroom >>>>>>>>> Shoot a subject with a lot of 3D relief, compared to a fairly flat >>>>>>>>> subject. Align the shooting plane to put portions of the 3D [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > what you don't understand I don't know what bits of a possible page or > two of general explanation you might be asking for. I'm only interested in understanding Paul's paragraph. > Distortion isn't really the right word for what you are describing: > perspective, or 'wide angle perspective' is better. Here's a few exercises > to play with: Does fixed lens have the same problem? (Is that a problem anyway?) >> Distortion isn't really the right word for what you are describing: >> perspective, or 'wide angle perspective' is better. Here's a few exercises >> to play with: >> > Does fixed lens have the same problem? Yes. > (Is that a problem anyway?) It is the same way we see with our eyes. A fisheye projection is an alternative. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >>> Distortion isn't really the right word for what you are describing: >>> perspective, or 'wide angle perspective' is better. Here's a few [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It is the same way we see with our eyes. A fisheye projection is an > alternative. Some illustrations here (scroll down): http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > Hmm. > I have this lens for a second day. Having Sigma 18-200 I'm asking myself why > I need C10-22 if wide end make such a huge distortion. > Some guys criticise Sigma for pic quality, but so far I'm happy with my > Sigma. You need an understanding of optics and photography. The problem is not the lens, it's your lack of understanding. >> Hmm. >> I have this lens for a second day. Having Sigma 18-200 I'm asking myself [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You need an understanding of optics and photography. The problem is not > the lens, it's your lack of understanding. I'm not completely dump. I understand some photography and optics. What I don't know, I'm truing to get from here. Maybe you are asking for too much. Maybe you should be looking as a tilt and shift lens if you want to photograph tall buildings, as previously mentioned in another post. A lens is only a tool at the end of the day. > Hmm. > I have this lens for a second day. Having Sigma 18-200 I'm asking myself [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > attached to your camera? > cheers |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.