Hi Dave,

Nice shot by the way, looks very nice.

I think you did a good job of correcting for any lens distortions in the image. Yes the lady has been distorted a little, but there are always some trade offs when correcting lens distortion. I think that on this image the corrections you've made have worked very well.

Just out of interest have you tried either DXO to correct lenses or PT lens, both are supposed to be very good at correcting lens distortions?

Andrew

I'll do a google seach for DXO and PT lens. I never heard of them. I just used the the tools within CS2. I'm glad you liked the photo.

Dave

No probs Dave.

Here to help ;-)

PS CS2 is pretty good at correcting lens distortions, although it's more labour intensive with the adjustments needing to be applied by the user. I believe in DXO it does it for you, based on the distortions the actual lens produces.

Glad I could help.

Andrew.

A quick google search found DXO and a long list of the lenses they support.

If you look at this list and compare it to the lenses I own, listed below, you see why I got to buy this tool. They have corrections for almost all the lenses I own! I see that they are working on a PhotoShop plug in but have yet to release it. That seems the way to go.

Two thoughts pop into my mind.

1) Why don't cameras have this built into their firmware as an option; I mean a Sony camera can tell which lens you are using and where it's focal length is set. They could automatically correct it for us. Maybe this would slow things down too much. I'm happy with an option to do it later.

2) Why should I pay for great optics if software can make a cheep lens look good?

DXO offers a free trial period.

Hyperlink: http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/product_range/cameras_lense...

Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 - RAW + JPEG
Sony Super Wide Zoom 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 DT
Sony Zoom DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3
Sony or Konica Minolta AF 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6
Sony or Konica Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4
Sony or Konica Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6

Dave

... and a bunch of other developing/post-processing tools (and very familiar with many of others).

So let me start out and make two points about DxO:
Firstly, I love DxO,
Secondly, I hate DxO.

Let me explain - *when* the stars are aligned, and DxO has the very camera and the very lenses that you have - it is a spectacular tool - and becomes my favorite, tool. Yes - it can make mediocre equipment look great-

If you plan on sticking with *only* the lenses and *only* the cameras they support, then it is a outstanding investment. Otherwise, I'd look elsewhere. (FYI - From a private conversation with one of their mgmt, their plans were to provide support for the A700 this summer. I haven't spoken to him recently, and don't know if that has slipped, again.)

Regarding straight buildings, distortion, and perspective.
DxO (expensive), PT Lens (inexpensive), Hugin (free), PTAssempler (Inexpensive), can accommodate pin cushion and barrel distortion. Moreover, they can allow you to adjust the perspective of the image. Hugin and PTAssembler allow you to finely adjust the projection of the image, too. Regarding straight buildings: when you see tall sky scrapers lean toward each other/converge toward each other: that is not distortion, rather it is perspective. It is identical the converging lines on a road that vanishes on the horizon. The two sides of the road converge in the distance - so do tall buildings. You can adjust for this to some degree - but note - you will pay for that adjustment somewhere else.

- - - - -
You asked "Why should I pay for great optics if software can make a cheep lens look good?" I have a slight variation on your thought - I have become adept with enough tools such that my question has become "Why should I become a good photographer if software can make a bad photographer look good?"

Thank you b shaw for taking the time to write such a thoughtful reply. I think I over did it a bit in the above photos. It bothered me that the church and the building were leaning towards each other. Then I noticed the blocks on the wall on the right were leaning. I straightened this all out but I think I over did it a bit. In my mind I expect buildings to have parallel lines. As you point out some of this is due to perspective and should not be removed. Key-stoning is normal yet DxO provides a way to eliminate it. Under some conditions that looks good. The Approach of having an algorithm for each lens/camera combination makes sense to me because it removes our subjective bias. As you elude to, we are artists as much as photographers and as such are free to distort the images we capture to our liking. I'm saving my pennies while I wait for the A900. I'll try out the other less expensive programs you mentioned. We will both wait and see if DxO develops algorithms for the A900 and a bunch of lenses. This must be a difficult, time consuming process, hence the delays. It would be interesting to run this same image (RAW) thru DxO and see what it does with it.

Dave

Most of the lean in the buildings in this image are caused because the camera is not level front to back. Shift lenses compensate for this or adjustments in field cameras. Level the camera front to back and crop out unwanted areas this will remove most leaning errors. There is some barrel distortion because the lens is wide but most is not the lens. I just had to redo some church interiors I took with my Sigma 10-20 because I couldn't get them straight in PS.

This is a fascinating topic to me. Glen is right. I introduced the lean into the picture when I tilted the camera back to include the church. I just realized that now. Of course if I had held the camera level I would not have captured the church or even the top of the merry-go-round and the photo would not be as interesting. An alternative would have to taken the photo held level while I stood on a high ladder. This is impractical. I guess the eye/mind/inner ear all work in combination so we do not notice the converging lines when we look up. It's only when we look at the picture straight on that something looks amiss. I wonder if I printed this photo and hung it high on the wall, forcing the viewer to tilt his head back at the same angle my camera was held, if it would appear straight to the viewer. Another alternative would have been to have used an even wider angle lens, hold the camera level and crop like crazy.

I guess the reason I never noticed this before was because I usually shoot nature shots, without buildings. But then again, trees give a clue and provide straight lines. From now on I'm going to make an effort to hold my camera level while composing the photo.

I love this group because I learn so much.

Dave