Wide angle

[RobSPhotoNut]

I used a wide angle lens for this picture. Is the lens distortion objectionable due to wide angle, or is it ok? I was as far back from the building as I could go and keep the picture as seen. I do not have the software needed to "correct" the wide angle distortion. Tripod mounted. PP consisted of small amount of D-lighting and small color boost using ViewNX. Not cropped. If distortion software is recommended, which one?
Nikon D300
ASA 200
1/200s F16
10 - 24 mm Nikkor lens
10mm
no filters

[RobSPhotoNut]

Seems the picture may not have made the post the first time. Try again-

[judicator]

my god, what happened to the sky???

[RobSPhotoNut]

It was a very beautiful day, in the morning, a very intense blue sky. I think my exposure added too much blue. It was about 15 - 20 degrees when I took the picture, and I was not dressed for long looks!!!

[flytyer57]

This is a classic example of what happens when you try to shoot "up" with a wide angle lens. You get this distortion that makes everything look like it's falling over. This can be fixed in post, although you will lose some of your picture due to cropping.

[doctorjames]

This is the second post in critique in days that has the same issue. The distortion you see is a direct result of the choice of lense used and the position you have relative the the scene.

As flytyer57 says this is a classic example. IMO it is a classic mistake and is not "ok". It can be fixed however in PP but would be better avoided if at all possible in the first instance.

There is something wrong with the way your upload is showing on my monitor, seems to be lots of artifact and a very low quality jpeg, making it impossible to comment about other issues such as chromic abheration e.t.c. Im pretty sure its a problem with the photo rather than how my computer is trying to display it, though correct me if I am wrong.

[Krusty79]

The sky looks very "blocky" on my monitor also.

Have you considered using your tripod to take multiple shots and stitching together a panorama? That way, you'll get the width of the building without so much distortion.

[RobSPhotoNut]

The original RAW file is about 25 or so megs, the original jpg was about 8 megs. The file that was uploaded is only 72 or so k to keep it within the required size restraints. The buildings for Flagler College (Hotel Ponce De Leon, ca. 1888) have always been a fascination for me, interior and exterior, both from history and architecture standpoint. The small file may account for some picture degradation. Thanks for looking.

[shruggy63]

You may've already known that this was the distortion you'd get. So why did you do it? 10mm from a low position is pretty wide?! Was it also hand-held in low light?
I think you kind of know what you're doing but you're a bit frustrated & irritated at the moment?
I always remember that thing that you'll have to do something for 10,000 hours before you become an expert. How many hours have you put in?
I'm not slagging you, I'm in the same position that I wish my photos were better. I think I've done 300 hours or so...

[RobSPhotoNut]

Thanks Shruggy. It was on a tripod, but very cold. I couldn't get any farther back to get less distortion, nor could I get higher to reduce distortion. I knew I would get some distortion, just not that much. Didn't really look at the picture until many hours later after I warmed up. I hate to admit it, but I never thought of trying a pano shot. In addition, I am not sure how to stitch the photos together once taken. Hm, 10k hours huh? With luck and a little crazy math, maybe 500 hrs?!?! Wonder if I have that many hours left?!?!?!?! I do wish my photos were better. I have seem some pictures that worked well like that. Kinda hoped this one did. I guess I need lots more time and work. Thanks for the encouragement!!