what's up with this horizon?

[pilothaz]

Originally Posted by divaphoto

photoshop certainly has its place, but I think a few people get carried away and over do things.
Although an over shopped photo usually looks unnatural, a well worked on photo can be exceptional.
If you are entering a photo in a competition is it fair to remove a bland sky and replace it with an interesting one just because the conditions werent right on the day?

I agree with Cheryl, really photoshop is a tool but can't overtake the simplest form of the picture. What you see that day should be what you want to show the world. By changing the picture in photoshop for the background of the sky would alter it and possibly make it look better but then you are not giving the true photo its justice.

[i_luv_ph0tos]

I really love the first two pics!

[Booter]

I personally don't mind the curve effect. It's there but it certainly doesn't take anything away from most shots. Especially in these shots here.

[PRH]

here are some jpegs as an example at either end of the focal length scale for a particular zoom lens. Barrel distortion at wide angle, pincushion at telephoto (not so obvious).
(hopefully I'm not infringing on dpreview.com copyright but this is purely for teaching purposes)

All lenses have some level of distortion and this can either enhance the image or be disconcerting to the viewer.

Personally I like a bit of barrel distortion especially if the horizon is water. The earth is round after all and the curvature in the image (although an artifact of the lens) gives the sense of vastness. Its about personal preference. Its also about working with the limitations of your gear and working to its strengths.

The only "straightening" I would do would be to make sure the points where the horizon touches the edge of the frame is at the same height on either side....or not. Its up to you.

[Thomas|K]

To reduce distortion from achitectural fotos
I sometimes use the (freeware) program ShiftN

This probably would work for your 2nd Foto (wich I also like with the distortion )

cheers
Thomas

[candleman]

i wouldnt get too worked up over the horizon.. contrary to popular belief the earth is round... not flat.

kidding

i see your problem.. I'm going to go with Barrie Allan on this one.. probably a function of the actual lens

[frad-ster]

Originally Posted by wulf

We have had this debate several times on the site and it might be worth digging around. However, it hasn't come up for a while (that I've noticed) and there have been a lot of new people, so we can run with it a bit.

To me, the argument that a photo is cheapened if it is not straight out of the camera suffers from several flaws. Firstly, taking a photo is not a natural process to begin with. Secondly, unless shooting in RAW mode (when you will have to do some post-processing), the camera will already be applying predetermined processing to create your JPG image. Thirdly, camera technology is limited and so cannot accurately recreate what your eye sees (a much lower range of sensitivity, particularly without the option to scan and recombine the scene in real time). Fourthly, most of the great photographers held up as icons of the film age spent a long time in the darkroom and so weren't believers in straight out of camera shots either.

Finally, and most importantly, art is about taking control of an image and giving an insight into what you see. Some of that is done in camera, as you frame the scene and arrange an appropriate exposure but the process that follows is just as much part of the artistic process.

Wulf

I am with ya on this one. On one image, good old Ansel Adams probably spent 10 times the amount of time in the darkroom than most of us take in PS to do the standard set of levels and color corrections. It's not a betrayal, but rather a technological advantage to photography today.

I would also like to note that graphics design is considered an art in many ways. Using PS to create things and make them what your imagination sees is not cheap, it's resourceful!

[smenzel]

Originally Posted by turnonthejets

Some software has lens correction

CS2 sample.

Wow. This little tutorial just changed the way I handle distorted perspective. Thanks.

[kraftywill]

If you want a very easy way to get rid of all curvature use DXO optics. You can set it to remove distortion from all your photos using the EXIF data. It is expensive, but makes it very easy and is a very powerful tool. They have a free trial i think.........

[PhotoNewt]

Originally Posted by frad-ster

I am with ya on this one. On one image, good old Ansel Adams probably spent 10 times the amount of time in the darkroom than most of us take in PS to do the standard set of levels and color corrections. It's not a betrayal, but rather a technological advantage to photography today.

The difference is that Ansel Adams spent a long time studying his equipment, understanding optics and exposure and then a spent more time studying his subjects and planning his shot - all before going into the dark room to tweak his images - which he certainly did.

I would also like to note that graphics design is considered an art in many ways. Using PS to create things and make them what your imagination sees is not cheap, it's resourceful!

While that is true the whole point of photography is not create a picture in Photoshop but rather to create one in the camera. In order to do that you need to learn how the camera see light, how particular lenses give different perspectives and their particular flaws so you can avoid or exploit those when needed.

This is not an indictment on digital postprocessing - postprocessing is, and has always been, an important part of the art of photography (do you really think dodge and burn did not exist before Photoshop, think again). This is a legitimate process of enhancing a good photograph to look it's best because as Wulf said, cameras have a limited capacity to capture a scene.

This is an indictment on the mentality that what you do on the camera is not as important because it can always be fixed later on Photoshop. No, it can't! In my opinion, Photoshop is not a tool to rescue (in some cases completely remake) a grossly bad shot, but rather a tool to correct minor flaws and enhance colors, contrast and other areas.

The original poster had a legitimate photographic question dealing with the different distorsions introduced by the lens system itself. The first photo suffers from Barrel Distorsion caused by the 18mm portion of his lens system, the second has this plus Curvilinear Distorsion caused by the upward angle of the camera. None of these are problems with the photographic technique.

Barrel distorsion is an optical flaw mostly present in wide angle zooms and is more pronounced with wider zomming ranges. Most prime lenses of equivalent focal length and shorter zooms (e.i., 10-22mm) will exhibit lesser (sometimes negligible) distorsions.