Changing Course

[elliot1]

<p>@ eric</p>

<p>Well, you don't have experience with the 17-55mm. It is an excellent lens overall but troublesome at 17mm. My use of both lenses tells me otherwise. Photozone, your source, confirms this too. DXO also confirms that distortion of the 24-70mm is marginally less than the 17-55mm and scores some pretty impressive FX numbers. But the bigger issues are the various distortions created at 17mm because of the focal length itself as compared to 24mm, as clearly indicated by Kent's sample image which is possibly uncorrectable, or would require significant Photoshopping. There is a big difference between 24mm and a 24mm FOV.</p>

<p>While I never used the 17-55mm for landscapes, I did use it for a lot of group shots and, although it is an excellent lens, I learned early on how difficult it was to correct certain shots at 17mm. So I made it a point to never used it at that focal length. In fact, it was the only lens I had that I could not easily correct its distortions with DXO software. At 24mm, the 24-70mm cleans up beautifully and easily.</p>

<p><em>" i would suggest using a different lens than a wide-angle zoom at its widest setting."</em></p>

<p>Now we are getting somewhere!</p>

<p>Kent, your Holmquist is nice anyway!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>as someone who comes from a photojournalist background, i dont really like to do a lot of post-processing. my mantra is, get it right in camera, if possible. im not disputing that the 24-70 might be easier to correct than the 17-55--or any standard DX zoom, for that matter--but i dont think you will find any standard zoom which doesnt have distortion at the wide end. ive had the 24-70 since 2010 and distortion is sometimes an issue with it @24mm, just like it is with most wide zoom lenses i own, if shooting at the wide end. primes tend to be better in this respect but not always. i also learned in group shots, shooting with DX bodies and the 17-50s, either to zoom in a bit or not place people at the edges. Same advice i follow when shooting an UWA. anyway, thanks for the clarification; further elaboration on this point wont help the OP, who seems to be in a place where a d800 makes sense for what he wants to do. my thinking is, the more elaborate the setup, the more higher resolution is warranted. if you're shooting quick fast and dirty run and gun style like a lot of my event shooting, you dont need to have the most technical photographs possible, just something which captures the feel of the moment. so there's a dichotomy between absolute technical quality and documenting fleeting moments as they happen. the more one emphasizes technical aspects, the more time that requires. a lot of times, as a PJ, you don't need "perfect," you just need "good enough." last saturday, covering three events, i shot more than 700 frames. obviously, not every single one of those is going to be treated with the same care of shooting just a few shots with an elaborate lighting setup, etc. anyway, kudos to kent for sharing his experience and for actively thinking about his shooting style and how he wants to evolve it. it's food for thought for us all. </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Eric, this is something I use to think (Kent`s topic aside). And even with extremely technical perfect shots, there is always space to improve. We have to know where to put the bar, which should be also movable.<br /> Kent, your photos are great, you have a unique style and vision, but I`m stressed... :) Your 4x5" camera with two flash shots and the result will be technically "perfect". I understand you have some obvious limitations, and it`s not the same, of course!</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Is the 24mm FOV really equivalent to 17mm on DX? I would not be surprised if either of these normal zooms "cheat" slightly on the wide end, but technically you should be able to zoom in a few mm on the 24-70 and still capture the same FOV as 17mm on DX.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>According to Nikon, the <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2164/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-f%252F2.8G-ED.html">24-70</a> is 84 degrees at the wide angle (on FX) versus 79 degrees for the <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-DX-Zoom-Nikkor-17-55mm-f%252F2.8G-IF-ED.html?CID=SEM-Q114-Google_Nikon_-_DSA">17-55</a> wide angle (on DX). </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

Wrt pushing colour film. Not greatly

successful either in slide or negative.

All you're really doing when pushing

any type of film is raising its contrast.

 

Film's speed is manufactured in, and

there's no way to significantly change

the amount of shadow detail captured

by a given exposure.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>even with extremely technical perfect shots, there is always space to improve.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>agree but it depends on how much of the exposure you can control. live concert photography, which i do frequently, isn't about technical perfection at all because you dont control the lighting or the subject's movement or facial expression. sometimes you have a combo of variable stage and natural lighting, for instance. think about technical aspects for too long and you miss the shot. so it has to be intuitive, and somewhat zen: you have to become one with the camera and <em>feel</em> the compositional elements which make a good shot as opposed to a mediocre one. guesswork and timing and a bit of luck factor into getting that shot or shots which stand out from 99 similar shots. but the idea isn't to capture a static shot, it's to evoke an emotional response. it's a different approach from landscape or studio precisely because of the lack of absolute control, and the need for sometimes constant adjustment of shooting parameters. it's a verite approach, which makes excessive post-processing seem counter-intuitive. now technique is a different thing entirely; the way you approach the shot and how you execute it does have a bearing on your results. with live performers, you have to anticipate the action.<br>

</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>Since I am controlling the light in my shots, I guess I'm more like a studio photographer. Exceptions are sometimes my subjects dont' show up, my studio isn't heated, and it's very, very big!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>Kent,</p>

<p>I don't know what software you used for your "Fixed?' version, but if you haven't already, you might want to look into the Adaptive Wide Angle filter in Photoshop CC or CS6 (alas, not in CS5 I think). I just tried it for the first time tonight on an image of a bowling ball display shot with a D800E and 14-24 at 20mm. Among other things, it significantly reduced the elongation of balls at the edge of the frame, which may be similar to your water tower issue. This image didn't have any key stoning, but the tool can fix that too.</p>

<p>Kent in MI</p>

<p>Here's the "before" version:</p><div></div>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>And here's the after:</p><div></div>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>I really like your work, by the way.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Looks like my first purchase will be an upgrade to CS6. That's certainly good enough.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[dan_south]

<p>The D800E is an amazing camera. It's been my main camera for the past year-and-a-half, and I love it. My only complaint is that the phase detection autofocus isn't reliable in low light. I can work around that for night landscape and city shots, because I tend to switch over to contrast detection autofocus in live view when I'm using a tripod. But, I find the D800E's AF a little unreliable for events.</p>

<p>The D750 supposedly has better autofocus (as to the D810 and D4s), but I haven't tried any of those cameras. When I photograph an event, I still drag my Canon gear along, because the 5D Mark III is like the Superman of autofocus.</p>

<p>I don't tell you this to dissuade you from considering the D800E. It may actually be better than the D7100 that you have been using. But other than the lack of lightning fast, super reliable autofocus in all conditions, the D800E is the finest camera that I have ever used, bar none.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision and your endeavors.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Kent, this may help you as well:</p>

<p>http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/keystoning/</p>

<p>although I don't think it will fully resolve some of the issues that lens present at 17mm.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I took this shot at 24mm (24-70mm f2.8) at f2.8 to show how much less the various distortions are vs the 17-55mm lens.</p><div></div>

[elliot1]

<p>Corrected image easily, quickly and effectively fixed (unlike Photoshop, this is virtually all done automatically and required only about 15 seconds of time)</p><div></div>

[bryce_l.]

<p>Having viewed Kent Staubus images previously and on other forums can well understand what is to me a parallex problem. Those elevators simply rear up from the ground and threaten to overwhelm the miniscule BNSF locomotives. <br />Photography without ambient solar illumination is so much easier to control using some form of artificial flash. If I had my druthers would suggest return to a 4x5 field camera with swings and tilts. However as I have discussed with Kent on other forums, processing of such films can be difficult; Kent has a lab which will do his large format with ease.<br>

The alternative as has been suggested is the tiltable (is that a proper description) lense which should help eliminate the overpowering effect of those grain silos. <br>

As for waiting seemingly forever for a train, that is one of the negative joys of night photography in a train sparse territory. Only $60.00 for fuel? Gee from what well you are pumping your low priced petrol?<br>

Bryce Lee</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>You can't get parall<em><strong>A</strong></em>x from a single viewpoint....it refers to apparent movement of an object when viewed from 2 points.</p>

<p>The term 'keystoning' is derived form the shape of the top-stone in a stone arch. However, the shelves on bowling balls are seriously distorted by perspective. Indeed if you turn the image CCW by 90 Deg, you get a classically inverted keystone image that anyone who has shot an office-block from close up will recognise.</p>

<p>Terminologically, Perspective Distortion needs to be separated from Optical distortion. They are totally different. A lens cannot 'exhibit' Perspective Distortion, that's determined by relative position and/or angle between the sensor plane and the subject. Lenses can surely exhibit barrel or pincushion Optical Distortion.</p>

<p>If the sensor plane is parallel to the silo plane, it's walls will appear vertical and not looming. However, you will almost certainly have chopped their tops off. To get them to fit in, you need to tilt the camera up, and low and behold, they fit!...and the walls are now distorted. </p>

<p>Shift lenses allow you to maintain the parallel relationship between sensor and subject.</p>

<p>A 5 x 4 digital back on a Technical Camera would cure the problem, but all of the ones I've ever played with are, in effect, scanning backs and completely unsuitable for flash use.</p>

<p>There's a medium format Fuji, the GX 680 III that had some lens tilt/shift capability. It had interchangeable film backs, and a optional digi back.</p>

<p>or, maybe a 24mm f 3.5 PC-E Tilt and Shift on a D800E? You might need to bump the ISO as f3.5 isn't great!!</p>

<p>or to let more light 'in', maybe the new 20mm <strong><em>1.8</em></strong>? Frame loose to maintain the 'parallels' and crop afterwards? Time to put that little bubble level on the hot-shoe...:-)</p>

[Two23]

<p>Mike--<br>

Thanks for the thoughts. I level the tripod head using a torpedo level. More & more, I'm becomming a 24mm PC-E will go a long ways to giving me what I want, with software to mop up. I think some of the images I want to do are at the edge of what current gear/techniques can deliver.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>