10.5dx correction - best software

I picked up the 10.5dx over a 15 or 16 because the image can be corrected IF I want it that way, giving me a less rounded (distorted) image more like the 15 or 16 with the added wider close focusing benefits the 10.5 offers over those lens.

After the thousands I spend on Nikon gear it burns me that I have to pay for Capture. The PT lens program I have heard of and then the distort Photoshop filter will work also I belive. Anyone know which offers the better quality conversion or any thoughts are appreciated.

I'm in the same position now, looking for the best option.

Meanwhile I found this nice and free Lens-Correction PS plug-in, I'm sure that there are better options but its done a nice work on some few 'dry' frames I done.

Thanks for that one Arnon! I'll give it a try too.

Thanks man - got it - installed it and it works, I will give it a good test compared to P.S. distort filter.

What is the directory path to drop the plug in into? What folder?

Thanks.

Using explorer Go to programs - Adobe Photoshop - plugins - create a new folder name it "pplensor" copy the downloaded plugin in the folder. Restart PS then look under the filters section on the very bottom section should be there.

So... should we be "correcting"?

We lose a lot of image when we do.

Is the fisheye "wrong" or is it "different"?

I am still thinking about this, but I think that MAYBE if you are shootiing images that "need" correction, you should be using a different (e.g., rectilinear WA) lens. The correction not only throws out parts of the image (the horror of wasted pixels), it ALWAYS (at least in my limited experience) reduces sharpness (there goes the depth of field!). For now, at least, until I am taught better, I don't do the corrections on most u/w fisheye shots...but then, I am a Myers-Briggs INTP, and love alternative universes.

Just my 2 cents.

No I disagree completely, It is just another creative tool. Say there is one shot and you wished you had your 16mm but you don't and it comes out a little round. You can use this to better the shot. Of course if your doing this on 90% of you shots there is a problem, I qualified my post with a capital "IF" I Might never use it, but want it available to me if I need it. Having the right lens or affording all the right lenses for the job is not always a possiblitly especially if underwater.

On land I recently shot an interior of a home, the fisheye gets the entire room better than the 17mm I had, but the corners are bent, this tool fixed that nicely creating a normal looking image. If you know how to shoot and think with the abilities photoshop has to offer it opens up ideas you may not have thought about.

People in alternative universes I would think should have a more advanced way of thinking no?

I apologize if I seemed prescriptive -- I, too, have gotten interesting interior images using the fisheye correction for the 10.5 (I bought Capture, but now mostly use ACR).

My point was meant to be modest (but I reckon it didn't come across that way; must be more careful in my word choice, sorry) -- my point is just that the fisheye is a particular projection, no less valid for being different from a myeye projection. Yes, I agree 100%, digital image editing is FABULOUS -- but so are weird optics, a bit of an alternative universe. I rarely find the distortion distracting for UW shots (but I rarely shoot wrecks, piers, etc.)

There is certainly plenty of space in the multiverse for fisheyes and corrections and filters and rectilinears... ad multi infinitum.

All the best,

Chris

Hi,

I downloaded pplensor and installed it into my PS - plugins folder inside its own folder, just as suggested in this forum. Yet, I can't find the filter at the bottom (or anywhere!) in the filters menu.

Is it possible that this plug in does not work on a Mac? Is anyone else using this on a Mac with PS CS?

Thanks,

Jim

Sorry I am not going to be a big help with a mac. Just bes sure it is NOT in the filters folder but the plugin folder and the folder has the same.

The software works if you use it sparingly. Too much correction F^%#$s up the image.

Joe