Fisheye Correction

Reviewing some recent images; I liked this one of a whaleshark. As I was using the Tokina 10-17 and 1.4TC at 10mm on FX, I obviously got some fisheye effect which was bothersome mostly because of the curvature of the water surface.

For the first time I tried a fisheye correction PS plug-in - PT Lens.

Here are the two images, before and corrected. I'd like to know what people think, which do they prefer?

Any comments on Fisheye correction plug-ins, preferences etc.

Would a conversion like this qualify in a competion as 'traditional' or is this correction going too far?

Any other thoughts or comments?

......

Would a conversion like this qualify in a competion as 'traditional' or is this correction going too far?

 

Any other thoughts or comments?....

That's a great example how lens choice effects the "feel" (the most important part from my perspective) of an image.

To my brain, fisheye lenses used where there is some kind of "known" reference (like the surface in this case) always give a feeling of "other-worldiness".

If that's the feeling you want to portray, I think it's a legitimate use of a photographic tool to create an effect that evokes a response in the viewer.

Having the ability to correct it later if you don't like the fisheye effect seems like a best-of-both-worlds situation, but in my opinion i don't really think it could be considered "traditional"... but I've never written the rules for a competition.

That's a great example how lens choice effects the "feel" (the most important part from my perspective) of an image.

 

To my brain, fisheye lenses used where there is some kind of "known" reference (like the surface in this case) always give a feeling of "other-worldiness".

If that's the feeling you want to portray, I think it's a legitimate use of a photographic tool to create an effect that evokes a response in the viewer.

 

Having the ability to correct it later if you don't like the fisheye effect seems like a best-of-both-worlds situation, but in my opinion i don't really think it could be considered "traditional"... but I've never written the rules for a competition.

Which one do you prefer? Does the curvature of the surface bother you?

Come to think of it I think the curved version has a bit more of a feel of movement.

Also interesting how the curved rays straighten in the corrected version, and they did not bother me in the uncorrected version.

Which one do you prefer? Does the curvature of the surface bother you?

Come to think of it I think the curved version has a bit more of a feel of movement.

Me, i prefer the curved one because of the curves it makes.

The straight surface is too strong.

I think I prefer the curved one as well. Maybe a less corrected version will be ideal; I'll try that.

Loftus,

I love the experimentation you're doing, and I am very interested in the results you are getting. For what it's worth, I am a photojournalist and issues of visual integrity come up often in the newsroom where postproduction techniques might start to encroach on the faithful representation of reality. I have heard heated discussions about whether it is ethical to remove 'redeye' from flash photos, and even whether it is ethical to use flash in the first place. Ultimately, f your result is faithful to the reality, I think you are ok. Correcting for fisheye distortion seems perfectly reasonable to me. To that end, you might also look at a plug-in by a company called Image Trends. They have a product called Fisheye-Hemi that is slightly different than the one you have used. It does not completely correct for all the barrel distortion, but it is designed to reproduce people who appear in fisheye photos (even at the far edges) with more natural perspective. The nice thing about this plug-in, is that you lose almost no information in the final result.It might be worth a look:

http://www.imagetrendsinc.com/products/prodpage_hemi.asp

The results on your photo are subtle, but the light rays straighten out, and the shark is little straighter, as well:

I prefer the corrected one. When you correct an image you effectively soften the corners, though. Doesn't hurt this example I'm sure.

I prefer a correction tool that allows arbitrary correction and cropping. No reason why it has to be only one way or the other. Unfortunately the one I used to use is discontinued and I no longer use Windows. Anyone know of an interactive correction tool?

I too like the corrected photo. I can remember my first trip w/ Jimmy when I was using a Sigma 12-24 on a non DX camera (1DII). Everyone else was using a 15mm fisheye lens on a 1.5x cropped camera and getting the usual look. They all thought my rectilinear shots looked weird!

Cheers

James

Loftus,

I love the experimentation you're doing, and I am very interested in the results you are getting. For what it's worth, I am a photojournalist and issues of visual integrity come up often in the newsroom where postproduction techniques might start to encroach on the faithful representation of reality. I have heard heated discussions about whether it is ethical to remove 'redeye' from flash photos, and even whether it is ethical to use flash in the first place. Ultimately, f your result is faithful to the reality, I think you are ok. Correcting for fisheye distortion seems perfectly reasonable to me. To that end, you might also look at a plug-in by a company called Image Trends. They have a product called Fisheye-Hemi that is slightly different than the one you have used. It does not completely correct for all the barrel distortion, but it is designed to reproduce people who appear in fisheye photos (even at the far edges) with more natural perspective. The nice thing about this plug-in, is that you lose almost no information in the final result.It might be worth a look:

 

http://www.imagetrendsinc.com/products/prodpage_hemi.asp

 

The results on your photo are subtle, but the light rays straighten out, and the shark is little straighter, as well:

That's interesting how the rays are straightened but the barrel distortion of the surface is not. In this case it was the water surface that first bothered me. As Craig says, a more arbitrary / interactive interface would be nice. I'll check out Fisheye-Hemi and any others I can find.

I have Fisheye-Hemi. Don't have much experience with it yet.

Here's a plugin that appears to be interactive. I've ordered it but haven't gotten to download it yet.

I much prefer the corrected one. To me it's a case of distorted vs. dramatic. Even if the surface curvature of the original didn't bother me (which it does - it's far too much to be "natural"), the corrected one makes the sunrays quite dramatic (whereas they were distorted and hardly noticeable in the original). I think you gain a far more dramatic effect by correcting the distortion.

Because of the sun rays, it's the corrected one for me.

My vote goes to what I will call the semi-corrected one: this would be the one posted by Bentoni.

For me having curved light rays just isn't right - the straight rays, curved surface, curved shark.....I think that this look is best.

It is my favorite by far, and somewhat inbetween the original choices....

Steve

Corrected one works for me!

now my vote shifts to the one corrected and posted by bertoni, the curved surface and the straight rays.

As always, the subject expands way beyond one's initial concepts. Reading some background, the whole subject becomes a little more complex. Starting with just different types of fisheye distortion created by different lens types. I learned a new word 'equisolid' which I believe is the type of fisheye distortion we are dealing with. But then again maybe not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens

I much prefer the original corrected version with the rays and the surface line straightened. There are plenty of underwater shots where the FE distortion is innocuous, but in this case I think the distortion distracts from a very nice butt shot.

My only comment on the "manipulation" question ... would seem to me to be a "global" versus "local" correction and fall much closer to "contrast" boost than a "clone stamp" ... falling somewhere between a "contrast boost" and a "crop". More manipulative than a global contrast boost and less than a crop ... but still in the "global" category. JMHO.

Anyone know of an interactive correction tool?

Pretty sure "Panotools" has interactive lens correction and is freeware.

I prefer Jeff's original whale shark tail/water surface shot with the FE distortion!

Light curves underwater, maybe not that much, but the first corrected "straight" one, for me is too straight for u/w and looks a bit fake; light rays just seem too, too straight.

I don't care for the alternate corrected version that was "semi-corrected", but well done!! Software info was very interesting.

Things are distorted u/w so I don't mind some FE look at all. To me it seems more "true" than the flat look, or even the slightly corrected look for that matter.

But both look good Jeff, I think its an opinion thing and depends on usage.

Check the rules for manipulation - seems FE manipulation is major to me.

Just my thoughts..., Great whale shark photo and experience! Go Jeff! Best, Carol

PS would be an interesting subject to survey

...Things are distorted u/w so I don't mind some FE look at all. To me it seems more "true" than the flat look, or even the slightly corrected look for that matter...

That's an interesting statement. I wasn't there, but it seems likely to me that to the human eye of a diver/snorkeler, the scene would have looked most like Jeff's first corrected (i.e., flat surface/straight sunrays) version. Therefore, I don't see how the grossly distorted surface and sunrays is in any way "more true" - except in the sense that it is what the (admittedly distorting) camera lens captured.

I realize that suggesting that a photo should be true to what the human eye sees is a slippery slope, since virtually all uw photos taken with a strobe capture color that the human eye can't or doesn't fully see. But to anyone other than another uw photographer familiar with fisheye lens distortion, it seems like Jeff's original photo would seem to be (and in fact represent reality as) "wrong" - not "true."

Bottom line, however, is that I agree the photo is interesting in both original and corrected form, depending on use. In fact, it would be a great example to use in a presentation/lecture on uw photography - and WA/fisheye uw photography in particular...