Correcting compression on UWA shots?

[weepete]

Hi all,

I'm just back from a 5 day landscape workshop shooting up North. I shot a lot with my 10-22mm UWA (for various reasons), but I'm on a crop sensor body so one thing that is hurting my current shots slightly is the compression of mountains in the background as it is taking away a bit of impact from my shots when compared to more traditional wide angle focal lengths like 24-35mm. I was wondering if anyone corrects this in post and/or has any information, links etc on using photoshops tools to correct it to more what the eye sees?

I'm currently experimenting with the perspective distortion warp (which is more meant for buildings afaik) and matching the outline of the summits with a longer shot from the same location but I'm unsure if thats the best way to go about it or not.

Thanks

 

[astroNikon]

I'm not a pro
but with a WA lens will distort the apparent physical relationship between objects.
One reason I love to use one when doing photography.

I think if you want as true to what the eye sees then you need to use a lens that provides the most true perspective per relationship object distances. I think this is a 50mm lens.

You can take multiple 50mm shots and stitch them together to create a "wide view" of an image.

I'm not sure if you can realistically change the object perspective in post efficiently.

 

[Don Kondra]

30 day free trial > Automatic Perspective Correction | DxO ViewPoint

Cheers, Don

 

[weepete]

Thanks Don, I'll give that a go

 

[Alexr25]

I think if you want as true to what the eye sees then you need to use a lens that provides the most true perspective per relationship object distances. I think this is a 50mm lens.

It is on a full frames sensor, on a APS-C camera its more like 35mm, its all about the angle of view, and the sensor size as well as the lens focal length determine the angle of view.

While converging or diverging verticals can be corrected in post perspective distortion is all about how objects at varying distances relate to each other in the final image. As far as I know there is no simple way to "correct", or rather to alter perspective distortion in post.

 

[D-B-J]

Sounds like you shouldn't have used a wide angle.. unless things are very close to your camera when shooting ultrawide, most things in the frame end up looking very small. The only way to fix that is get close to stuff and fill the frame, or shoot with a longer lens and compress the scene, which makes far-away things "appear" larger.

Jake

 

[D-B-J]

Shooting at 16mm.. see how tiny the bridge looks? It's minuscule!
_RSP9165-Edit by f_one_eight, on Flickr


BUT, when shot at 70mm, the bridge seems much bigger and fills the frame.
_RSP9149 by f_one_eight, on Flickr

 

[weepete]

Thanks chaps. I did shoot some at longer focal lengths, however my best results were from the ultrawide. I guess I'll just need to go full frame eventually.

 

[Don Kondra]

What makes you think full frame is going to be any better ?

Cheers, Don

 

[table1349]

Shooting at 16mm.. see how tiny the bridge looks? It's minuscule!
_RSP9165-Edit by f_one_eight, on Flickr


BUT, when shot at 70mm, the bridge seems much bigger and fills the frame.
_RSP9149 by f_one_eight, on Flickr

But where is the leaf in #2????

 

[weepete]

What makes you think full frame is going to be any better ?

Cheers, Don

The field of view means that I'll be able to shoot at a longer focal length from similar locations at more convensional wide angle focal lengths, that shoud improve the drama between foreground and background. Only by a little, but it'll make a difference

 

[Don Kondra]

Apples and oranges

10mm on a crop sensor, 14mm on a full frame. You will get a "larger" image on a full frame but the objects will still appear as far away.

And full frame bodies and lenses are going to cost more !

Cheers, Don