What’s that, you ask? Well, I guess I must have felt a little overworked and depressed at that time 😀
This is one of two last churches that I visited on my way out of Prague. The fisheye effect is not immediately visible because I took the image straight up into the center of the ceiling. I couldn’t exactly remember the church, but using Google Maps and Wikipedia, I found out it was the Church of Saint Giles.
These images were taken with a relatively cheap, manual focus Walimex lens – or Samyang or Rokinion, depending on where you buy it.
I bought it when it was available for 30% off on Amazon. Normally I would probably have bought the expensive and super-stellar Olympus 8/1.8 for between two and three times the price. Would it have been worth it? Probably not. This lens has plenty of sharpness, and most of the time focusing is not necessary at all. The Olympus would have given me some extra greatness, bought with extra size and extra weight.
As it is, the fisheye is always in my “Big Travel Bag”, along with the three PRO lenses. I don’t have to remember packing it, it’s just available when I need it and that’s surprisingly quite often. Had I bought the Olympus, I would have been forced to buy a bigger bag (NO WAY!!!) or alternatively I would have been forced to choose between the 7-14 and the fish. You see, better sometimes can be much worse 🙂
There is a museum in the upper story of the cloister. That’s where the stairs lead to.
Not so here. The distortions give me an effect that strongly reminds me of Dali’s molten realities.
Ok, I’ve played around a bit with DxO and Lightroom. For your reference, here is yesterday’s image again.
If we ignore the different colors and looks, what remains is an effect that I find quite pleasing. Yes, we lose a little bit on the sides and at the top, but the result does indeed look much more natural.
Is it worth it using the fisheye along with DxO and some extra treatment in Lightroom over, say, the rectilinear 7-14/2.8? Well, probably not, but then, if we see it as just one more tool in our set, I think there’s nothing wrong with it. And yes, of course all those software tricks cost you some ultimate sharpness, but so do in-camera corrections. Do I care? Nope. Not at all.
I felt I needed to mention the lens used in yesterday’s post. This certainly wouldn’t have been necessary today.
Years ago, in “Photoshop times”, I had a plugin called “FisheyeHemi”. It did some magic to partially remove the distortion along one axis, while at the same time maintaining most of the lens’ extended angle of view.
DxO can do something similar. I’ve just tried to play around a little with “Volume Deformation” in the variant of “Horizontal +200” and “Vertical +200”. Add a little keystone correction and the result is, that the verticals in the center are almost straight, while those at the sides are still bent as hell. It’s a nice effect. Maybe I’ll experiment a little bit more with it tomorrow.
This is the same church as yesterday’s but today we are inside. And again: the fisheye is exceedingly well suited for baroque architecture, especially when you shoot just straight up into a cupola.
By the way, both of these pictures have been processed with “Edit / Skew” in Photoshop. Standing in the church, bending backwards and trying to get a perfectly symmetric shot is so hard that I prefer to add perfection after the fact 😛
Like in Lisbon I brought the “Big Gear”, the E-M1, the trinity of PRO zooms and, because it’s so small and easily fit into the bag as well, the 7.5 mm fisheye.
We’ll come back to this lens a few more times, in cases when it can’t get wide enough, but when straightness is not a criterion. The fish will never be a “normal” lens for me, but while I used to struggle for seeing its applicability, it now is normal to recognize the moments. It’s just another tool.