how is this done?

[richie205GTI]

how is this sort of photo taken? or is it a photoshop job?







cheers

[Simpo Two]

Not sure what aspect you're interested in, but unless I'm missing something obvious, an ultra wide angle lens (eg 10mm) would account for it.

Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 13th July 12:47

[andy-xr]

Something like a 10mm lens would do that

[RB Will]

More importantly the rear suspension on the Punto is broken!

[4hero]

I agree on the 10-22, a couple of my shots with this lens for comparison.

[g_stacey]

Theres a bit of Photoshop work as well. The yellow lines and background are not distorted as the cars.

G

[_dobbo_]

g_stacey said:

Theres a bit of Photoshop work as well. The yellow lines and background are not distorted as the cars.

G

Not sure about that - I think the decidedly dodgy rear wheel on the punto is confusing matters, I'd say there hasn't been any correction applied anywhere in the image.

[Simpo Two]

I can't tell if there's been any 'straightening out' (fixing or partly fixing barrel distortion) in PS. I don't use my Sigma 10-20mm a great deal, but IMHO the composition, position of horizon and subject matter make a big difference to perceived distortion.

[jon-]

4hero said:

I agree on the 10-22, a couple of my shots with this lens for comparison.

The cardboard cutout boy is back!!

[clonmult]

_dobbo_ said:

g_stacey said:

Theres a bit of Photoshop work as well. The yellow lines and background are not distorted as the cars.

G

Not sure about that - I think the decidedly dodgy rear wheel on the punto is confusing matters, I'd say there hasn't been any correction applied anywhere in the image.

Stupidly dodgy rear wheel, and it makes you want to setup a separate thread titled "How could this car ever be road legal".

[Mini1275]

jon- said:

4hero said:

I agree on the 10-22, a couple of my shots with this lens for comparison.

The cardboard cutout boy is back!!

[Stickers]

Simpo Two said:

Not sure what aspect you're interested in, but unless I'm missing something obvious, an ultra wide angle lens (eg 10mm) would account for it.

I'd say that due to the perculular distortion, cropped wide angle/fisheye image or even perspective control lense?

Either way, the images have almost certainly been cropped

[RobDickinson]

Images look exactly how I'd expect if shot at 10mm (crop) or 16mm (full frame).

And processed some after, vignetting, contrast, colour etc.

[GFWilliams]

The rear wheel is acutally that wrong on the punto, there is another photo floating around that isn't distorted.

The rest is just fisheye.

[ukaskew]

Bit odd, I'm assuming a crop from a ultra-wide angle or even a fisheye.

People assume fisheye = mental distortion, but with certain framing they can look fairly conventional throughout most of the frame. Looking through my pics, this looks a bit similar to those posted above, taken with a Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye on a crop body (D90)...



No massively noticeable distortion throughout most of the image, but some severly curvy buildings at the edges (much like the cars above)

Edited by ukaskew on Tuesday 14th July 21:54

[Simpo Two]

ukaskew said:

a Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye on a crop body (D90)...

Part of the high price of that lens price is lower distortion - and you had the horizon roughly in the middle, whch helps a lot.

You can deal with some or all barrel distortion in processing, but you end up with (ironically!) a pincushion-shaped image which then needs cropping back to rectangular.

[_dobbo_]

A 10.5 Fisheye will distort far more than a "normal" 10mm lens. Hence the "fisheye" bit.

As far as I can see the example photos in this thread are quite simple 10mm wide angle shots with no cropping or any correction.

[Simpo Two]

_dobbo_ said:

A 10.5 Fisheye will distort far more than a "normal" 10mm lens. Hence the "fisheye" bit.

My understanding is that a true 'fish-eye' lens produces a circular or near-circular image, whilst the more you pay, the more it resolves the image (with the same FOV) into a rectangle - which is the clever bit.

[_dobbo_]

You may be right Simpo, that's not how I understand it though although it wouldn't be the first time I've been very wrong. I remember I once asked which lenses in Nikon's zoom range were the "prime" ones because those were the ones I wanted.


My understanding is that a rectilinear UWA lens (such as the 10-20 sigma) is corrected for barrel distortion whereas a fisheye is not - mainly because they generally have a wider field of view.

I've tried to find a comparison photo set of a fisheye vs a UWA lens and naturally I can't find anything useful.

[Stickers]

Simpo Two said:

My understanding is that a true 'fish-eye' lens produces a circular or near-circular image, whilst the more you pay, the more it resolves the image (with the same FOV) into a rectangle - which is the clever bit.

Anyone can acheive this same effect by cropping.

_dobbo_ said:

A 10.5 Fisheye will distort far more than a "normal" 10mm lens. Hence the "fisheye" bit.

As far as I can see the example photos in this thread are quite simple 10mm wide angle shots with no cropping or any correction.

I really don't understand how you arrived at that assumption....... for example; take the image of the yellow Seat? - the bonnet area is the most pronounced & therefore would have been the centre of the original image. To achieve this effect it must have been cropped to give the impression that the car was distorted towards the lower R/H corner.

As for the silver Punto & in hindsight, it appears to have a rediculous amount of positive camber dialed in on the actual car & not due to lense distortion or P/S.

I have to admit that it's a clever way of giving a different perspective to W/A & Fisheye photography & something I will definately consider doing myself in future