[barondla]

Using all 3 lenses on K-1 and shoot Raw. Should I use the lens corrections or does that kill the pixie dust magic?
Thanks,
barondla

[hcc]

Using all 3 lenses on K-1 and shoot Raw. Should I use the lens corrections or does that kill the pixie dust magic?
Thanks,
barondla

If you mean lens distortion correction, NO. Generally, most prime lenses have negligible lens distortion and lens distortion correction is not required.

[pschlute]

Using all 3 lenses on K-1 and shoot Raw. Should I use the lens corrections or does that kill the pixie dust magic?
Thanks,
barondla

All lenses show some distortion. The 31 and 43 more than the 77. Depends on your scene whether it will make any difference. Toggle the corrections on/off in your raw converter and you can the difference. Then choose if you wish to use it.

Same for vignetting.

I usually have distortion correction on in the conversion and vignetting off, because I do my own local dodging/burning.

[Sandy Hancock]

Almost invariably, no. Just about every time I have tried them I have preferred the image before the corrections were applied.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

[Sandy Hancock]

All lenses show some distortion. The 31 and 43 more than the 77.

Huh? The FA31 has exceptionally low distortion for such a wide angle lens.

[pschlute]

Huh? The FA31 has exceptionally low distortion for such a wide angle lens.

That does not mean it is unnoticeable. Open a 31mm raw image in an editor and toggle the correction on/off.

[ffking]

Definitely not - these lenses were crafted to produce a particular look, and you pay a premium price for them - so why do anything to undo that look that give pictures a unique quality that makes them stand out frm the crowd.

[Rondec]

I use the remove chromatic aberration setting quite a bit with the FA 31 and 77, but I don't usually use the lens profile that is in Lightroom. I don't honestly think that it "kills the pixie dust," but I also don't find it necessary.

(I don't own the FA 43 so won't comment on that).

[Lowell Goudge]

I believe lens corrections in camera are only applicable to JPEG

When using corrections they slow down the image processing and reduce your frame rate.

If I were going to correct anything and shoot raw, I would do it in post processing

Having said all this, I don’t generally use lens corrections. The only lens where I really need to do this is a 28mm sigma mini-wide macro in KA mount

Where lateral ca is terrible,

[Kozlok]

I have done the toggle on/off experiment 100s of times. 99 out of 100 I prefer the image with no correction. The other 1% they are about equally pleasing. I stopped clicking that box for these lenses.

[pschlute]

I believe lens corrections in camera are only applicable to JPEG

Yes the settings in the camera apply to the jpeg images. But the corrections themselves are available for use when processing a raw image. You have the choice to use them or not.

[mikesbike]

I can see the need for CA problems or purple fringing in some cases, but linear distortion, whatever there is of it, is mainly noticeable when there are linear elements in a composition. For example, for nature landscapes is is usually not detectable, while for city landscapes it can be critical.

[clickclick]

I generally don't use them. I might check them out for chromatic aberration in a real high contrast situation, but for the most part, I find when I click them on, I prefer the image beforehand. I think this is one where a lot of the magic of certain designs is from their distortions. I live in an old frame house with nothing square or vertical or horizontal. When people come to visit, they say they love the feel, but they often don't seem to understand why. It's easy. Straight square boxes are cold and sterile and uninviting. Curves and waves and wiggles have appeal. I think the same occurs as you "correct" photos of all those subtle distortions.

[barondla]

I generally don't use them. I might check them out for chromatic aberration in a real high contrast situation, but for the most part, I find when I click them on, I prefer the image beforehand. I think this is one where a lot of the magic of certain designs is from their distortions. I live in an old frame house with nothing square or vertical or horizontal. When people come to visit, they say they love the feel, but they often don't seem to understand why. It's easy. Straight square boxes are cold and sterile and uninviting. Curves and waves and wiggles have appeal. I think the same occurs as you "correct" photos of all those subtle distortions.

The distortion could be enjoyable as you state. It is also possible the tools used to fix these problems cause their own distortions and don't look correct to us. CGI in a movie rarely looks truly real and it's "perfect".
Thanks,
barondla