Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-01-2015, 08:54 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 407
Another case of Canikon snobbery?

I was discussing rectilinear lenses versus fisheye lenses with a friend. I explained that I preferred an ultrawide rectilinear to fisheye lenses because you can more easily correct the barrel distortion in ultrawide rectilinear lenses than in fisheye in post processing. I also mentioned how rectilinear lenses are more versatile than fisheye, since the novelty of the fisheye effect wore off quickly, at least for me.

The friend (questioning that status) responded with this: "Well I don't do editing outside of what I capture. and I'm more creative with it."

Should I take this as a personal insult to my skills as a photographer or a general statement that her Canon 5DIII needs no correction and automatically enables her to be more creative than we mere Pentaxians?

06-01-2015, 09:03 PM - 2 Likes   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
rod_grant's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wangaratta, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,528
Have you seen her images?
Is her unprocessed work better than you processed work?
Are her distorted images always better then your "corrected" images?


Actually, it doesn't matter what you answer to these questions: if you are happy with your images, enjoy your own work and don't worry about anyone else's .
06-01-2015, 09:04 PM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,392
QuoteOriginally posted by willskywalker93 Quote
I was discussing rectilinear lenses versus fisheye lenses with a friend. I explained that I preferred an ultrawide rectilinear to fisheye lenses because you can more easily correct the barrel distortion in ultrawide rectilinear lenses than in fisheye in post processing. I also mentioned how rectilinear lenses are more versatile than fisheye, since the novelty of the fisheye effect wore off quickly, at least for me.

The friend (questioning that status) responded with this: "Well I don't do editing outside of what I capture. and I'm more creative with it."

Should I take this as a personal insult to my skills as a photographer or a general statement that her Canon 5DIII needs no correction and automatically enables her to be more creative than we mere Pentaxians?
Anti-post-processing snobbery, common among young "photographers" who haven't done much or have never actually made a print of anything. It also sounds like your anti-fisheye comments were taken personally, so it was you being the "snob" first (in their eyes)...
06-01-2015, 09:06 PM   #4
Veteran Member
Flugelbinder's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Toronto - missing the ocean
Posts: 466
QuoteOriginally posted by willskywalker93 Quote
..."Well I don't do editing outside of what I capture..."
Ken Rockwell doesn't either

06-01-2015, 09:07 PM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,421
QuoteOriginally posted by willskywalker93 Quote
"Well I don't do editing outside of what I capture. and I'm more creative with it."
I take that as "I really have no clue so I bought an expensive camera". Really it is admirable that this person feels they can get it right in the camera all the time, but it really means they are leaving a lot on the table.

I have a friend who sells prints at the local markets. She is fairly good and sells enough that she has been at the market for years. But she is strictly old school. Has signs up "no digital work done on any of my photos, all are direct from the film". The truth is she learned film photography years and years ago and is terrified to learn anything new. I chat with her regularly and I am positive if she went digital she would greatly improve her work but she knows what she knows and isn't going to learn any more.

Not everyone has the computer skills to do good post processing and if you don't and have to get it right in camera all the time then that's fine. I would not take her statement as an insult but rather a defensive statement because of her own insecurity. Instead of being insulted I would feel sorry for her.
06-01-2015, 09:16 PM - 1 Like   #6
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14,587
Mmmm. What about the corrective work that was done in the darkroom, when we were still shooting film. That's no different really from what we're now doing in Photoshop.
06-01-2015, 09:28 PM   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
sherrvonne's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,956
Seems more like you were discussing lens specs and why you preferred one over the other and she was discussing extremely altered photos. Besides processing in lightroom is not the same thing as faking something in photoshop. "No really that mocking bird had antlers and was having tea with rabbits."
06-01-2015, 09:29 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 407
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rod_grant Quote
Have you seen her images?
Is her unprocessed work better than you processed work?
Are her distorted images always better then your "corrected" images? .
Funny thing is, she doesn't have a fisheye yet, she is just planning to get one. I've learned a lot from shooting for a local pro action/event photography business and do try to get usable images straight off the card whenever possible, but simple fact of the matter is that some images just aren't possible without bracketing or dynamic range enhancements. Just look at raw post processing challenges here on the forums. Not even the great Ken Rockwell could produce some of those results straight off the card/film.

---------- Post added 06-01-15 at 11:37 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by sherrvonne Quote
Seems more like you were discussing lens specs and why you preferred one over the other and she was discussing extremely altered photos. Besides processing in lightroom is not the same thing as faking something in photoshop. "No really that mocking bird had antlers and was having tea with rabbits."
No, my father is a taxidermist. It very likely did have antlers and shared a hot tea with the rabbit straight off the card.

Sorry, couldn't resist. But we've never mounted a mocking bird. Killing and stuffing the state bird of Mississippi probably isn't a great idea when you live there (and when the bird is federally protected)...

06-01-2015, 09:58 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
sherrvonne's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,956
QuoteOriginally posted by willskywalker93 Quote
Funny thing is, she doesn't have a fisheye yet, she is just planning to get one. I've learned a lot from shooting for a local pro action/event photography business and do try to get usable images straight off the card whenever possible, but simple fact of the matter is that some images just aren't possible without bracketing or dynamic range enhancements. Just look at raw post processing challenges here on the forums. Not even the great Ken Rockwell could produce some of those results straight off the card/film.

---------- Post added 06-01-15 at 11:37 PM ----------



No, my father is a taxidermist. It very likely did have antlers and shared a hot tea with the rabbit straight off the card.

Sorry, couldn't resist. But we've never mounted a mocking bird. Killing and stuffing the state bird of Mississippi probably isn't a great idea when you live there (and when the bird is federally protected)...
lol lol lol, I think they are protected here in Texas too. There are three of them that visit my yard everyday. I took some photos of them today, they are always entertaining even without the antlers. Oh yeah, I really love my fish eye lens too.
06-01-2015, 10:16 PM   #10
Veteran Member
JimmyDranox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ploiesti, Romania
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,630
QuoteOriginally posted by willskywalker93 Quote
I was discussing rectilinear lenses versus fisheye lenses with a friend. I explained that I preferred an ultrawide rectilinear to fisheye lenses because you can more easily correct the barrel distortion in ultrawide rectilinear lenses than in fisheye in post processing. I also mentioned how rectilinear lenses are more versatile than fisheye, since the novelty of the fisheye effect wore off quickly, at least for me.

The friend (questioning that status) responded with this: "Well I don't do editing outside of what I capture. and I'm more creative with it."

Should I take this as a personal insult to my skills as a photographer or a general statement that her Canon 5DIII needs no correction and automatically enables her to be more creative than we mere Pentaxians?
Don't take her, sorry, it, in anyway. Leave her as she is. It's much better for you.
06-01-2015, 10:26 PM - 2 Likes   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,270
it sounds like your comments were taken as trying to dissuade her from getting the fisheye and she didn't like that. I never saw where the brand of camera had anything to do with the conversation.

IMO, a fisheye and a rectilinear ultra wide do not overlap, that is they are completely different tools for rendering a scene. When i want to use FE, the UW recti is not going to cut it, and vice versa.

...the correct LBA answer would be, "you should own BOTH!"
06-01-2015, 11:23 PM - 1 Like   #12
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,561
Ignore it. I feel you're blowing it out of proportion.

By the way, I never understand people that want to correct a fisheye image. I would buy a fisheye for the effect, not to remove it.
06-01-2015, 11:32 PM   #13
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,983
Explain to me what this has to do with camera brand snobbery?

BTW...the circular projection of a fisheye lens is not barrel distortion in the usual sense and is actually a more accurate presentation than rectilinear lenses of similar FOV. There is usually little need to de-fish when properly composed. For landscape photography, I prefer a fisheye where I need an extreme FOV. (Stretched trees are so not natural.)

180 degrees diagonal FOV...




Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 06-01-2015 at 11:42 PM.
06-02-2015, 01:46 AM   #14
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rockhampton, Central QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14
I'd take it as she has no clue how to go about any sort of PP.
06-02-2015, 03:30 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Preskitt Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,756
I can't imagine this has anything to do with Canikon. I bet there are Pentax shooters that do and think the same way. I imagine there are similar people carrying every brand of camera imaginable.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this method of thinking or creating images. The camera, it's settings, how many or few pictures were stitched, how much or how little PP was involved, etc, none of this matters as long as the artist and others like the picture.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bird, card, fisheye, friend, images, lenses, photography, post, tea, ultrawide
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will the Pentax K-30's AF rival that of Canikon? Adam Pentax K-30 & K-50 169 07-06-2012 03:33 AM
Thinking of jumping ship to CaNikon CrazyNuts Pentax DSLR Discussion 70 02-05-2012 06:20 PM
We hear about people switching to Canikon, anyone switched from Canikon to Pentax? Eric Seavey Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 08-08-2010 06:54 AM
Brand Snobbery? Is it just here or everywhere? GLXLR General Talk 171 01-12-2010 08:41 AM
Had my first experience with Canikon snobbery. dws1117 Photographic Technique 23 06-17-2008 03:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:16 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top