I have attached three of my copyrighted images. All of these are from a Nikon Z9 using LC NEF. The first is the body generated JPEG. The second is from PL5E complete (with the two additional applications activated at an additional license fee). The third is from Affinity using the Imadio Hemi fisheye v2 plugin (PL5E does not accept true plugins, not even DxO NIK, but requires an export to TIFF, etc.). I rarely use Affinity except for the use of plugins; my custom presets using DeepPRIME produce (in my opinion) better results. (In the film era, defishing was not practical; the best one could do would be to use an anamorphic lens, say for tall trees, on the camera and the “inverse” lens on the enlarger for a print or on a projector – very cumbersome.) Is there any equivalent to the Imadio Hemi “engine room” using PL5E complete?
Nothing built in to the DxO suite will give you a range of defishing options. With manual distortion correction (defishing), you’re stuck with a rectilinear projection. You could correct the horizontal stretching with PL’s Volume Deformation adjustment. But the crop isn’t going to be any more inclusive. I tend to prefer using Hugin (which is free) with one of its Panini projections. It’ll give a result similar to your third image above. I’m guessing the distorted areas at the top and bottom are autopainted in by the program. I don’t think Hugin will do that for you, whereas Microsoft’s Image Composite Editor will. Personally, I prefer to save the result in TIFF and edit that in PhotoLab, using the repair tool to fill in any empty space included in the final crop. Takes some work but the result is very clean looking.
Here is my take using the jpeg of your original image. Done in PhotoLab 5 I think it may be a bit closer to what you wanted although there is still a lot more curvature of the ocean than is ideal. I used the Distortion tool and Volume Deformation tool .
just remembered … I once used a little fisheye lens (Tokina f3,5-4,5 / 10-17mm) and put the horizon right in the middle keeping it straight – then cropped it in post
Where the “horizon” appears in a fisheye image (or for that matter, rectilinear image) depends upon the subject. If the horizon should be “level” as that is the image one wants (sometimes one does not, depending upon the subject), it should not necessarily be in the center of an image, again, depending upon the subject and desired composition. The Nikon Z9 has, amongst other features, both a centered horizontal software reticle superimposed upon the “viewfinder” view as well as a rule of thirds reticle that allows one to get a decent level horizon even handheld (and “spot on” on a tripod), independently on the EVF and back LCD screen (“monitor” in Nikon parlance). I attempt to explain the concept of a level horizon or a vertical feature to student clients.
Talking about composition, which for my mind is more important than ‘technical’ aspects …
I’ve been wondering, that you wanted to defish the pic. You just loose the nicely exaggerated rendition of the ‘black hole’ in the foreground, which is surrounded by the yellowish soil and the contrasting blue sea & sky.
Indeed, I might have excluded the sun (nice sunstars btw – difficult w/ some modern lenses) and pronounced the foreground even more, which would have come at the cost of an even stronger bent horizon.
Well, a rectilinear corrected lens would have kept the horizon line straight (like my Nikon F 14-24mm).
If the horizon should be “level” as that is the image one wants (sometimes one does not, depending
upon the subject), it should not necessarily be in the center of an image, again, depending upon
the subject and desired composition.
Yes, I leave the horizon rarely in the center, to not ‘split’ the image.
The issue of composition and the representation thereof for an art photographer (including a scenic, wildlife, etc., art photographer) is up to the artist. Thus, Art Wolfe manipulated the number of individual animals in a group (removing the value of the image for ecological or most other scientific purposes as data) https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98may/photo2.htm for artistic purposes. In my case, I was attempting to use a single fisheye image rather than setting up a tripod and pano head followed by stitching. Clients typically prefer rectilinear images, not curved horizons nor curved tall trees (another application I use for a fisheye). Ultimately, if one is not making an artistic “rendering” – take it or leave it as with “fine art” – the client makes the decision. In terms of artistic effect, the original fisheye image (with the sunstar) I agree has more “artistry”. This image was not necessarily for submission, etc, but rather as a test of the defishing capabilities of PL5E complete. I assume for a rectilinear lens, rather than using a tilt and shift lens to take the image, PL5E complete will do a reasonable job of converging “straight” lines converted to a true vertical/horizontal perspective (that can be done with a tilt-and-shift lens or a massive technical view camera that I neither own nor would want regularly to use).
I am not a working wedding, etc., photographer; I only photograph weddings and the like for extended family and very close friends. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that (most) wedding photographers submit the preliminary images to the client who then approves which images are wanted (plus perhaps the overall fee for working the event, even if most or all of the images are rejected – the latter result being very unusual). Many of my clients are “repeats” and I have come to know the “type” of image the client “likes”. Using computer workflow (much easier than enlarger and darkroom), I make adjustments to provide an image that the client (hopefully) will accept, and will iterate within reason. I had a working set using the Adobe suite, now a leased “silent partner” and not used by me, and experimented with Adobe suite replacements until I have settled upon PLnE complete, n currently 5. I am developing my set of PL presets to meet what I have perceived a client “wants”. For publication editors, the number of iterations can be somewhat large, particularly if the editor wants a submitted image upon which the publication staff will have very little further modification.
I am NOT a human portrait nor a wedding (etc) photographer. As I mentioned, I only do weddings (etc) for extended family and close personal friends. For those situations, the number of iterations can be extensive. As my primary body these days is a Nikon Z9 and a gripped D850 backup, and before that a D800/E, I often have to due a bit of human skin adjustment (not just skin tone but various features that the person being imaged does not like). My lens kit does include the same focal length lenses that are used by wedding/portrait photographers. I have found that although art photographers often like chiaroscuro, the persons for whom I have done such work do not, although they do not want the uniform detailed lighting used for identification document images. These adjustments often have to iterate, especially if a feature appears in a large format print that is not obvious in a “thumbnail” supplied for initial review. However, these are not “repeat” clients.
Most working professional wedding/portrait photographers I know either use lower resolution bodies or have appropriate presets or plugins that I do not use. The exception is photography for sociology or anthropology in which highly detailed images of human subjects are displayed, fields in which I do not image.
