monica_b1998@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoWhat an unprocessed photo looks likemaurycyz.comexternal-linkmessage-square35linkfedilinkarrow-up1522arrow-down15cross-posted to: hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
arrow-up1517arrow-down1external-linkWhat an unprocessed photo looks likemaurycyz.commonica_b1998@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square35linkfedilinkcross-posted to: hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
minus-squarebrucethemoose@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-27 hours agoModern mirrorless cameras do this too. For example, this is what my Canon kit lens looks like with/without digital barrel distortion correction: Not my photos. From: https://dustinabbott.net/2024/05/canon-rf-s-18-45mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/ And https://dustinabbott.net/2024/04/canon-rf-24-50mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/ My own unprocessed RAWs are pretty wild. But (IMO) it’s a reasonable compromise to make lenses cheaper and better, outside of some ridiculous examples like the 24-50.
Modern mirrorless cameras do this too. For example, this is what my Canon kit lens looks like with/without digital barrel distortion correction:
Not my photos. From: https://dustinabbott.net/2024/05/canon-rf-s-18-45mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/
And https://dustinabbott.net/2024/04/canon-rf-24-50mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-review/
My own unprocessed RAWs are pretty wild. But (IMO) it’s a reasonable compromise to make lenses cheaper and better, outside of some ridiculous examples like the 24-50.