I often find that for city photography fish-eye gives an unique and intriguing look to photos, and they often look better than with an ordinary lens because a landmark can fit into the shot.
What do you think?
Compromise. What picture were they showing? Cheers. Ed.
Ed, I usually like your edits - and don't mind me saying this - but this looks like something between the normal perspective and fish-eye. I think I am used to fish-eye, because that (surprisingly) looks more natural to me!
That's why I used the word, Compromise, your comments appreciated. My signature comes into this. Regards. Ed.
Oh, I forgot to answer your previous question: it was a film festival spanning a couple of days, and they were showing some older classic films, if I remember correctly.
Hope I did not miss a Western!! Ed.
Never been a big fan of fish eye lenses, would probably like this image more if that horrendous screen wasn't blocking the wonderful architecture!
Wouldn't work if we all liked the same stuff anyway!
I kind of like fish eye shots...
but, for me anyway, it really does depend a lot on the subject and the intent... This shot you could have gotten... uncompromised,
with a decent 14mm wide angle that doesn't give the huge barrel distortion of the fish eye... or a T&S lens (I know... expensive and exotic so not in everyone's bag) I usually take fish eye (15mm f2.8) shots from below shooting upwards ... for artistic impression as well as to show a landmark in a different perspective... better still, taken at night. So, as Ed reminds... to each his own... but I still like the shot...
Kind regards
Rolf
I think the fish-eye shot is great fun, but I too would like to enjoy it without the screen and chairs. The sky in the image is OK - it's just that, for me, the whole image needs a boost to make it really "pop":
[
attachment=4407]
Cheers.
Philip
PS: I just posted my picture as an example, mostly
the main thing I wanted to know was your thoughts on fisheye distortion in city photography. Not that I mind your edits, they are very cool!