Some fishy beach pics

Many eyecatching photographs are eyecatching because the photographer has captured a scene that the human eye would probably not normally notice. In the normal course of events, unless we are out and about with our cameras, we glance at our surroundings, we do not necessarily study them (though many togs are always looking for photo opportunities whether their camera is with them or not). Thus images taken from, perhaps, an unusual perspective are eyecatching. Fisheye lenses produce images that would never be seen by the human eye and are therefore eyecatching. Whether they are "interesting" is down to the skill of the photographer in distorting the scene in such a way as to make it really jump out at you. Not sure if any of this makes sense but I want a fisheye lens!

Cheers
Chris

Perhaps it's just the unusual perspective that's a consequence of having to get very close to the subject. This will mean foreground objects are unusually prominent compared to the background, thus giving the 3D effect mentioned.

Quite chuffed, sent the Xmas one into the local paper and it got printed yesterday.

Congratulations! I have occasionally pondered sending a pic into my local rag too. For free of course, it's a tiny local paper, something like 12 pages.

Did you just send it in unasked or did you speak to them first?

Thanks.
Just emailed it in with a note saying I hoped they found it of interest and where it was taken.

Right-o. Watch out Walden Weekly!!!!

Nice to be back after a busy month to take a good look at the work of others. This is an impressive set of fisheye shots but I can’t help wondering if I would have liked them more taken at 24mm. ’Course did not see the original scene so it is possible that the lens has added loads to the shot and was the only way to go.

So not sure about the beach set but do like the reindeer shot and think in this case it works well giving a focal point and placing it in it's setting, where as senic landscape works in a different way or at least in my brain it does and I am not sure about distortion of the scene for no real reason that I can understand but I would be happy to have the reasons explained.

Nice shots Mike, which amongst other things demonstrate one of the qualities I've found I really like about Fishy - the colour rendition.

Re. your musing about abandoning the 12-24, though. I disagree. I was beginning to have my own doubts after a productive w/e with Fishy a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps, I thought, it was rather extravagant to have two ultra-wides. However, I used the 12-24 quite a bit this w/e and was once again struck by it's superb optical performance - it's sharper than the 10-17 even in the centre of the frame, and at the edges better than any other zoom I've had. Also, while the distortions are often visually striking, it's good to have something that doesn't distort (and the barrel distortion on the 12-24 is less than any wide angle lens I've used). It's true Fishy's pretty damn appealing, but I think the 12-24 still gets my vote for fave zoom lens.