On 5/12/05, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm risking some serious flamage here, but I tend to agree with a > certain Mr. Johnston's opinion about the use of fisheyes.
Bah! What's Mike know? >That's not > to say that there aren't good photographs taken with a fisheye. I've > seen the fisheye photos you've posted at photo.net, and must admit > (with reluctance) that I kinda like them. Well, I'm the first to admit, it's hard (at least for me) not to do cliches with a fisheye. "Look, tall buildings that curve into each other! Coooool!" Seems to me that whatever uses there are for fisheyes are quite limited. However, I tend to look at it as a fun lens, not one that's going to take Pulitzer Prize winning photos. > Most fisheye shots I've > seen scream out "I just got me a fisheye lens and I'm looking for an > excuse to use it!" Absolutely! But, I guess that could be said about any new lens. It's just that fisheyes are so distinctive, they can't be mistaken for anything else. > Besides, if I can't take a jab at you from time to > time, life's just not worth living. <g> I agree. Sometimes I jab at myself, just for fun. Other times, I pay a lady in a tight leather bodysuit to come and jab at me - oooops, I've said too much, haven't I? <vbg> cheers, frank > -- > "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > > -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
