On 16 February 2013 05:28, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: > I could care less what Ken Rockwell has to say as I don't follow his > site or ramblings. > > Fish-eye lenses can be gimmicky and cliché when over-used, like any > specialist optical effect. That said, I've licensed several images > made with a fish-eye and even won an award or two with photos that > were made using a fish-eye lens. I don't own one at present, but I've > had several over the years and always enjoyed working with them. > > So it's easy to jeer at Ken, and you might not find fish-eye lenses > particularly to your taste, but as usual sweeping generalizations are > mostly just hot-air.
I've owned at least one A16/2.8 Fisheye lens since the mid 80's and I've put them to use in all manner of creative ways not least in natural landscape protographs where it's often near impossible to perceive the inherent FE distortion due to the lack of regular geometric references in the frame. If a photographer can't see the potential and scope that a FE lens affords then they probably just lack creativity or a sense of adventure. There's a sweeping generalization :) I could have used one on a shoot last night in fact. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
