What’s your opinion on fisheye landscape shots? Correct distortion or leave it? Better to stitch multiple photos?
FujiXT2 Samyang 8mm LR Sliders
These are some images I captured out on the Great Salt Lake a couple weeks back. Didn’t have anything in mind, just loved being out there watching the sunset and enjoying the solitude. I was capturing some time lapse and playing with my 8mm fisheye. I think the first two are a bit saturated, as I posted those to IG from my phone; things sure look different viewing them on the website here. I played around with the distorted ones in LR, looking for something unearthly.
I try keep the horizon line to how I see it in the field Max. What are you trying to convey to the viewer would be my question to you, or how are you expressing your vision?
The first image is beautiful with the cool warm contrast thing going on, and I really enjoy the lines in your third picture, but I am not a fan of the fish eye stuff all that often. I have seen some images I think it looks cool in though.
A good set of examples. I don’t believe there is a clear answer to your question. It is so much dependent on the subject. I much prefer the corrected version in your first two images. The extreme distortion in #3 creates a wonderful lunar like landscape. #4 probably works either way for me.
Thanks Ryan! Yeah, I was just adding more explanation to the post when I saw your response. I think context is important. There are times I want to capture it as I saw it and other times I like to play around or go for a creative scene. Out on the lake it feels like another planet.
My personal preference is for the straight horizon. I just can’t get myself to like the fish eye perspective. Perhaps if I was a fish I would like that view better.
Max, critiquing this is past my pay grade, but the distortion for distortion’s sake doesn’t hold much attraction for me. I do note the loss of detail in straightening in the first image, as well. I feel like there is probably some way in PS to keep some of the detail in the bottom part while correcting the distortion, but it’s not a technique I’m familiar with.
I agree Phil. When I’m going for a non-distorted view of the landscape, but need more than I can capture in one frame, I’ll do a vertical stitch of multiple images. In those situations I’m using my 12mm or on my Canon, the 17-35mm for a cleaner capture. So far the 8mm novelty has not warn out for me, I’m still finding new creative ways to use it, but it’s not my goto.
Thanks Bill. On many of my wanderings in the west I often say I wish I had a geologist with me to explain the crazy rocks I see. Have you ever been out to Crystal Mountain in western central Utah? That was my last adventure where I said that out loud.
This is an excellent series for considering this question. In looking at these, I found myself more interested in the uncorrected fisheyes of the last two images than the first image (corrected or not). I’m not sure why that is, but I think it has something to do with the more abstract composition and monochromatic treatment of the last two. In my mind, that lends itself better to a distortion since the point of the image is less about representing a scene naturally and more about expressively identifying lines, shapes, etc.
I hope that helps in your deliberations and your thinking in the field and in post-processing.
Thanks Marylynne - I totally agree. When I fixed the distortion on the first one I liked it better, likely because I kept the colors more natural. I think removing or changing the colors in the last to images to make them more abstract is complimentary to the distorted fisheye view. I think on the first one I was looking for a water world/other planet view to go with the desolate salty soil ones.
Art to critique someone’s artistic vision. In the end if you like the fisheye look and it accomplishes what you are going for…sure. If you are asking if we have an opinion on your tastes…thats different The last image definitely gets that unearthly feel. For my personal preference the first two are too saturated. But that sand? ridge looks like an eel. Very fun
Max, I’m not familiar with Crystal Mountain. Google wasn’t any help, so maybe that is a local name? Yes, exploring the southwest with a background in geology certainly adds another dimension. It doesn’t get much better than floating down the Colorado in a dory for a few weeks.
Thanks for mentioning Crystal Peak. It appears to be an interesting area of volcanic pumice. I have Great Basin National Park on my to-do list, so this would be a nice stop along the way.
The last image definitely gets that unearthly feel. For my personal preference the first two are too saturated. But that sand? ridge looks like an eel. Very fun 