On 12/19/2013 2:05 PM, John Hudson wrote:
> How does / did the photo editor rationalize her assertion that "all fish-eye
> photos look the same and are boring."?
IF she is a good editor, she knows what sells, and bases her opinions on that
criterion. If not, why bother with an editor?
I tend to agree with her as a matter of visual preference. A few fish-eye shots
are great images. But more than a couple
together soon become about the distortion, not the subject - to me.
> Insert "short tele photo lens" for "fish eye" and would she make the same
> crass assertion?
Most likely not, as that is a normal lens which doesn't call attention to
itself through distortion. The average viewer
may not have any idea whether a particular shot was taken with anything from
slight WA to moderate tele.
Rectilinear Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|