DSLRUsers.com

Well finally have my 10.5 FE DX Nikkor courtesy of Birddog & Poon's 30 second Christmas bargains. Miserable weather today so I went the artistic route in PP. I'd be interested in particular if the treatment works for you. The first three were defished partially by using DxO Optics Pro 3.5. The last one is fisheyed in all it's beautiful glory. CLick a pic for a larger version.



.........

Top shots Peter keep them coming please

Peter
I love 1,2 and 3! They are something different and work as a series. They have an 'odd' look about them that appeals to me. The last shot has the "empty foreground" syndrome and this can be an issue with very wide lenses. I make a point of checking the foreground and maybe popping something into it. A model yacht or a swimming child would have helped. Looking forward to seeing more of your work with this lens.

Excellent Peter, your B&W works well

Pter, the watercolor is excellent, lloks like new creativity has emerged with a new lens .....and it compliments well

Peter,
I like 1,2and 3. You did a really good job. I am sure you will enjoy this lens!
Cheers,
Gerard

Great shots Peter. The PP has worked a treat.

The watercolour treatment is tops Peter

I really like these shots Peter, and as others have said the watercolour treatment works well.

Bob.

.

Peter,
I too adore 1, 2 and 3!! You're skills and techincal ability as a photographer has improved out of sight over the last year or so. I have become quite addicted to your images and posts. Keep them coming mate - great to see your photos!

Matt. K wrote:Peter
I love 1,2 and 3! They are something different and work as a series. They have an 'odd' look about them that appeals to me.

Like "artists impressions" you see in real estate agents windows? Beside or even despite that I think they look great

The PP and use of lines really makes an image quite refreshing and enjoyable to view. Great stuff Peter.

Your work of late is undergoing an experimental phase and i am enjoying the results. Keep it up mate.

I love the first one, the PP work is fantastic.

Cheers

Peter

I like the looks and way that you process the first three.

was it done in photoshop?

First pic in particular might almost stir an interest for me in that 10.5 FEL.

Thank you one and all for your comments. Going by the silent reception for #4 and Matt's valuable critique it's back to the drawing board for fisheye pics. But that's why I posted here.

So far as the other three are concerned I'm quite pleased with this effect. I must be going through an arty period at present. This was done in Photoshop. I heavily saturated the colours, then used the Nik Color Efex Infrared Black & White filter to transform the image (it gives an odd effect and I'll post one of these tonight) then I faded the effect from the PS CS Edit menu so some of the colour came back. Easy to do, but takes a bit of fiddling about until it looks right.

I think these three also show just how versatile the 10.5 FE is. I bought it as an effects lens (I like the distorted fish eye effect it gives) and saw it as an occasional use lens. Looking at the first three pics it's much more than this. I have lovely straight lines with only minimal distortion after DxO correction, but it has stretched the image in a quite interesting way to make the distant objects/buildings recede more into the background.

Peter, I too really like the PP you've done here. It's a refreshingly different look that I like very much. I'm really enjoying the experimental stuff you've done recently, very well done.

Stubbsy
what can one say...truly inspiring work. KillaKoala, if you need anymore help getting rid of your photogs block, please review this thread !

Without seeing the original photos, these look much more like artwork as opposed to photographs (a la Johndec's comments). This strongly demonstrates the power of the PC, and the effects one can achieve. Getting out there and taking the photo is only half the job. This is the beauty of digital photography.

It is great to see something quite different and I commend you on your efforts. I am also a "Stubbsy-fan" and enjoy viewing your work when it is posted.

I haven't had a chance to see many images displayed throughout the past week, however I would feel confident that these could quite easily contend with the next POTW. I guess time will tell

Keep up the great work and keep 'em coming...

Great work Peter.

One tip when using the fisheye - don't let yourself get too excited or you may appear in the frame.

Greg B wrote:Great work Peter.

One tip when using the fisheye - don't let yourself get too excited or you may appear in the frame.

At least it'll add some foreground interest.

Might accidently catch the "tripod".

I've created a thread here where I show step by step how I arrived at the finished result for the first image in this post.

Thought some may be interested in this given the comments on this technique.

Geoff and AussieDave

Not sure I need a fan club since I have enough of an ego already, but thanks for your kind comments on the quality of my work. At the risk of sounding immodest I feel my work has really leapt ahead in the last 6 months or so. Shame I didn't get my first camera until 2001 or I might have had the lifetime of experience to be up there with some of the really top quality posters here.

Peter,

I've come back and back to these images and I still can't make my mind up. I love the surreal quality they have. I love the perspective the lens has given. The colour works well. But there is just something that unsettles me about them. Not in a scary unsettling way - just something that doesn't sit right with me.

I'm sorry to be so completely vague and uneloquent. I like them but I don't if you see what I mean. I'm going to have another look and see if I can't isolate that elusive "something".

Peter,
Give it (10.5 FE) back to me, it contains a dangerous virus and it may affect to other.

Stubbsy, absolutely beautiful, I like all four though feel four could benefit from one step back to frame the clearly defined rim of the pond so one feels one can see the whole picture, especially as that image in particular gives the feel it was taken with a WA you feel as if you are missing a little bit. Also Matt comments could possibly add to it. In the other three you have really played to the strengths of the lens, I doubt the casual observer would pick it as a fisheye. I am envious of your skills.

rokkstar wrote:Peter,

I've come back and back to these images and I still can't make my mind up. I love the surreal quality they have. I love the perspective the lens has given. The colour works well. But there is just something that unsettles me about them. Not in a scary unsettling way - just something that doesn't sit right with me.

I'm sorry to be so completely vague and uneloquent. I like them but I don't if you see what I mean. I'm going to have another look and see if I can't isolate that elusive "something".

Matt

It puzzled me that I had no comment from you since (at the risk of sounding immodest again) you generally find appeal in my pics. Maybe it's the other worldy quality that the Infra Red effect gives the images. If so then I'm guessing the 3rd pic of the carriage shed has greatest appeal for you since it has less of the infra red effect. Alternatively maybe the distortion sits oddly with you since it really does force the perspective by pushing back the distant objects and bringing forward the close ones.

Here's the Infra Red before I brought the colour back. Does this seem "worse" to you?

Peter,

This is the thing, I usually find great appeal in your shots. You are quite correct in assuming that the 3rd pic was my favourite and yes it's because of the infrared effect I think. I just can't properly put my finger on it mate. It could be the mixture of sharp elements mixed with the watercolour wash which jars me??. I do however prefer the colour version to the B&W.

rokkstar wrote:Peter,

This is the thing, I usually find great appeal in your shots. You are quite correct in assuming that the 3rd pic was my favourite and yes it's because of the infrared effect I think. I just can't properly put my finger on it mate. It could be the mixture of sharp elements mixed with the watercolour wash which jars me??. I do however prefer the colour version to the B&W.

... and of course the colour version has less of the Infra Red effect since it was faded out so it is more photographic and has less of the hand painted feel than the others.

Edit: of course it may just be the images themselves that lack appeal to you. The original of one of these is in this step by step thread which I've referenced above too