As I mentioned two posts back, I recently started tracking view of my photo galleries, or more specifically, of full page photos (not thumbnails, but views which can only be specifically requested by visitors). After about 1.5 weeks, I was gratified and somewhat surprised to have ranked up over 1500 views. Even more interesting is the fact that less than 10% of the 533 photos online have not been viewed over this period. Inevitably, the most viewed are the easiest to reach, so those on the "latest updates" page, and I guess those delivered by the random photo feature on the galleries home page. Ok, it isn't exactly earth shaking, but even so, I'm left feeling slightly smug 😊

For some time I've been meaning to write something here about using the Zuiko Digital 8mm Fisheye lens, specifically for landscape. This is the first true fisheye I've ever used. Many, many years ago, I used a fisheye adapter on Canon FD lenses, a combination which puts most Holga photos to shame.

The lens is very well built and the focusing ring rotates smoothly with just enough friction, making it a pleasure to use. The huge front element is very impressive, and a bit exposed. A fixed lens shade is included, and a large lens cover fits over the barrel.

Conventional wisdom claims that fisheye lenses cannot be used for landscape photography, but I think that images here demonstrate that this is not always true. Using a fisheye for landscape work requires a certain approach. First, you need to have a suitable subject, usually with a range of subjects from very near field to very far. Second, you need to make sure that any feature which you do not want to distort is centered vertically and horizontally. The “normal” rules of composition do not work with fisheye photos. Exposure is always critical, especially as it is likely that there will be a wide contrast range. Don't trust automatic exposure with this lens - check the histogram. It is best to under-expose slightly, to reduce the danger of localised flare. As with any fisheye chromatic aberration or localised flare (purple / blue fringing) in high contrast areas is going to be a problem, but with care and attention this can be avoided. You also need to decide if you're going to 'correct' the fisheye effect, using Olympus Studio v1.5 for example. Other options exist, but, for example, the lens correction filter in Photoshop CS2 is nowhere near as good as Studio. Personally, I tend to approach subjects with the idea that I am looking for a fisheye view. Although the correction tool is very impressive, inevitably the corners are very soft, and a lot of cropping takes place. However, this itself gives a certain feel which works well with some subjects.

The first shot is of the Strokkur geyser, at Geysír in Iceland. The first version is geometrically corrected and processed from RAW using Olympus Studio 1.5, and the second processed without correction. The shot directly into the sun shows how well flare is controlled by the 8mm fisheye if carefully managed. Exposure details f5.6, 1/3000th sec, -1.5EV, ISO 100, tripod mounted. In this particular case, I find that the uncorrected version works better.


geometrically corrected...


uncorrected.

The second shot is of Gullfoss, also in Iceland. Again, the first version is geometrically corrected and processed from RAW using Olympus Studio 1.5, and the second processed without correction. Exposure details f5.6, 1/90th sec, -0.5 EV, ISO 100, tripod mounted.


geometrically corrected....note very soft foreground edges.


uncorrected.

Fisheye photos are obviously on the borders of tastefulness in many cases, and in others are just illegible. But to capture really dramatic views, such as the geysir shots (I have about 100 variants of this...), they can really work. The Zuike Digital 8mm is a very expensive lens, considering that it will be used rarely, but sometimes specialist lenses give special results. Just don't try using them everywhere 😊

I've finally started to consider the statistics I get from my web hosting provider, just to see if anybody ever clicks on all this stuff. Well, it seems they do. Not so many, but whoever you are, thanks for stopping by. Statistics, as is well known, are used by web site publishers much lamposts are used by drunks - for leaning on, not for illumination. So, leaning on a few here, I find that over the period Dec 2004 (the oldest data my ISP stores) and Jun 2006, the number per month of succesful requests for pages has gone from 10,677 to 22,6111. Better than a kick in the teeth with a sharp trowel, if not exactly T.O.P territory. The other stats more or less follow the same trend. For some reason, I hit some sort of spike in March 2006. No idea why. Of course, another statistic is error logs. Looking at error logs is a bit like looking at bank statements. You know you have to, but you get a sickening feeling in your stomach as you look at the numbers. Well, whoever the 113 people are who tried to access the broken link /pblog/archives/archives.html, sorry. I'll try to fix it. As for the 2071 web crawlers who tried to access robots.txt, tough. I've also wondered if it is worth actually putting all these photos on line. Is anybody looking at them ? Well I've started counting. For the last two weeks, every time a full size photo is accessed from the database, I've been updating a counter, so I can see which photos people are looking at, and how often. The exciting results of this survey are coming soon. Stay tuned!!