Fisheye Correction

That's an interesting statement.

 

Bottom line, however, is that I agree the photo is interesting in both original and corrected form, depending on use. In fact, it would be a great example to use in a presentation/lecture on uw photography - and WA/fisheye uw photography in particular...

I agree Bruce, Jeff's photos are very interesting as are the different opinions!

Once, before we participated in a project to survey and measure fish for a proposed sanctuary at Gray's Reef, GA; our NOAA coordinator took us all to a pool, I think about 10 of us. We had fish cut-outs all weighted, drawn on, etc etc (someone should have been around to photograph that!). Anyway we were all tested on size estimates and other observational aspects, from varying distances. I can tell you that, even in the shallow pool, the "fish" looked a bit more distorted underwater and sizes were different; we quickly got the hang of it and as a group came within, I think 3% of accurate size data in various tests, just by looking at various distance and measuring with a pvc tool, from various, fixed distances - and the "fish" cutouts were moved all around in swimming motions too - quite the sight I'm sure!

I'm sure it depends on lots of water factors, even angle of sun and light refraction too. I'm not a physics person. But I can say from practical experience the look of things underwater is much different to me. I have corrective lenses too - so I'm not looking through astigmatism or something. And NOAA considered my vision very accurate underwater, plus it was compared to my fellow divers on the project.

I like the FE look to varying extents. Water moves and possibly the FE just gives me more of a true picture to my mind of the underwater environment, but of course with other viewpoints - another person might have a different viewpoint on what the water environment looks like to them. I think the straighter light rays might be pleasing to some, but not necessarily me, because light bends and moves underwater, the way I see it. Plus the whaleshark in the second, straight, corrected photo looks distorted - their tail flukes just don't bend that far in relation to their body, the way I've seen them swim. But again it is all one's point of view to some extent, wouldn't you agree?

Great discussion & great shots Jeff, Thanks & Best, Carol

I think everyone has covered the ground well on all the issues and I have gone back and forth on these.

They all look good in their own right. I initially liked the FE version then the others started growing on me, but to all the FE versions I think it is because of the curve at the water reminds me a bit of waves and how they look when diving...

.... I agree the photo is interesting in both original and corrected form, depending on use. ..

That's the key. Audience. Not just with this image, but any image. What are you trying to "say" (and to whom) with this image?

One approach is to take pictures that show what was in front of the camera, the other is to interpret subjects to convey a feeling.

To me the straight one is a good representation of the scene but lacks that important important element that gives it a "spark".

The distorted surface gives that element, and in doing so offers a sense that the viewer is bobbing up and down in the ocean with the whaleshark.

I use fisheye rarely, and agree that there is a plethora of distorted images out there, where the distortion does not add anything but a peculiar perspective and puts things out of shape.

But I like the added element the lens provides in this example. If you are showing your pictures to folks that have not already seen a million distorted fisheye pics, they won't have the initial "another distorted fisheye picture" feeling, they will just have the feeling that other worldliness feeling.

I think everyone has covered the ground well on all the issues and I have gone back and forth on these.

 

They all look good in their own right. I initially liked the FE version then the others started growing on me, but to all the FE versions I think it is because of the curve at the water reminds me a bit of waves and how they look when diving...

I think we must have been typing at the same time....

I think I have finally settled on this one, a partially corrected version. Keeps the surface with an 'acceptable' curvature and pleasing perspective that does not look odd to me and makes the sun rays appear essentially normal. The whaleshark tail has also not been elongated noticeably beyond the original. Overall comes pretty close I think to the way I saw it, and I think most importantly keeps the attention on the subject and not other distorted parts of the image. Thanks for all the feedback, very interesting discussion. Keep it going if you have more.

If anything, this discussion underscores the subjectiveness our eye and our recollection of a scene. Emotions color our memory even to the extent that some aren't sure whether light rays are straight or curved. The truth isn't so important as what people want to see. I am bothered by the curved rays and the unnatural surface while others prefer it.

I think the final image posted is a good compromise and would choose it if it were my shot. I think the least change that provides the desired improvement is the right one. The slight curvature in the surface is not unnatural.