I often find that for city photography fish-eye gives an unique and intriguing look to photos, and they often look better than with an ordinary lens because a landmark can fit into the shot.
Ed, I usually like your edits - and don't mind me saying this - but this looks like something between the normal perspective and fish-eye. I think I am used to fish-eye, because that (surprisingly) looks more natural to me!
Oh, I forgot to answer your previous question: it was a film festival spanning a couple of days, and they were showing some older classic films, if I remember correctly.
I kind of like fish eye shots... but, for me anyway, it really does depend a lot on the subject and the intent... This shot you could have gotten... uncompromised, with a decent 14mm wide angle that doesn't give the huge barrel distortion of the fish eye... or a T&S lens (I know... expensive and exotic so not in everyone's bag) I usually take fish eye (15mm f2.8) shots from below shooting upwards ... for artistic impression as well as to show a landmark in a different perspective... better still, taken at night. So, as Ed reminds... to each his own... but I still like the shot...
Kind regards
Rolf
In photography, the smallest thing can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a leitmotiv.
I think the fish-eye shot is great fun, but I too would like to enjoy it without the screen and chairs. The sky in the image is OK - it's just that, for me, the whole image needs a boost to make it really "pop":
PS: I just posted my picture as an example, mostly the main thing I wanted to know was your thoughts on fisheye distortion in city photography. Not that I mind your edits, they are very cool!