 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2007Lensbaby 3G?
Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? > Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? Perhaps a lot of people here are computer literate and prefer to Photoshop the same effect? >> Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? > > Perhaps a lot of people here are computer literate and prefer to Photoshop > the same effect? Perhaps. Most of the people using Lensbabies appear to be digital camera users who are thoroughly familiar with Photoshop. Why is that? >>> Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Perhaps. Most of the people using Lensbabies appear to be digital camera > users who are thoroughly familiar with Photoshop. Why is that? They don't want to fiddle with Photoshop? Also for the photojournalist who is required to submit "unaltered" images (although it is subjective whether Lensbabies is is/not altering reality). >>>> Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > who is required to submit "unaltered" images (although it is subjective > whether Lensbabies is is/not altering reality). I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, you don't know what you're talking about. >>Also for the photojournalist who is required to submit "unaltered" images >>(although it is subjective whether Lensbabies is is/not altering reality). > > I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, you don't know what you're > talking about. Lensbabies or photojournalists? As for Lensbabies, I do know very little as I've never used one, but most of what I've seen you could get a similar effect in Photoshop, or perhaps with grease on the lens as had been done way before Photoshop was created. As for my comment on photojournalist, I was speaking from my own experience. >> Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? > > Perhaps a lot of people here are computer literate and prefer to Photoshop > the same effect? How do you use Photoshop to make the plane of focus oblique to the sensor plane? (Disregard cheating by blurring an all-sharp image.) -- Jeff R. >>> Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? >> Perhaps a lot of people here are computer literate and prefer to Photoshop [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Jeff R. It has to be by blurring: duplicate image layer Apply strongest blur you need on part of it apply a layer mask put one or more gradients into the mask and/or paint in or out the blur. Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >>>> Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? >>> Perhaps a lot of people here are computer literate and prefer to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > apply a layer mask > put one or more gradients into the mask and/or paint in or out the blur. You miss my point? I said "disregard" blurring. I know how to do that. Point is: There are things a Lensbaby can do that you cannot do in PS. An oblique plane of focus is the most obvious. (You got a lens with almost-infinite depth-of-field at, say, f/2.8?) -- Jeff R. >>> How do you use Photoshop to make the plane of focus oblique to the sensor >>> plane? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > Jeff R. Nope, I did not miss you point, just layed out the process for others who might have wanted to know. What I don't get is how blurring a sharp image in PS is cheating. If you manipulate at the capture stage or in post, it is still manipulation, and is also no different conceptually to what we used to do in the darkroom with tilting the paper easel. Yes, there are good reasons to use a Lensbaby. However, it does not have a lens that gives you almost infinite dof at f2.8 or so, as you say. It is still a lens, and not an overly short focal length one at that. What you do get, as you do with a tilt and shift SLR lens or a view camera, is the choice of what plane you will put the plane of sharp focus in. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > Nope, I did not miss you point, just layed out the process for others who > might have wanted to know. What I don't get is how blurring a sharp image > in PS is cheating. In terms of the "challenge" I issued, it would be cheating. Ultimately, who cares? > If you manipulate at the capture stage or in post, it is still > manipulation, and is also no different conceptually to what we used to do > in the darkroom with tilting the paper easel. Hey ho. Obviously I wasn't arguing that point. But feel free... > Yes, there are good reasons to use a Lensbaby. However, it does not have a > lens that gives you almost infinite dof at f2.8 or so, as you say. *Effectively* it can. It allows you to tilt the *plane* of focus, so that a single frame can have an item in focus at 12", all the way to, say, 12 feet or more - *although in an oblique plane*. A conventional lens cannot do this in one single frame, which is what you would have to have if you wanted to duplicate what a Lensbaby can do, using a conventional setup + PS. > It is still a lens, and not an overly short focal length one at that. > What you do get, as you do with a tilt and shift SLR lens or a view > camera, is the choice of what plane you will put the plane of sharp focus > in. ...and whether or not that flane of focus is parallel to the sensor, or oblique. (My original point.) This cannot be satisfactorily faked in PS - not at least from one source image. (My original point.) Ultimately, there are things you can do with a Lensbaby which you cannot do with PS. (My original point). > Cheers, > > Wayne Cheers 2U2 -- Jeff R. >> Nope, I did not miss you point, just layed out the process for others who >> might have wanted to know. What I don't get is how blurring a sharp image [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > -- > Jeff R. Cool. Your post was not clear (at least to me) about just what you were trying to say. And I fully agree about Lensbaby offering useful things. The other point is that it can be a lot quicker to just do it at capture than to try to simulate it in post. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >> Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? > > Perhaps a lot of people here are computer literate and prefer to Photoshop > the same effect? Good luck with that. Emulating spherical aberration (among other things) isn't quite as easy to do in Photoshop as many people think. steve > Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? I have one, think it's pretty cool. I will use it along with my fisheye come the wedding season to get some special effect shots. >> Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? > > I have one, think it's pretty cool. I will use it along with my fisheye > come the wedding season to get some special effect shots. The morn I got it (obviously need some more practice with it): http://www.mattclara.com/misc/xmas2006/slides/032_7.JPG http://www.mattclara.com/misc/xmas2006/slides/029_10.JPG http://www.mattclara.com/misc/xmas2006 (actually, xmas and new year's) >>> Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.mattclara.com/misc/xmas2006 (actually, xmas and new year's) Cute, though. :-) >Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? It appears to be like a tilt-shift lens, without the shift, and with a built in sharp/blur feature. The sharp/blur feature is something that is very easily added later in Photoshop, but the tilt feature could be useful. Is there anything else to it? jc Signature"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA >>Anybody have one of these? How do you like it? > > It appears to be like a tilt-shift lens, without the shift, and with a > built in sharp/blur feature. The sharp/blur feature is something > that is very easily added later in Photoshop, but the tilt feature > could be useful. Is there anything else to it? You can force it to shift to some degree by forcing the front standard to remain parallel to the film plane as you push it around. You cannot lock it into a shift position, though, as you can with the tilt. The sharp/blur feature generated by the lensbabies would not be replicable with a single filter in photoshop, and therefore not "very easily added"--there's some stretching going on there, too. Whether it would be easily replicated or not at all would depend on your level of experience in photoshop. As always, though it is better if you create the look you want in camera, and not in photoshop. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.