My Lensbaby arrived yesterday, and I had a few hours to try to do something with it today. I don't know if this thing is brilliant or the worst purchase I've made so far. I forgot to bring the different aperture rings with me so all shots were at the "medium blurry" f/5.6. The wide-angle adapter makes the blurred area larger though. Below are some of the better results.
Is this anything or are Lensbaby buyers just wishing it looks interesting?
What do you think - Genius or Scam? Don't hold back, I can take it!
First a picture of the Lensbaby with the wide-angle adapter out front.
interesting....... What does it cost? I like the effect, but not more than $200 worth I would guess...... but I am no pro. It wouldn't help me all that much, but it looks capable of some interesting shots. I really like the leaf shot.
TheDoc65 wrote:
interesting....... What does it cost? I like the effect, but not more than $200 worth I would guess...... but I am no pro. It wouldn't help me all that much, but it looks capable of some interesting shots. I really like the leaf shot.
$96 US... I would probably not have bought it if it had been more money.
I like the results, particularly the second two images you posted. I can see something like the last one used effectivley in commercial applications. Could something similar be done in Photoshop..yep...but I feel that it's always best to get it straight out of the camera if you can.
It looks as if I'l be picking one of these up as well.
I don't know - I think it's pretty damn cool. I life the effect - it takes a very static shot and makes it move. It's a very specific tool and for the most part, you would have know in advance that you were going to use it.
I disagree about Photoshop. You can mimic the effect but it never looks as natural. It's like colored filters; you can do the edit in Photoshop, but it tends to amplify the noise and the effect is usually unnatural because a set range of color was impacted - and all at a linear degree. Whereas in the natural setting, there are many many random factors and interactions which just can't be replicated in photoshop.
Same theory holds up here - there is so much refraction & reflection going on as the light passes through the curved housing - for $96 bucks it's easier to snap this on rather than spending 2 hours in photoshop.
Photon-hunter wrote:
Could you please give me some information about that wide angle adapter??
By the way, I also own a lensbaby and think that its cool and great fun!!
I got the w/a adapter with the lens from the Lensbaby online shop, first item on this page. You can unscrew the front lens to make it a macro adapter, haven't tried it yet. This w/a adapter fits my video camera as well, could perhaps be of some use there too.
Nowhere Man wrote:
i wonder two things....
what amount of control does the user have when taking the shot?
ratio of throw-aways to keepers?
Quite a bit of control actually. Push the front back and forth to focus. Move the lens away from pointing straight forward you introduce blurring as the focal plane isn't parallell to the sensor. The more off axis you go the more blurry it gets on one side or corner, from quite subtle to "motion sickness". There is a more or less sharp area (depending on the size of the aperture ring you mount in front of the glass) that you can move around by pointing the lens towards what you want sharp. Takes some getting used to though, it's quite fiddly to control all of this with the fingertips while composing the shot and trying to get it in focus.
natpark1 wrote:
I like the results, particularly the second two images you posted. I can see something like the last one used effectivley in commercial applications. Could something similar be done in Photoshop..yep...but I feel that it's always best to get it straight out of the camera if you can.
It looks as if I'l be picking one of these up as well.
This brings up an interesting notion. I believe the opposite. I think for something like this, doing it in photoshop is more essential in order to control the effect to match what the ad artist drew up especially with the type and motion. Often for large ads, they first sketch the idea and work the typography and other elements into the ad way before the shot is taken so the layout is there. But motion blur is difficult at best to control the final outcome with regard to what is exactly is in perfect focus and what is blurred. Often it seems there is overlap (even if slight).
But ad shots such as these it seems like there isnt much control over where exactly your blur is going to occur. Sure you can get say 'this half of the photo'. But what if you throw in the idea of the product being in the shot, and you accidently blur their label?
I think as photographers of course, most of us would want the shot to come out of the camera like this. We're purists in that sense. But the designer guy would have way more control and options over a shot that started out clear as a tack. I'd love to hear other opinions on this
You very well may be correct in product specific applications. What I was thinking of as a commercial application was more of one where you are advertising a service or idea and not a particular product, thus the effect and idea of the photo is more important than if a particular area is tack sharp. If I were doing a product shot where I wanted this effect, I would probably shoot a few with the Lensbaby, and a few straight just to cover all my bases.
