Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Just got myself a lens baby (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t750645-just-got-myself-a-lens-baby.html)

Sandman 06-29-2011 07:48 AM

Just got myself a lens baby
 
Amazing little thing. I got the Composer Pro, which takes several
different lenses. I'm just getting the hang of using it, but I'm
enjoying it a lot.

Here are some test photos

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5869125317/in/photostream>

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5869104503/in/photostream/>

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5868501585/in/photostream/>

This was taken with the soft lens, which gives less of that blurry
edges thing, but an amazingly dreamy image.

I also got the Macro focus rings, one with +10 and one with +4, which
can be combined. And let me just say that it is an amazing Macro. The
focus point is about two inches away at minimum and with the tilt
shift thing, some amazing images can be taken. This was a quick and
dirty test:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasek...photostream/li
ghtbox/>

Not great focus, but you get the gist.

I also noticed that while it's all manual focus, my Nikon D3s will
continuously measure focus and highlight it when my object is in
focus, which helps a lot, even though it certainly takes some practice.






--
Sandman[.net]

John Turco 07-09-2011 03:46 AM

Re: Just got myself a lens baby
 
Sandman wrote:
>
> Amazing little thing. I got the Composer Pro, which takes several
> different lenses. I'm just getting the hang of using it, but I'm
> enjoying it a lot.
>
> Here are some test photos
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5869125317/in/photostream>
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5869104503/in/photostream/>
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5868501585/in/photostream/>
>
> This was taken with the soft lens, which gives less of that blurry
> edges thing, but an amazingly dreamy image.
>
> I also got the Macro focus rings, one with +10 and one with +4, which
> can be combined. And let me just say that it is an amazing Macro. The
> focus point is about two inches away at minimum and with the tilt
> shift thing, some amazing images can be taken. This was a quick and
> dirty test:
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasek...photostream/li
> ghtbox/>
>
> Not great focus, but you get the gist.
>
> I also noticed that while it's all manual focus, my Nikon D3s will
> continuously measure focus and highlight it when my object is in
> focus, which helps a lot, even though it certainly takes some practice.



Yeah, but...couldn't you have merely rubbed some petroleum jelly on a
filter, and achieved similar effects? I've never understood why anyone
would pay good money, for any of these gimmicky "Lensbaby" products.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>

Sandman 07-09-2011 08:24 AM

Re: Just got myself a lens baby
 
In article <4E17CF1F.D0D4A279@concentric.net>,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:

> Yeah, but...couldn't you have merely rubbed some petroleum jelly on a
> filter, and achieved similar effects?


I find that not only hard to believe, but also very cumbersome. :)

> I've never understood why anyone would pay good money, for any of
> these gimmicky "Lensbaby" products.


I don't know, maybe it's just a fun thing to take quirky photos? I
mean, I wouldn't understand someone who would smear jelly on their
expensive lenses either :-D



--
Sandman[.net]

PeterN 07-09-2011 03:23 PM

Re: Just got myself a lens baby
 
On 7/9/2011 4:24 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article<4E17CF1F.D0D4A279@concentric.net>,
> John Turco<jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but...couldn't you have merely rubbed some petroleum jelly on a
>> filter, and achieved similar effects?

>
> I find that not only hard to believe, but also very cumbersome. :)
>
>> I've never understood why anyone would pay good money, for any of
>> these gimmicky "Lensbaby" products.

>
> I don't know, maybe it's just a fun thing to take quirky photos? I
> mean, I wouldn't understand someone who would smear jelly on their
> expensive lenses either :-D
>


In my film days I've done similar things by breathing on the inside of a
UV filter. Never on the lens. ;-)

I do like the effect on your storm images. The only thing we are
discussing is that there are various ways to achieve the same result.
John Turco finds the Lensbaby is cumbersome. I tried the system and
didn't think I would get enough use.





--
Peter

Sandman 07-10-2011 09:54 AM

Re: Just got myself a lens baby
 
In article <4e187263$0$12449$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com>,
PeterN <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> >> Yeah, but...couldn't you have merely rubbed some petroleum jelly on a
> >> filter, and achieved similar effects?

> >
> > I find that not only hard to believe, but also very cumbersome. :)
> >
> >> I've never understood why anyone would pay good money, for any of
> >> these gimmicky "Lensbaby" products.

> >
> > I don't know, maybe it's just a fun thing to take quirky photos? I
> > mean, I wouldn't understand someone who would smear jelly on their
> > expensive lenses either :-D
> >

>
> In my film days I've done similar things by breathing on the inside of a
> UV filter. Never on the lens. ;-)


Yeah, I've done that too, but that would uniformly blur the lens, and
not at all achieve the same effect as the tilt body of the lens baby.

Wait, there is, however, a "soft focus" drop in lens for lens baby
that does pretty much exactly that. This is how it looks:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5921068579/>

> I do like the effect on your storm images. The only thing we are
> discussing is that there are various ways to achieve the same result.
> John Turco finds the Lensbaby is cumbersome. I tried the system and
> didn't think I would get enough use.


Yes, I understand that, and I actually agree to some degree - meaning
that yes, you can achieve almost the same result using various
techniques, not to mention post-processing images.

But one of the things I really like with the lens baby is it's drop-in
lens functionality. You have a tilt body and then you drop in various
lenses for different effects. You have a plastic lens to mimic the
cheap plastic cameras, a pinhole lens, a single and double glass lens,
a soft focus lens and so on.

They also make a big deal about their aperture rings with patterns,
resulting in some very interesting bokeh effects.

These are obviously "artistic" lenses, for fun and play with images.
Some of these results can be made using other techniques, but the lens
baby gives you more and precise control to achieve that (as opposed to
breathing on the filter) :)


--
Sandman[.net]

PeterN 07-10-2011 08:31 PM

Re: Just got myself a lens baby
 
On 7/10/2011 5:54 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article<4e187263$0$12449$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com>,
> PeterN<peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Yeah, but...couldn't you have merely rubbed some petroleum jelly on a
>>>> filter, and achieved similar effects?
>>>
>>> I find that not only hard to believe, but also very cumbersome. :)
>>>
>>>> I've never understood why anyone would pay good money, for any of
>>>> these gimmicky "Lensbaby" products.
>>>
>>> I don't know, maybe it's just a fun thing to take quirky photos? I
>>> mean, I wouldn't understand someone who would smear jelly on their
>>> expensive lenses either :-D
>>>

>>
>> In my film days I've done similar things by breathing on the inside of a
>> UV filter. Never on the lens. ;-)

>
> Yeah, I've done that too, but that would uniformly blur the lens, and
> not at all achieve the same effect as the tilt body of the lens baby.
>
> Wait, there is, however, a "soft focus" drop in lens for lens baby
> that does pretty much exactly that. This is how it looks:
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5921068579/>
>
>> I do like the effect on your storm images. The only thing we are
>> discussing is that there are various ways to achieve the same result.
>> John Turco finds the Lensbaby is cumbersome. I tried the system and
>> didn't think I would get enough use.

>
> Yes, I understand that, and I actually agree to some degree - meaning
> that yes, you can achieve almost the same result using various
> techniques, not to mention post-processing images.
>
> But one of the things I really like with the lens baby is it's drop-in
> lens functionality. You have a tilt body and then you drop in various
> lenses for different effects. You have a plastic lens to mimic the
> cheap plastic cameras, a pinhole lens, a single and double glass lens,
> a soft focus lens and so on.
>
> They also make a big deal about their aperture rings with patterns,
> resulting in some very interesting bokeh effects.
>
> These are obviously "artistic" lenses, for fun and play with images.
> Some of these results can be made using other techniques, but the lens
> baby gives you more and precise control to achieve that (as opposed to
> breathing on the filter) :)
>
>


Enjoy your toy.

--
Peter

Sandman 07-10-2011 09:41 PM

Re: Just got myself a lens baby
 
In article <4e1a0c34$0$12462$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com>,
PeterN <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> > These are obviously "artistic" lenses, for fun and play with images.
> > Some of these results can be made using other techniques, but the lens
> > baby gives you more and precise control to achieve that (as opposed to
> > breathing on the filter) :)

>
> Enjoy your toy.


Thanks! I will! :)


--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman 07-14-2011 11:08 PM

Re: Just got myself a lens baby
 
In article <h-udnXtIq7Ks4YbTnZ2dnUVZ5hOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> > Sandman wrote:
> >>
> >> Amazing little thing. I got the Composer Pro, which takes several
> >> different lenses. I'm just getting the hang of using it, but I'm
> >> enjoying it a lot.
> >>
> >> Here are some test photos
> >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5869125317/in/photostream>
> >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5869104503/in/photostream/>

>
> These are tilted focus, not just the soft lens, right?


Actually not soft lens at all. This is the tilted lens as pointed
straight forward with only the center being in focus.

> Only one way to
> do that and I agree it can be fun to play with. Soft focus could be done
> by mucking up a screw in filter with your regular lens. Macro can be
> done with closeup lenses on any lens and/or extension tubes or even a
> simple home made bellows like a black sock wrapped around the mount ;-)


Yeah, but I've never seen macro lenses this good, but I sure they
exist.

> >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/5868501585/in/photostream/>
> >> This was taken with the soft lens, which gives less of that blurry
> >> edges thing, but an amazingly dreamy image.
> >>
> >> I also got the Macro focus rings, one with +10 and one with +4, which
> >> can be combined. And let me just say that it is an amazing Macro. The
> >> focus point is about two inches away at minimum and with the tilt
> >> shift thing, some amazing images can be taken. This was a quick and
> >> dirty test:
> >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasek...ostream/lightb
> >> ox/>
> >>
> >> Not great focus, but you get the gist.
> >>
> >> I also noticed that while it's all manual focus, my Nikon D3s will
> >> continuously measure focus and highlight it when my object is in
> >> focus, which helps a lot, even though it certainly takes some practice.

> >
> > Yeah, but...couldn't you have merely rubbed some petroleum jelly on a
> > filter, and achieved similar effects? I've never understood why anyone
> > would pay good money, for any of these gimmicky "Lensbaby" products.


Well, apart from not liking the idea of rubbing gooey jelly on my
equipment, I'm not sure how I'd get such a smooth transition from out
of focus and in focus in the images.

While with practice, it most certainly can be done, the lensbaby
system offers more than just easy to maneuver tilt focus.



--
Sandman[.net]

John Turco 07-15-2011 10:06 PM

Re: Just got myself a lens baby
 
Sandman wrote:
>
> > John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, but...couldn't you have merely rubbed some petroleum jelly
> > on a filter, and achieved similar effects?

>
> I find that not only hard to believe, but also very cumbersome. :)


Well, then...how about using a fine grade of sandpaper, on a cheap
filter? Call it a "Sandbaby" and try selling it to suckers, all
around the world.

> > I've never understood why anyone would pay good money, for any
> > of these gimmicky "Lensbaby" products.

>
> I don't know, maybe it's just a fun thing to take quirky photos?


I'm not criticizing >you<, personally. You've been good natured
about my ribbing of Lensbaby, and I hope you continue receiving
satisfaction from your purchase.

Also, I wanted to encourage a photography-related thread, in
this sea of off-topic nonsense. (Nobody had replied to your
original post, before I did.)

> I mean, I wouldn't understand someone who would smear jelly
> on their expensive lenses either :-D


No, I'd said "filter" (not "lenses").

--
Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>

John Turco 07-15-2011 10:07 PM

Re: Just got myself a lens baby
 
PeterN wrote:
>
> > On 7/9/2011 4:24 AM, Sandman wrote:
> >> John Turco<jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah, but...couldn't you have merely rubbed some petroleum jelly on
> >> a filter, and achieved similar effects?

> >
> > I find that not only hard to believe, but also very cumbersome. :)
> >
> >> I've never understood why anyone would pay good money, for any of
> >> these gimmicky "Lensbaby" products.

> >
> > I don't know, maybe it's just a fun thing to take quirky photos? I
> > mean, I wouldn't understand someone who would smear jelly on their
> > expensive lenses either :-D

>
> In my film days I've done similar things by breathing on the inside
> of a UV filter. Never on the lens. ;-)


Naturally.

> I do like the effect on your storm images. The only thing we are
> discussing is that there are various ways to achieve the same result.
> John Turco finds the Lensbaby is cumbersome. I tried the system and
> didn't think I would get enough use.


Oh, I never mentioned "cumbersome" ("Sandman" did). I just think it's
sort of silly, stupidly named, and is a "solution" without a problem.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.