Just got myself a lens baby

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Jun 29, 2011.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    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/jonaseklundh/5883951716/in/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]
     
    Sandman, Jun 29, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    John Turco Guest

    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/jonaseklundh/5883951716/in/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 <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jul 9, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    John Turco <> 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]
     
    Sandman, Jul 9, 2011
    #3
  4. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/9/2011 4:24 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<>,
    > John Turco<> 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
     
    PeterN, Jul 9, 2011
    #4
  5. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <4e187263$0$12449$-secrets.com>,
    PeterN <> 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]
     
    Sandman, Jul 10, 2011
    #5
  6. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/10/2011 5:54 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<4e187263$0$12449$-secrets.com>,
    > PeterN<> 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
     
    PeterN, Jul 10, 2011
    #6
  7. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <4e1a0c34$0$12462$-secrets.com>,
    PeterN <> 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, Jul 10, 2011
    #7
  8. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Paul Furman <> 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/jonaseklundh/5883951716/in/photostream/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]
     
    Sandman, Jul 15, 2011
    #8
  9. Sandman

    John Turco Guest

    Sandman wrote:
    >
    > > John Turco <> 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 <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jul 15, 2011
    #9
  10. Sandman

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:
    >
    > > On 7/9/2011 4:24 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > >> John Turco<> 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 <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jul 15, 2011
    #10
  11. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/15/2011 6:07 PM, John Turco wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 7/9/2011 4:24 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >>>> John Turco<> 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.
    >



    No. It's just a toy. If he has, or wants one, I say enjoy. BTW today two
    of my friends got one.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 16, 2011
    #11
  12. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    John Turco <> 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.


    Well, why don't you try it and compare the results? :)

    > > > 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.


    I never thought you did :)

    > You've been good natured about my ribbing of Lensbaby, and I hope
    > you continue receiving satisfaction from your purchase.


    So do I :)

    > 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.)


    Well, more power to you! :-D

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

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


    I'm quite sure I meant to write "equipment", my bad. :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Jul 16, 2011
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?V0pQQw==?=

    Can not ping myself, but can ping others

    =?Utf-8?B?V0pQQw==?=, Dec 25, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    6,003
    Chuck
    Dec 26, 2004
  2. Robert

    Myself!!!!

    Robert, Nov 27, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    577
    Marko
    Nov 30, 2003
  3. esara

    CISCO by myself

    esara, May 4, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    455
    Howard Huntley
    May 6, 2004
  4. ThorCromer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    414
    ThorCromer
    Aug 21, 2003
  5. PARKER SNEEIHL

    JUST INTRODUCING MYSELF

    PARKER SNEEIHL, Jan 3, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    718
    Jason Allen Finnigan
    Jan 7, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page