Lensbaby Sponsored Selective Blur Photography Competition

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, May 19, 2007.

  1. Hi All,

    The latest competition on DIMi is a Selective Blur Photography
    competition, running through till the end of June. Prize is a Lensbaby 2.0:
    http://www.dimagemaker.com/comps/lensbaby.php

    So dig out that skylight filter and vaseline, Holga, plastic wrap, wide
    aperture lens or blur filter in PS and get your entries in. Up to three
    entries from each person will be accepted.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, May 19, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wayne -

    have you investigated the sharpness of the Lensbaby 3G? I found on
    testing it at f2 - no iris inserted - that the core sharpness is
    exceptional, beating many high end lenses. With the smaller aperture
    discs, rarely used and frankly rather thick physically to avoid
    diffraction effects, the 3G is an extremely sharp tilt-shift (vaguely
    combined) optic.

    It's too easy for buyers to assume this is little more than a meniscus
    doublet. It's actually pretty sophisticated in using LD glass to create
    a lens which has a much sharper 'core' than sticking a magnifying glass
    in front of your camera, soemthing I guess we have all done at some
    stage in search of creative blur.

    You should really sponsor a Lensbaby 'extreme sharpness' competition as
    well!

    David
    photoclubalpha.com
     
    David Kilpatrick, May 19, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Hi David,

    That very testing is on my list of things to do because of feedback I
    got from my 3G review.

    It is possible that this is only the first Lensbaby sponsored
    competition, from what they have said, so it could well be a possibility.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, May 19, 2007
    #3
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Furman Guest

    The prize is only a version 2 not a 3G... I have a version 1 & it's not
    very sharp at all. Does the 2 have the same max aperture & glass? Just
    the control knobs added?
     
    Paul Furman, May 19, 2007
    #4
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    myemail Guest

    You realize that all this "lensbaby" stuff is nothing but spam don't you?

    I've seen the samples photos of how this piece of crap optic-toy ruins good
    glass.

    Anyone with the least bit of rudimentary editing skills can replicate these
    disastrous "lensbaby" results in post-processing, EXACTLY. (Zoom-blur on subject
    focus, apply graduated gaussian blur, done. So simple there are even plugins to
    do it in one step.) Why ruin the original photo by putting this over-priced-crap
    toy on your lens? Keep the original photo intact and do these ridiculous effects
    later if you must.
     
    myemail, May 19, 2007
    #5
  6. Wayne J. Cosshall, May 19, 2007
    #6
  7. Actually it doesn't go on your lens, it is a lens.

    And yes you can do it in Photoshop, if you want to.

    But like there are some people who like doing almost everything in
    Photoshop, there are others who like doing some things in camera. Plus
    of course there are the people using film.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, May 19, 2007
    #7
  8. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Matt Clara Guest

    Good lord, you don't even realize how the thing works, and yet you rail
    against it like a dimwit having a fit. Don't like it, don't use it,
    period--some of us think they're good fun.

    And learn to post properly, jackass.
     
    Matt Clara, May 19, 2007
    #8
  9. OK - do this in Photoshop - replicate the complex aberration artefacts
    in this f2 shot from the 3G -

    http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/79029143/original.jpg

    Then take a look at a section of an actual part of the 10 megapixel Sony
    A100 image - remember this is a manually focused image taken at the full
    f2 aperture of a doublet LD cemented lens, and it's actually shot
    through cabinet glass as well:

    http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/79029213/original.jpg

    The lettering on the watch is define about as sharply as I would expect
    any 50mm f2 six-element lens to do under these conditions, and the
    artefacts with their coma-tail shapes and rainbows are beyond any quick
    Photoshop retouching or FX.

    I have resisted testing the Lensbaby for two or three years, reckoning
    it was a complete gimmick and a rip-off price. Finally, I needed to do
    something for a magazine feature and asked for one to test. It's not
    going back, they get the money instead. I can make real money with this
    lens, no hassle - let me anywhere near food or jewellery or flowers.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, May 19, 2007
    #9
  10. My error - this is a 17 megapixel export, of course, not an actual size
    file. The image is exported to 5120 pixels high using PS2 ACR. When I
    reproduce pix in print I tend to take the original to A3+ this way, or
    the reader has absolutely no idea of the sharpness or detail. It is,
    also, free from any unsharp masking or sharpening - prefer to see the
    native sharpness of the system.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, May 19, 2007
    #10
  11. Further error - it's a section of another shot, which was vertical,
    taken at the same time - 5120 high refers to a vertical image.
    Conditions were identical, actually the next watch in the cabinet.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, May 20, 2007
    #11
  12. Wayne J. Cosshall

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    It is always better to get the work done in camera. The more you dink
    around in PS the more artifacts, noise etc. you add and the more information
    you loose.

    Your little rant full of condescending adjectives reveals your ignorance.

    I have sat with many masterful photographers who love the Lensbaby.

    Expensive? I could buy many Lensbabys for what I pay for glass.

    It takes some patience and practice to get good with, I can tell by the way
    you write that you have little patience and probably think practice is a
    waste of time.

    I can also tell by the way you hide behind some bull-shit handle that your
    just another NG troll.

    How can a lens ruin good glass? Just dumb.
    Patrick Ziegler
    www.imagequest.ifp3.com
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, May 20, 2007
    #12
  13. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Furman Guest

    Ha, great example!
    There's the issue of foreground/background overlaps as well which is a
    LOT of work to fake in photoshop.
     
    Paul Furman, May 20, 2007
    #13
  14. Hi David, Paul and Patrick,

    All agreed. You've done a better job than I did in pointing out how much
    work there can be in duplicating the effect. What I'd meant to say is
    that a rough approximation is probably not too difficult to simulate in
    PS. But the detail of it, as shown in David's shot, would be much
    harder. There are other effects Sometimes better done in camera. Some of
    the diffusion filter approaches redistribute highlight/shadow values in
    ways that the obvious PS approaches don't.

    In many cases who can afford to spend the time in PS to duplicate (or
    even approximate) something you can do in camera. I gather a lot of
    wedding/portrait guys use the Lensbaby and I can't imagine many of them
    would enjoy or want to spend a lot of time with PS to do something they
    can do in camera in seconds.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, May 20, 2007
    #14
  15. I wonder how long this kind of effect stays 'fresh'. I guess is that if
    you have seen 5 watch images with these kinds of effects, you want something
    else.

    To me this looks like a gimmick. Interesting the first time you see it,
    but does distract from the real subject.
     
    Philip Homburg, May 20, 2007
    #15
  16. Wayne J. Cosshall

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    Actually, the opposite is true, the selective focus draws the eye towards
    the sweetspot. The concept is not new and the Lensbaby has been around for
    a while as well. It makes for some very nice portrait work, as with any
    effect it can be overdone but when used effectively, stunning images result.

    http://www.lensbabies.com/index.php?page=lb2/galleries



    Patrick Ziegler
    www.imagequest.ifp3.com
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, May 20, 2007
    #16
  17. Philip Homburg, May 20, 2007
    #17
  18. Sorry, I'm just not feeling it with these images. It simply doesn't make
    any sense to ruin the possibility of having great portrait shots with this
    dime-store gimmick.






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, May 20, 2007
    #18
  19. Wayne J. Cosshall

    JoeBS Guest

    That was my feeling exactly when I saw what Lensbaby was for and can do. I can
    get better effects from a kid's $10 "Bug Eye -- See the world as a Bug Does!"
    plastic optics set I found in a tourist trap one time. A photographer should
    take excellent images to start with, then you can always do anything you want to
    them. Even ruin them, into effects like Lensbaby creates, in post-processing.
    But you can't go back and get those photos again once Lensbaby has already
    ruined the source image for you. No different then letting the camera put the
    date and time stamp on your photo. You can't remove it later when you realize
    what an error it was to let something ruin your source image.

    Amateurish, to say the least.

    If there was a world-vote for the most amateurish photo gimmick ever marketed,
    Lensbaby would win top honors.
     
    JoeBS, May 21, 2007
    #19
  20. Wayne J. Cosshall

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest


    Yeah, and who are you?

    "Lensbaby 3G is a mature image-making tool for the kid in all of us."

    --Bob Krist

    Do you know who Bob is?

    Bob Krist is a freelance photographer who works regularly on assignment for
    magazines such as National
    Geographic Traveler, Smithsonian, and Islands.

    http://www.bobkrist.com/about/index.php

    The BS is for Bullshit? Now Rita has an opinion and that's fine, at least
    she doesn't hind behind the BS.

    You don't like it, fine. As I said above, I have sat down with more than a
    few, people with names, who find it an interesting and useful tool.

    Some like to do things as they allays have, dress right dress and covered
    down, don't experiment, use the tried-and-true, Yawn. others like to have a
    little fun once in a while and step outside of the box.

    Asking again, Who are you?



    Patrick Ziegler

    www.imgequest.ifp3.com
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, May 21, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.