Reading mode: Light Dark

Anyone tested a lensbaby on the Mk II ?

Go to last post
Wismie said:
I'm considering buying one - actually, my finger is right on the
'order' button. I've seen so beautiful examples (mostly on Nikons,
sorry), and the lens is not really cheap (96$), but not expensive
either...
Anyone tried it on the 1D Mk II ? I would be interested seeing
examples...
Thanks...
-------------------------
http://cath-photo.com
Click to expand...
Interesting device. But I wonder is it worth it? Those who are familiar with the system will be entertained and will bring back those memories of old, but I never used such a thing, so I will probably pass. Entertaining toy, though.

--
JB
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums
 
I'm gonna talk and not show you for now. :P

The key is to have a plan before shooting..as you have to shoot at a very small aperture and get everything in focus. Then it's simply a matter of picking what's in focus and what isn't. An image that is shot with a view camera with a tilted focal plane still ends up being 2 dimensional. And stuff that's at x,y coordinate is in focus, and stuff that's in some other coordinate is not in focus.

There's a reason people still use view cameras and tilt and shift lenses, as it takes a hell of a lot less time than making really intricate and precise selections in photoshop and tinkering with lens blur and transform. But I could argue that for the sake of replicating the effects of a lensbaby it would be pretty practical.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
you can do perspective correction but i want you to show me how you
tilt the focal plane by 75 degrees.

Dont just talk show me ...

The blur answer is cute but it doesnt work.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
Click to expand...
 
dustin

theoretically if you could shoot with an infinite depth of field all the time you may get close but only on simple images. if you have branches or similar things in all differenct heights and directions it becomes nearly impossible. You generally see the fakeness.

Some things are best done right in the first place.

Similar to people thinking they can fix any under or overexposure in post. Sure you can fix a lot but the end result will not look as good as a well exposed image.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
I went to a Photoshop seminar with Katrin Eismann yesterday and she showed us how to make selections using alpha masks, and it's incredible how specific the selections are with that technique. On most images you can select intricate tree branches and hair and whatnot with absolutely none of the the white halos and clipping that usually makes a job like that look fake. But I will concede that it's easier to end up with the effect by using a tilt and shift lens.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
dustin

theoretically if you could shoot with an infinite depth of field
all the time you may get close but only on simple images. if you
have branches or similar things in all differenct heights and
directions it becomes nearly impossible. You generally see the
fakeness.

Some things are best done right in the first place.

Similar to people thinking they can fix any under or overexposure
in post. Sure you can fix a lot but the end result will not look as
good as a well exposed image.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
Click to expand...
 
me too...I actually got some old Diana cameras on Ebay to play around with that are the original concept of that "look"...but then I have to go and develop film and make prints and stuff...Actually I enjoy the darkroom as much as photoshop...just not enough time right now...there's never enough time...

I an intrigued by the lens babies...I may give it a try someday soon...
Melanie Kipp said:
Wismie said:
I'm considering buying one - actually, my finger is right on the
'order' button. I've seen so beautiful examples (mostly on Nikons,
sorry), and the lens is not really cheap (96$), but not expensive
either...
Anyone tried it on the 1D Mk II ? I would be interested seeing
examples...
Thanks...
-------------------------
http://cath-photo.com
Click to expand...
--



http://www.caughtintimephotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/melaniekipp
Click to expand...
 
or smear it on a filter rather...would be a pain to clean it off the lens...

the vaseline thing is actually used in film making for that effect...in fact there is a new movie coming out in B&W that was shot with vaseline on the lens...I think it's cool as hell...
billtoo said:
billtoo said:
and buy $96 worth of beer

billtoo
Wismie said:
I'm considering buying one - actually, my finger is right on the
'order' button. I've seen so beautiful examples (mostly on Nikons,
sorry), and the lens is not really cheap (96$), but not expensive
either...
Anyone tried it on the 1D Mk II ? I would be interested seeing
examples...
Thanks...
-------------------------
http://cath-photo.com
Click to expand...
--
billtoo
http://www.pbase.com/billtoo
Click to expand...
--
billtoo
http://www.pbase.com/billtoo
Click to expand...
 


It's kind of fun, but not as practical (or as sneaky) as a lomo.

With a lomo you can set focus to a fixed distance (say 4 ft) and use it off-hand. With the baby you always have to focus in the viewfinder.

Cute, but I think it's going back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top