| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/22/2005 03:41:36 PM · #1 |
//www.lensbabies.com/pages/lensbaby2.php
Never used one of the orginal lensbabies, but these are supposedly improved over the old ones. Kinda pricy at $150 though
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 15:41:43.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:01:48 PM · #2 |
Uh, no, the 600/4L is kinda pricy ; )
The lensbaby rocks. I may well shell out for the new version at some point, although I'm not keen on all this coated glass nonsense. Sounds like they're introducing too much quality into the image to me :D
Gotta love how Kirsten signs her emails as "Manager of Customer Happiness" too.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:06:28 PM · #3 |
Nothing that photoshop can't do to ur image!
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:09:18 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by scuds:
Nothing that photoshop can't do to ur image! |
yea screw up with a lens baby and all your shots look like you had vaseline all over the lens. I don't know if anyone has seen the Ring (the first one)? After people watched the video they could no longer be photographed..their faces were all smeary...a similar effect I'd imagine! lol |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:24:46 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by scuds:
Nothing that photoshop can't do to ur image! |
Exactly. With a lensbaby you don't have to spend hours working in Photoshop :P
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:30:23 PM · #6 |
I've seen them before and they look neat, but in reality, how often are you using them? I can't see myself using one. I think I would be amused for awhile and then it would sit and collect dust. Do you guys use them regularly? I wouldn't mind seeing a few shots with them.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:45:59 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
I've seen them before and they look neat, but in reality, how often are you using them? I can't see myself using one. I think I would be amused for awhile and then it would sit and collect dust. Do you guys use them regularly? I wouldn't mind seeing a few shots with them. |
Depends on what you call regularly. I use it more than my wide angle lens and that cost 6 times more. I probably use it every few weeks.
It really is great fun to shoot with, but obviously not for everyone. If you obsess over lens sharpness you will absolutely hate it! Getting a keeper isn't guaranteed either, but when I do get one I love the results.
 
Somebody once called it turning a $1000 camera into a $10 point & shoot or something, which isn't far wrong!
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:02:12 PM · #8 |
LOVE mine!
  
If you ask me, it's better than a Photoshop rendering because of the smearing of the lines in the vignetting.
I just shot with mine some this weekend, but haven't d/l'd the photos yet.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:19:50 PM · #9 |
isn't it what it does? sort of?
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 20:20:22.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:28:54 PM · #10 |
It can be interesting for a stylized type of shot. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:43:37 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by scuds:
isn't it what it does? sort of? |
Yeah that's the right sort of thing, though it looks too 'clean' if you know what I mean.
Moodville, that is awesome.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:55:09 PM · #12 |
So do any of you know of any shots submitted to DPC (especially some that did well) using a lensbaby?
Maybe not the type of thing that does well here...but then again some of the shots on their site, not to mention Moodville's, are astounding.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:57:04 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by bod:
though it looks too 'clean' if you know what I mean. |
There are means to make it dirtier hehehe, if you know what I mean as well. I just think it's the type of thing in which you would just waste money, as u can do it on photoshop, or any other editing program (not mentioning paint brush, please)
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:57:08 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by w24x192:
So do any of you know of any shots submitted to DPC (especially some that did well) using a lensbaby? |
Clue: There's one in this thread ; )
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:59:52 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by w24x192:
So do any of you know of any shots submitted to DPC (especially some that did well) using a lensbaby? |
Clue: There's one in this thread ; ) |
Well, shut my mouth!
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 09:00:06 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by scuds:
Originally posted by bod:
though it looks too 'clean' if you know what I mean. |
There are means to make it dirtier hehehe, if you know what I mean as well. I just think it's the type of thing in which you would just waste money, as u can do it on photoshop, or any other editing program (not mentioning paint brush, please) |
That's fair enough, but me and photoshop don't get on anywhere near as well as me and my camera : )
For me, being able to see the (almost) final product when I shoot is worth what I paid and then some, and as I keep saying ... it's great fun to shoot with.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 21:01:10.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:38:04 PM · #17 |
Do these have CPU contacts? If not, how do you use them without getting the F-- error (or Canon equivalent)?
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:52:46 PM · #18 |
No CPU business. Just use it in Manual mode. You know the aperture (based on the disc you've got in it), so just figure out the shutter speed and shoot shoot shoot.
Here's one of the ones I shot this weekend and am just now downloading.
Originally posted by Maverick:
Do these have CPU contacts? If not, how do you use them without getting the F-- error (or Canon equivalent)? |
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 11:00:43 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Maverick:
Do these have CPU contacts? If not, how do you use them without getting the F-- error (or Canon equivalent)? |
Also, for reference, the Canon DSLRs will still meter, and set the shutter automatically if the camera is set to Aperture-preferred mode. the cam doesn't care that it isn't specifically told the aperture, because it's not being asked to change it.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 02:46:22 PM · #20 |
That can be done in Photoshop
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by scuds:
isn't it what it does? sort of? |
Yeah that's the right sort of thing, though it looks too 'clean' if you know what I mean.
Moodville, that is awesome. |
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 02:54:51 PM · #21 |
I agree scuds. These type of picture don't really appeal to me and it would be a waste of money if you can do it in Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:35:00 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by giljack:
That can be done in Photoshop |
Erm, that one is done in Photoshop! :D
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:37:01 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by rex07734:
I agree scuds. These type of picture don't really appeal to me and it would be a waste of money if you can do it in Photoshop. |
Just for laughs I'm going to disprove the waste of money theory ...
How long would it take to create either of the photo's I posted in photoshop, bearing in mind that the one Scuds posted, while being on the right track, is nowhere near either of them? For me I would estimate at least one hour, probably more.
Now subtract from that the shutter speed of one of the shots - 1/400s or 1/4000s - you choose.
Multiply the result by say £20 ($40) per hour to keep it on the cheap side and tell me how many good photos I need to get before I've covered the $100 I paid for it.
That's before we even start allowing for the fun factor. I can agree that the style may not appeal to you, but for me the lens had not only paid for itself after the first few shots, but given me results I would never have dreamed of creating otherwise.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:58:40 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by bod:
Just for laughs I'm going to disprove the waste of money theory ...
How long would it take to create either of the photo's I posted in photoshop, bearing in mind that the one Scuds posted, while being on the right track, is nowhere near either of them? For me I would estimate at least one hour, probably more.
Now subtract from that the shutter speed of one of the shots - 1/400s or 1/4000s - you choose.
Multiply the result by say £20 ($40) per hour to keep it on the cheap side and tell me how many good photos I need to get before I've covered the $100 I paid for it.
That's before we even start allowing for the fun factor. I can agree that the style may not appeal to you, but for me the lens had not only paid for itself after the first few shots, but given me results I would never have dreamed of creating otherwise. |
I can totally agree with ur point of view, but that just isn't enough to convince me that it's worth the dough.
Well, I'm not sure where did u take those numbers from, and to be totally honest they don't seem a bit accurate, so I wouldn't got for them. The picture I sent in, took me like 3 minutes do do (just the de-sat guy took me longer, LoL). It was just a try with a rectangular selection. I could give it a better try, with a better selection and make it look just like that. It probable won't look 100% the same, but compare two pictures side by side (if the trick was well done in PS) and have a 3rd person tell you which one is straight out of the camera, and which one was post-processed!
If you think it's a good deal, perfect! I mean, you don't have to prove it to any1, if you like it you like it! Period. It's ur money, your purchase. IMO, it isn't worth the cash!
By the way, these sort of effects are nice! I like them. Not the typical DPC pic, but it still looks nice.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 07:13:36 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by rex07734:
I agree scuds. These type of picture don't really appeal to me and it would be a waste of money if you can do it in Photoshop. |
Just for laughs I'm going to disprove the waste of money theory ...
How long would it take to create either of the photo's I posted in photoshop, bearing in mind that the one Scuds posted, while being on the right track, is nowhere near either of them? For me I would estimate at least one hour, probably more.
Now subtract from that the shutter speed of one of the shots - 1/400s or 1/4000s - you choose.
Multiply the result by say £20 ($40) per hour to keep it on the cheap side and tell me how many good photos I need to get before I've covered the $100 I paid for it.
That's before we even start allowing for the fun factor. I can agree that the style may not appeal to you, but for me the lens had not only paid for itself after the first few shots, but given me results I would never have dreamed of creating otherwise. |
Maybe I didn't word that right. It would be a waste of money for ME. I would never use it. If it is something you like then by all means buy it. It is just not something I care for.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 12:00:35 AM EDT.
