Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

Do you like these images or do you think they're crap ?

38 replies

hub2dee · 19/07/2006 16:29

I'm considering this weird lens for my camera which lets you manipulate the point of focus and so create some unusual effects. I am somewhat intrigued by the images but they also f*ck with your head. I was wondering what you thought...

(Roll over the dots to pull up different images by the various photographers):

Lensbaby Gallery

OP posts:
Callisto · 19/07/2006 16:33

Well they don't do it for me but then the pics themselves are so twee and staged they make me feel a bit queasy. You can take great photos with a point and click camera tbh and if you are after image manipulation get photoshop on your pc - it is fab.

JessaJam · 19/07/2006 16:34

Look ok with an obvious focal point (smiley bride etc) the one of the chinese pagoda just looked odd! Could do some interesting stuff with detail/close ups I suppose...
careful not everything comes out looking like soft-focus potraiture (sp?!) though!

was actually a little scared by the 1st piccie of the baby...thought it's eyes had been morphed!

mumfor1standfinaltime · 19/07/2006 16:34

I like the 'action' shots -like the girl on a swing. Not sure on the baby pic (first one) and love the wedding ones.

hunkermunker · 19/07/2006 16:34

I love it.

SoupDragon · 19/07/2006 16:35

Can you not get the same effect with Photoshop?
Or a greasy toddler finger?

Some of the images are good but, for example, the one of the baby looks wrong (I think too much is blurred) Seems to work best with the more abstract images or more severe effect IYSWIM.

Original poster
hub2dee · 19/07/2006 16:36

I know you do hunker, but what about the pictures ?

OP posts:
hunkermunker · 19/07/2006 16:36

ROFL!

The lens isn't bad either

chubbleigh · 19/07/2006 16:36

Good effect for the action shots but don't like for the portraits.

Coolmama · 19/07/2006 16:36

I agree with Callisto - they look a little too "fiddled" - just a bit weird - sorry !

CountessDracula · 19/07/2006 16:37

not keen I'm afraid prefer a normal blurry depth of field on larger aperture effect

Twiglett · 19/07/2006 16:40

think its a gimmick

tamum · 19/07/2006 16:43

Naff, sorry. I would just do the same effects digitally, so you can have an untouched version too.

flutterbee · 19/07/2006 16:46

We had this type of effect on a few of our weddig photos, I hated them and after everyone told me how horrible they looked I threw them in the bin.

cupcakes · 19/07/2006 16:48

I like the swing one but the others feel creepy in a dreamlike way.

cazzybabs · 19/07/2006 16:51

I want one - I think it is fab!!!! Shall we share postage costs!!!!!

cyan · 19/07/2006 16:51

nah, i think they look a bit naff tbh. wouldn't bother with one.

Whizzz · 19/07/2006 16:51

I think you have to be careful about what's blurred. The baby one looked like it had been 'fuzzed' out like they do on the TV! I'd be a bit miffed if I was the bridesmaid that was blurred too
(I love the round rose bouquet in one of the pics)

Original poster
hub2dee · 19/07/2006 16:52

FWIW, I'm not 100% sure that the quality of the unfocussed areas is the same as something which has been through photoshop, but maybe that's because Photoshop is a grey area / mental block for me. It is very rare I do anything to my images but crop them and sometimes turn them black and white etc. There is one image I did an edge soften on in the last album I uploaded. I really prefer images 'straight out of the camera' wherever possible.

Thank you all for this diverse feedback. I will continue gazing at my navel.

OP posts:
WigWamBam · 19/07/2006 16:52

I like them. Some of the images look a bit forced but I think that's the shot itself rather than the lens. The effects look interesting ... although you could probably get those with some decent computer software. It's pretty expensive though.

BettySpaghetti · 19/07/2006 16:52

Not that keen I'm afraid. I think the odd one might be OK but you'd soon get sick of the effect.

It reminds me of the effect you used to get in "the olden days" (ie. pre-digital) with a bit of Vaseline smeared on a Cokin filter

niceglasses · 19/07/2006 16:53

I quite like the pictures, but the blurring makes me feel a bit queasy.

CountessDracula · 19/07/2006 16:55

but you can get that effect by dicking around with the aperture

CountessDracula · 19/07/2006 16:57

here

less techincal

I'm sure you know all that though

Snafu · 19/07/2006 16:57

I think it can look effective if it's not too obvious. I quite like some of the Darko Juvan/Macro Gallery ones (bit Athena/IKEA-y sometimes, mebbe...)

Jury's out, I'm on the fence

Original poster
hub2dee · 19/07/2006 17:04

My dad used to use a piece of clear plastic bag and vaseline on his 135mm lens for dreamy shots of db and myself when we were small and cute.

Yeah, I know about depth of field, but I'm quite interested in abusing dof a bit ! I use fast lenses (F1.4 and F2.0), but at such massive apertures, dof is so thin that only a slice is in focus unless a tilt-shift lens is used (which I'm also considering, LOL). With the lensbaby, you can select aperture, or in bright light go for something which will give you decent dof, but move the bellows around to pick out areas of 'focussed interest' IYSWIM...

Still deffo on fence too.

OP posts: