| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/21/2008 11:22:41 PM · #151 |
Just wanted to say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my fellow Lensbaby Side Challengers! :o) Looking forward to January...
 |
|
|
|
12/21/2008 11:29:23 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by RKT:
The key difference, as Bear mentioned in a previous post, is the bellows. I like to pretend it's a wee view camera smacked on the front of my digital cam...it's like a poor mans tilt shift lens. I suppose this may be hard to understand for those who have never used a view camera, I know Bear knows what I'm referring to. |
I know exactly what you're talking about. That's why Gordon's 3G appealed to me, at a much lower cost than a new Control Freak. I wouldn't have been interested in a 1.0 or 2.0, or a Composer. I do like the interchangeable optics of the newer versions, and someday if I stay in love with LB work I may upgrade so I can add those. But Matilda is just dandy for now :-)
R.
Interestingly enough, I was just reading the Lensbaby FAQs:
Q. Is the Lensbaby like a tilt-shift lens?
A. The Lensbaby is a unique SLR lens that has a sweet spot of focus with blur all around the sweet spot. The field of focus is curved, unlike a tilt-shift lens, which has a flat field of focus.
Q. Can the Lensbaby correct converging lines?
A. No. Because the Lensbaby does not have a flat field of focus its tilt action only moves a sweet spot of focus around the image plane and does not correct perspective or make converging lines parallel.
I had been assuming that I could tilt the 3G a bit, lock it, and use the screws to move it off-axis but parallel. Now I am not so sure this will work. But no matter...
Message edited by author 2008-12-21 23:57:49.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2008 11:31:08 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I think  RKT was referring to the use of a lensbaby muse or older 1.0 and 2.0 it is hard to do long exposures because you have to hold the lens in position. This can be difficult to prevent moving of the lens for extended exposures thus causing the sweet spot not to be so sweet anymore. The composer and control freak, along with the old 3.0 can be locked into position to avoid movement. |
Good point. So what is the longest exposure (for all practical purposes) that one can hope to achieve with the Muse? Same as that for any handheld shooting -- about 1/60? |
Not only do you have to keep the cam reasonably still, you have to hold the lens in position too. If you don't care about ultimate sharpness, that's not a problem. I've gotten some cool shots at 1/15 and slower, but then again, I fully embrace the blur, and what I deem cool...well, that's a whole other mutant... |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 04:56:13 AM · #154 |
I haven't used my lensbaby for ages - will pull it out in the next few days. But this is one of the stranger effects I've had with it.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2008 08:59:42 PM · #155 |
First one with my 50D/LB 2.0
I'm ready for this! |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 01:17:17 AM · #156 |
Dear fellow LB lovers (and, for that matter, lovers of all bold photographs),
For your inspiration as you prepare for the Lensbaby Side Challenge, consider this:
I post it here not because it is an especially fabulous Lensbaby photograph (although it's certainly not bad at all, and has the added appeal of being something of an 'anti-photography' photograph ... always a big plus for me!) I post it instead because of the blizzard of blindingly stupid comments that it attracted. With a handful of open-minded exceptions (Louis, and a few others), this collection of expert comments illustrates the kind of myopic, drooling simpleton you'll be out to impress. Or not, of course.
Just can't wait for January! |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 03:27:36 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Dear fellow LB lovers (and, for that matter, lovers of all bold photographs),
For your inspiration as you prepare for the Lensbaby Side Challenge, consider this:
I post it here not because it is an especially fabulous Lensbaby photograph (although it's certainly not bad at all, and has the added appeal of being something of an 'anti-photography' photograph ... always a big plus for me!) I post it instead because of the blizzard of blindingly stupid comments that it attracted. With a handful of open-minded exceptions (Louis, and a few others), this collection of expert comments illustrates the kind of myopic, drooling simpleton you'll be out to impress. Or not, of course.
Just can't wait for January! |
Hmmm, I didn't see any comments that were stupid. Only one that comes close, IMO, is "composition is all wrong". The rest just commented that they felt it was too noisy or the boat was too small. Those are their opinions. That's what comments are. It might be stupid if they said something like "this stupid photo looks like it was taken by a myopic, drooling simpleton." <-- THAT would be a stupid comment.
Cheers. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 05:08:03 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Dear fellow LB lovers (and, for that matter, lovers of all bold photographs),
For your inspiration as you prepare for the Lensbaby Side Challenge, consider this:
I post it here not because it is an especially fabulous Lensbaby photograph (although it's certainly not bad at all, and has the added appeal of being something of an 'anti-photography' photograph ... always a big plus for me!) I post it instead because of the blizzard of blindingly stupid comments that it attracted. With a handful of open-minded exceptions (Louis, and a few others), this collection of expert comments illustrates the kind of myopic, drooling simpleton you'll be out to impress. Or not, of course.
Just can't wait for January! |
Interestingly enough, I didn't offhand see ANY comments on that photo that downgraded it for its "Lensbabiness"; that is to say, the comments were not dwelling on the lack of sharpness in the image, or any blur in it. Overwhelmingly, the negative comments tended to downgrade the noise in the image, and a strong second theme had to do with "poor composition". Neither of these is a Lensbaby attribute.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 06:30:06 AM · #159 |
| I'm jus' pokin' a few bees Art. You buzz up pretty good. Of course I know that every opinion is equally valid. Even mine. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 06:31:51 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I'm jus' pokin' a few bees Art. You buzz up pretty good. Of course I know that every opinion is equally valid. Even mine. |
Hope you're not allergic to the sting. :) |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 10:58:36 AM · #161 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Dear fellow LB lovers (and, for that matter, lovers of all bold photographs),
For your inspiration as you prepare for the Lensbaby Side Challenge, consider this:
I post it here not because it is an especially fabulous Lensbaby photograph (although it's certainly not bad at all, and has the added appeal of being something of an 'anti-photography' photograph ... always a big plus for me!) I post it instead because of the blizzard of blindingly stupid comments that it attracted. With a handful of open-minded exceptions (Louis, and a few others), this collection of expert comments illustrates the kind of myopic, drooling simpleton you'll be out to impress. Or not, of course.
Just can't wait for January! |
I understand the point ubique was trying to make here. I've only entered one challenge using my LB because I liked the effect/image (I shoot for myself). LBs aren't everyone's taste, but then again, neither is anything else. I did get one comment that was very point blank their distaste for the lens, but that's their opinion and they are entitled to it.
"absolute rubbish.Cellphone? Bump.. sell the lensbaby"
More likely than not, the people who don't like the LB effect will stay away from this SC because it holds no interest for them (or will be like nails on a chalk board), so fear not LB lovers & shoot away! :D |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 12:00:17 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by TheStick:
More likely than not, the people who don't like the LB effect will stay away from this SC because it holds no interest for them (or will be like nails on a chalk board), so fear not LB lovers & shoot away! :D |
I'm not sure why folks think the Lensbaby effect has to parade itself as such. Art's sledding photo is a great example. The Lensbaby does its job well by keeping the attention on the subjects and giving the surroundings a blurry, dreamy feel (my comment). But it's subtle enough that, out of context, I wouldn't have guessed it was a Lensbaby at first glance -- and maybe not at all. Gina's image doesn't scream out Lensbaby either, but the effect is profound.
I hope people who don't like the "LB effect" will come around. Let's show them how much the thing can do without necessarily hitting them over the head with it (or clawing the blackboard). |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 12:15:40 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Dear fellow LB lovers (and, for that matter, lovers of all bold photographs),
For your inspiration as you prepare for the Lensbaby Side Challenge, consider this:
I post it here not because it is an especially fabulous Lensbaby photograph (although it's certainly not bad at all, and has the added appeal of being something of an 'anti-photography' photograph ... always a big plus for me!) I post it instead because of the blizzard of blindingly stupid comments that it attracted. With a handful of open-minded exceptions (Louis, and a few others), this collection of expert comments illustrates the kind of myopic, drooling simpleton you'll be out to impress. Or not, of course.
Just can't wait for January! |
A tad harsh and arrogant don't you think? So from your post should I conclude that anyone not thinking like you or expressing an opinion that disagrees with yours is "stupid, myopic and a drooling simpleton"??? Yup you are a very open-minded person.
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 12:18:14.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 12:25:23 PM · #164 |
I hope lots of people come to check out the images too! I agree, Art's image is an excellent image and a great example of what can be done w/ the lens "w/o giving someone a black eye" so to say. But I also hope people won't hold back their artistic eye just because some don't like the extreme use of it either. I'd hate to see someone taper their personal expression to try to please everyone that may only like the lens when used in one way.
I'm not trying to argue w/ ya, I just think there's room for all. Art is quite subjective.
:D |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 01:08:12 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by TheStick:
I hope lots of people come to check out the images too! I agree, Art's image is an excellent image and a great example of what can be done w/ the lens "w/o giving someone a black eye" so to say. But I also hope people won't hold back their artistic eye just because some don't like the extreme use of it either. I'd hate to see someone taper their personal expression to try to please everyone that may only like the lens when used in one way. |
I think we're in agreement. A little goes a long way with the out-of-the-box effect, and I hope people will be open-minded and experiment beyond that. From what I've seen, it's capable of quite a bit. Also I hope folks won't hold back images just because they think the LB effect isn't strong enough. Those are the ones we really need to see, as they'll add variety and push the envelope a little bit.
Originally posted by TheStick:
I'm not trying to argue w/ ya, I just think there's room for all. |
Agreed.
Originally posted by TheStick:
Art is quite subjective. |
Yes, he is. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 02:42:12 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by ubique:
Dear fellow LB lovers (and, for that matter, lovers of all bold photographs),
For your inspiration as you prepare for the Lensbaby Side Challenge, consider this:
I post it here not because it is an especially fabulous Lensbaby photograph (although it's certainly not bad at all, and has the added appeal of being something of an 'anti-photography' photograph ... always a big plus for me!) I post it instead because of the blizzard of blindingly stupid comments that it attracted. With a handful of open-minded exceptions (Louis, and a few others), this collection of expert comments illustrates the kind of myopic, drooling simpleton you'll be out to impress. Or not, of course.
Just can't wait for January! |
A tad harsh and arrogant don't you think? So from your post should I conclude that anyone not thinking like you or expressing an opinion that disagrees with yours is "stupid, myopic and a drooling simpleton"??? Yup you are a very open-minded person. |
...no...it's not...your conclusions are warped and a bit self righteous.  ubique's taste is well cultivated and I understand his ire/bee poking. Like mentioned a million times before, we all have our own preferences, likes and dislikes. Also, people really need to read, and comprehend words like myopic...not just skim and take offense. I agree with ubique...some of the comments were rather uneducated, to put it nicely...kinda. I also saw the humor in his post. Nothing wrong with a bit of said bee poking. That is the microcosm that is DPC. People need to stop worshiping the 3 second WOW and delve deeper...really start seeing and feeling...this is where truly good photography come from.
AND READ THIS EVERYONE!
I will not have people feeling (...not that they would, but just in case...) that they cannot express an honest, articulate, cheeky opinion without being jumped on for doing so. The honesty is quite frankly refreshing. There is a lot of crap photography out there and equal amounts of crap commenting. ( Again, we all have our own preferences.) Photography is a dialogue...not all of us will be able to converse...so the sooner we realize that the better.
I'd be thrilled if this particular challenge were to be more dialogue intensive, more that just post a pic, leave a few comments and run. Let's frickin' learn something this time around and maybe even grow a bit as photographers.
ETA: I don't want this to be the first Side Challenge moved to RANT...well...maybe...hmmmm...
; P
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 14:48:05. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 02:54:34 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by RKT:
ETA: I don't want this to be the first Side Challenge moved to RANT...well...maybe...hmmmm... |
It's well on its way, and frankly I think ya gotta love it. It's going to be fascinating to see how this side challenge pans out, both in images and in comments. I actually HOPE the people who despise LB work will view and comment, especially in the thread. It wouldn't be half as interesting if the challenge turns into a mutual LB-lovers praise-fest, right?
So I hope with all my heart that the LB practitioners don't take offense if the nay-sayer's weigh in, and tell them collectively to take a hike and leave this thread for those of us who LIKE the damned lenses...
R.
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 14:54:51.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 03:22:44 PM · #168 |
Arrrrgh! Sorry folks. I been away so long I forgot how to play the game.
Everything's good; nothing's not.
It's OK; I'm back into the swing of things now. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 03:40:59 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by RKT:
AND READ THIS EVERYONE!
I will not have people feeling (...not that they would, but just in case...) that they cannot express an honest, articulate, cheeky opinion without being jumped on for doing so. The honesty is quite frankly refreshing. There is a lot of crap photography out there and equal amounts of crap commenting. ( Again, we all have our own preferences.) Photography is a dialogue...not all of us will be able to converse...so the sooner we realize that the better.
; P |
"crap commenting" LOLOLOL I'm with ya. Let's call a spade a spade.
I agree people need to be able to express their honest opinions and not be jumped on. I also think a lot of the comments on that image were mindless. For crying out loud...there were five calls for a larger boat in an image titled Small Sailboat. That's kinda sad.
People tend to be concerned that jumping on or criticizing comments because people will stop commenting, is a bad thing but if that's the caliber of the comments being left, GOOD let them be gone. Personally, I have no use for that stuff and won't miss it one bit. If you're going to comment, think first. That's perfectly fair and not too much to ask.
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 16:07:59. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 03:55:24 PM · #170 |
In a somewhat unrelated aside, I'm still waiting on my Lensbaby to arrive. I have, however, received the pinhole/zoneplate thingie but have yet to open the box, seeing as how I've got nothing to stick it in. Sniff....
Patience, I suppose, is a virtue. But dammit, we had actual live sunshine today, not the usual ISO800+ gray stuff, and I had no LB to play with! |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 03:56:01 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by RKT:
...
...no...it's not...your conclusions are warped and a bit self righteous. ubique's taste is well cultivated and I understand his ire/bee poking. Like mentioned a million times before, we all have our own preferences, likes and dislikes. Also, people really need to read, and comprehend words like myopic...not just skim and take offense. I agree with ubique...some of the comments were rather uneducated, to put it nicely...kinda. I also saw the humor in his post. Nothing wrong with a bit of said bee poking. That is the microcosm that is DPC. People need to stop worshiping the 3 second WOW and delve deeper...really start seeing and feeling...this is where truly good photography come from.... |
Not at all, I have no issue with ubique expressing his opinion and no doubt about him being cultivated, I've followed his critiques and I learnt a lot and saw images he commented on with a new eye. What I have an issue with is the name calling. No need to call someone who has commented on a particular image "stupid", "myopic" or "drooling simpleton". Educate them, show them how they are wrong, show them what you see that they haven't seen...this is after all a place for people to learn. Calling them names will just antagonize them and nothing has been achieved. On the other hand if you just want to show your "superior understanding" of image making and your "higher plane" of awareness of art and want to separate yourself from the rabble...fine keep insulting commenters and calling them names.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 04:01:04 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
If you're going to comment, think first. That's perfectly fair and not too much to ask. |
No kidding. I have a Lensbaby shot in one of the challenges being voted, not even an extreme one, and someone just commented that it would be better without the blur. My first reaction is, "Geeze, do you think some poor photographer accidentally put the blur in there?"
I mean, I suppose that's a legitimate comment: someone thinks if the blur weren't there it would be a nice shot. And I suppose that's a legitimate point of view and I shouldn't complain. But at the same time, I try, when I'm commenting to view an image on its own terms. I'd look at an image like mine and think "Obviously the photographer wanted this blur, it's an integral part of the visualized image." Then, my comments would not be about the presence of the blur, per se, but on the effect of the blur, what it's doing for the image, how it makes me feel, whatever.
For me, this is part of giving the photographer credit for being a thinking human being. Something we all ought to work on :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 06:15:45 PM · #173 |
I should just shut up, I know, but I’m not running for office, so what the hell!
I grant that I should not have used such immoderate and pejorative language. Not because it was inappropriate or unjustified (it was neither of those), but because doing so has distracted some from the point I wanted to make.
I don’t think someone is stupid for having opinions and values that differ from mine. I don’t even think it’s stupid to have awful and undiscriminating taste â€Â¦ there are probably people here who like country music.
What I do associate with drool on the keyboard is the expression of those dismal opinions in the context of the image I originally posted. That’s simply witless.
The photographer was clearly, obviously, patently, unequivocally making a statement about the insignificance of the sailboat and the relative immensity of the sea and sky. He even called the picture "Little Sailboat", presumably as a small kindness to the terminally insensate. And still there were comments telling him the boat was too small and to use a zoom!
Same with the grain and the focus. It is perfectly acceptable to insist on grain-free rendering and tack-sharp focus in all photographs (well, really it’s not of course, but let me be uncharacteristically tolerant and pretend that it is). But to express those prejudices as a comment on an image where it is so immediately evident that use of grain and selective focus were deliberate choices by the photographer, is inexcusably dull. And it’s insulting to the photographer, as is evidenced by his own comments.
I disagree with Art about the “composition is all wrong” comment being the only comment close to being stupid. I think it’s the sole carping comment that’s not stupid. It’s quite wrong, of course, but that doesn't make it stupid: the photographer’s elegant use of a bluntly symmetrical, willfully flat composition to express the omnipotence of the elemental forces here is probably not a concept accessible to every viewer. So the 'stupidity’ I was referring to wasn’t in the validity of the opinions held by the commentators, it was in the expression of them in these ludicrously inappropriate circumstances. They are censuring the photographer's work for being exactly how he clearly intended it to be.
There’s even a comment deploring the fact that this B&W photograph is not more colourful and vibrant! I need hardly remark upon that fatuity, of course. Although on second thoughts, maybe I do.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 06:21:43 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by RKT:
...
...no...it's not...your conclusions are warped and a bit self righteous. ubique's taste is well cultivated and I understand his ire/bee poking. Like mentioned a million times before, we all have our own preferences, likes and dislikes. Also, people really need to read, and comprehend words like myopic...not just skim and take offense. I agree with ubique...some of the comments were rather uneducated, to put it nicely...kinda. I also saw the humor in his post. Nothing wrong with a bit of said bee poking. That is the microcosm that is DPC. People need to stop worshiping the 3 second WOW and delve deeper...really start seeing and feeling...this is where truly good photography come from.... |
Not at all, I have no issue with ubique expressing his opinion and no doubt about him being cultivated, I've followed his critiques and I learnt a lot and saw images he commented on with a new eye. What I have an issue with is the name calling. No need to call someone who has commented on a particular image "stupid", "myopic" or "drooling simpleton". Educate them, show them how they are wrong, show them what you see that they haven't seen...this is after all a place for people to learn. Calling them names will just antagonize them and nothing has been achieved. On the other hand if you just want to show your "superior understanding" of image making and your "higher plane" of awareness of art and want to separate yourself from the rabble...fine keep insulting commenters and calling them names. |
...oh dear...is there no humor to be seen in any of this? Some people cannot be educated, or shall I say unwilling to learn and grow. Some will never "see". You can learn the technical, follow formulas, and end up with a decent shot. For many, photography is so much more than this. That's why there are so many different kinds of photographers, not haves and have nots...just different. And that's cool. We all, like said a MILLION BILLION times before, have our own groove. But it will never be a level playing field, nor should it ever be. It is not the photographer's job to go out and educate the viewer into liking their photograph. Don't get me wrong, the actual object that is the photograph can educate, or not. It's all up to the viewer. There is much to be learned, but first the curiosity must be sparked. If there is no curiosity on the viewers part, that is hardly the photographers fault. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 06:21:53 PM · #175 |
A Christmas present for ubique...
go ahead, open it... |
|
