whe lensbaby, not PS?

[m2v]

the effects of lensbaby seemed easily similated with PS to me?

i like to hear from lensbaby lovers why they choose the hardware instead of the software

:-)

[TPF Sponsor]

[teneighty23]

the effects of lensbaby seemed easily similated with PS to me?

i like to hear from lensbaby lovers why they choose the hardware instead of the software

:-)

a lot more entertaining to play with your camera in the field than sittin at the comp. i never tried lensebaby but i feel this way about similar instances.

[m2v]

hmm, that is a very much valid reason since one of the purpose of photography esp for hobbist is to enjoy the process, so:

1. hardware is more fun to play with than software

.................................................. ...........................

besides that, any insight that it does give the photo a inique touch that no PS can compare ?

[Lyncca]

I don't have one either, but to me it seems more "authentic" do do as much as you can with the camera vs. in PS (although I do love me some Photoshop!)

[m2v]

Some people think that PS is "evil" mainly because you can add to a photo something that wasn't really there, including color and distortions. Interesting that when these are done by means of equipment, people think they are justified, in fact, brilliant.

1. hardware is more fun to play with than software
2. using hardware is more "photography" than software

[teneighty23]

A holga's trademark look can be replicated in photoshop, as long as you know what your doing, but its a lot more fun using the Camera.

[fast1]

yea i agree but if you know what you are doing

[Dominantly]

Some people think that PS is "evil" mainly because you can add to a photo something that wasn't really there, including color and distortions. Interesting that when these are done by means of equipment, people think they are justified, in fact, brilliant.

1. hardware is more fun to play with than software
2. using hardware is more "photography" than software

Interesting..

I happen to be a PS enthusiast and am now to the point where I dont think there are very many, if any, photos that couldn't use a little PS right out of the camera... No matter how expensive the camera is to begin with.

I think that PS irritates some of the more professional photographers because it gives the newer guys with their cheaper gear, the ability to match some photos by post processing.

[ocular]

[quote=Dominantly;1687308]

I think that PS irritates some of the more professional photographers because it gives the newer guys with their cheaper gear, the ability to match some photos by post processing.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[MelissaMarieImagery]

I wouldn't want to shop every photo into a "lensbaby" look. I've never owned my own but have borrowed a friends for a few shots, and they're actually a lot of fun -- more fun than photoshopping the effect.

[Derrel]

There's a difference between an authentic photograph,made in camera with a lens that imparts a particular type of "lens drawing", and a Photoshop fake. One is authentic, the other is faked. If one has to ask the question "why", it's clear one has not studied the issues involved for very long.

The Lensbaby's images will ALWAYS be distorted, less-than-perfect,and there are a few subtle effects that are exceedingly,exceedingly difficult to Photoshop in, such as the presence of severe color fringing on say, the original Lensbaby. Photoshop techniques create "similar" effects, but they do not include some of the optical problems,like the aforementioned color fringing, that gives the original Lensbaby images their distinctive look.

It boils down to wanting to do authentic "photography", where the goal is to make photographs by using a camera and a lens and light to capture a particular type of image; the Lensbaby can be used with film or digital cameras. The Photoshop way is for those who wish to re-arrange pixels,later at the computer, and who are largely afraid of committing a less-than-perfectly sharp image to the capture medium. The old-school crowd understands photography as an effort to translate a vision directly to the capture medium (film or digital), while the new-age crowd is afraid to commit to a single, set type of rendering, and wishes to "keep its options open" so that if one thing doesn't work, an second,third,fourth,fifth, or even twentieth Photoshop rendering of the original image can be tried until something decent is finally, "created".

This is a pretty simplified summary of the differences between old-school photography and the new process of "digital photography". One is focused upon striving for a finalized creation of an image with a very limited parameter adjustment potential, while the Photoshop crowd makes basically NO commitment to the original image, and relies upon the computer to finalize the image. To the very visually sophisticated, it's usually quite easy to spot Photoshop fakery that attempts to imitate the Lensbaby look; some in-camera lens or filter techniques, like using in-camera diffusion, cause a diffusion of highlights into the shadows that can expand the dynamic range and which cannot be exactly replicated in post-processing; the original Lensbaby's high degree of chromatic aberration for example, is not replicable in post-processing. If one wants a cheap effect, Photoshop allows a lot of tries for adjustment, but if a person wants to "stamp" an impression on an image indelibly, then one selects a lens that has certain characteristics--either "good" or "bad" characteristics. The "drawing" or "rendering" of different lenses is one of the more nuanced areas of photographic appreciation, which most beginners and most intermediate photographers are totally unaware of. The idea that the Lensbaby's effects can be "easily simulated" in post processing is true as long as your appreciation of lens drawing or lens rendering is at a low to intermediate level.

[Dominantly]

I still feel that people who dislike the idea of post processing, are a bit immature and stuck in the box when it comes to photography.
No matter what anyone says, a huge part of it still relies on the camera and the original shot. It would be a horrible idea to intentionally neglect the shots composure and lighting just to try and fix it later. Although quite a few professionals shoot raw, for tweaking and the "just in case" factor.
I'll take it the other direction, I think photographer who are afraid of post processing, yet continue to use new technology in regards to their photography, are hypocrites and afraid of a new change.

It's a big giant train headed to artificial world. Either get on, or walk.

[Derrel]

DOminantly,
Your Nikon D60, and 18-55 and 55-200mm kit lenses are good examples of beginner equipment that shows you have little or no experience in lens drawing or lens rendering or bokeh, or anything except beginner-level imaging.

Like I said, beginner and intermediate-level shooters really have no qualifications to discuss lens drawing or lens rendering issues...it's like asking a 20-year old what it feels like to be 45 years old...no basis in experience, just young, unformed opinions about a subject one has no experience with.

[Timoris]

Personally I use the Lensbaby system because I do not want to use Photoshop. I find that Photoshop, Lightroom, etc, cheapens pictures somewhat.

"Yes, it's a great picture, but half of it doesn't exist."

I don't even mean adding or taking out elements, I mean the lighting, blurring, etc. I believe that if you can coax a "Woah." out of your photographs without using Photoshop, that just makes you that much of a better photographer; you know how to use your camera, you know how to set it up, you have and idea of your results, the next step is just to shoot, shoot away.

It is MUCH more desirable to shoot 300 pictures and have 2 which are Amazing, than 30, take one okay one, and retouching it into oblivion until you can't recognise it from the original.

Which is something of pride, Have an Amazing untouched photo with an Intact Certificate attesting to the fact that your picture did not pass through any software to end up as it is.

[ADDED] Woah, talk about resuscitation (also known as Necroing on the intertubes). Two years old *whistles* sorry folks, but I wanted my two cents :-p

[Bitter Jeweler]

Ansel Adams did lots of post processing!!!