Lytro or not Lytro

[Advanced Photo]

How many have tried out the Lytro illum camera? What did you think of being able to capture a composition with one button an then after the fact select aperture, focus and all the other things you would normally think about before pressing the button?
My friend stopped by with hers and I played with the camera and more importantly, the concept and I like the idea of being free from the technical aspect of photography while shooting and letting the artist handle the camera and later, the technician in me had the options do do the 'settings' in the production realm.

Anyone else try this system and what did you think of it?



Take a look at the living pictures concept for interactive photo viewing:

Lytro Living Pictures

 

[Solarflare]

Neither of your two options.

The idea is neat, but the products are very, very shitty. You dont even friggin actually own your own pictures - the company does. I can only conclude the people of that company are taking strong drugs on a regular basis otherwise they wouldnt come up with such a riddiculous idea.

The new Canon 5D4 offers a small effect like that, allowing to fix focus in a small area. Awesome to fix small focus misses in post. I think thats really useful. Otherwise I'm not impressed by the 5D4 at all, though. Its not a very ambitious camera.

 

[nerwin]

I think it's silly.

It seems like today with all this technology in cameras, we are going out shooting knowingly if we make a mistake, we can just fix it in post and I think that is hurting photography.

 

[snowbear]

No, I have not tried, nor even seen one. I can think of some applications where this may be beneficial, but I have no interest in it.

You dont even friggin actually own your own pictures - the company does.

I'm curious as to where have you've found this?

 

[Advanced Photo]

I think it's silly.

It seems like today with all this technology in cameras, we are going out shooting knowingly if we make a mistake, we can just fix it in post and I think that is hurting photography.

How does making better photographs hurt making photographs? I don't see that. If you think that having a good photograph should be a very rare occurrence that only happens one in a thousand or one in ten thousand times even for the best photographers then this might hurt photography. I think having more good photographs is good for the industry.

 

[Advanced Photo]

I like the application of being able to focus stack a macro shot with one click.

 

[Advanced Photo]

Neither of your two options.

The idea is neat, but the products are very, very shitty.

The products are very new and the concept is very young but it's already better then the very first digital cameras that came out. The company is working hard at making changes and using feedback to produce a much better product on each iteration if you call them and tell them something that you found that you don't like they will get back to you after talking to their Development Department and tell you that they appreciate the feedback and they have found a way to incorporate your idea and it will be in the next version that's exciting.

 

[Derrel]

I have not had the chance to use one, but would like to if given the opportunity. I looked at the Lytro company's sample images: most are exotic subject matter, so there's a lot of subject appeal. THIS ONE image is awful...look at the selection around the woman's outline! Awful! 37framesphotography's picture

There are plenty of other shots that are quite acceptable. But again, mostly "subject appeal", meaning sexy models, lots off skin showing, exotic locales like Tibet, etc. Still, the technology itself has a lot of appeal.

Computational photography, as many call this, has a big future. Cameras that use this concept will likely become better, less costly, and more common as the 21st century progresses.

 

[Advanced Photo]

I have not had the chance to use one, but would like to if given the opportunity. I looked at the Lytro company's sample images: most are exotic subject matter, so there's a lot of subject appeal. THIS ONE image is awful...look at the selection around the woman's outline! Awful! 37framesphotography's picture

There are plenty of other shots that are quite acceptable. But again, mostly "subject appeal", meaning sexy models, lots off skin showing, exotic locales like Tibet, etc. Still, the technology itself has a lot of appeal.

Computational photography, as many call this, has a big future. Cameras that use this concept will likely become better, less costly, and more common as the 21st century progresses.

Yes, you are right about the outline in the Advanced player mode, but that goes away with the Standard player mode.
Also to judge a tech on the skills and selections of those using it does not give a fair assessment to the tech. I have seen a lot of very poor digital and film images too, but that doesn't mean the tech that was used is bad, just the way it was used in those cases.
It is a lot of fun and it can only get better. The second generation (Illum) is far better than the first version. The pics can be edited in lightroom (or other software) as a series of tiffs.

 

[Solarflare]

No, I dont think this is a technology of the future.

The useage in the Canon 5D4 makes a lot of sense. Awesome stuff.

But the original Lytro cameras have sensors with HUGE resolution, but only produce images with very low resolution. Quite frankly thats not useful.

The idea is neat, but the products are very, very shitty.

The products are very new

You ignored my explanation WHY the product is bad and should be avoided.

 

[Advanced Photo]

No, I dont think this is a technology of the future.

The useage in the Canon 5D4 makes a lot of sense. Awesome stuff.

But the original Lytro cameras have sensors with HUGE resolution, but only produce images with very low resolution. Quite frankly thats not useful.

The idea is neat, but the products are very, very shitty.

The products are very new

You ignored my explanation WHY the product is bad and should be avoided.

Why it should be avoided applies to you and not to everyone. I like it and had a lot of fun with it and I don't think avoiding it would work for me and those like me that enjoy new ideas and new tech.
And again, the first digital camera is not very useful to a photographer today either, it wasn't a bad idea, just needed to mature.
Thank you for your comments, but I disagree with your reasoning.

 

[Piccell]

I like plenoptic photography (lightwave Photography) and think it's a very fascinating technology. I am looking forward to seeing where it is headed. It looks like it's next stop in to be in the studios of the high end developers of VR content but I hope it also continues in the consumer camera market.

 

[Solarflare]

I like it

Thats good for you and have fun with it, BUT the question wasnt if you (or I, or anyone) LIKES it.

The question was if thats the technology of the future.

I love the Rodenstock Imagon lens - that doesnt mean I think everyone will have one in the future.

 

[zombiesniper]

The tech is interesting.
This product is neat but some reviewers are stating that even at it's sharpest it is a bit soft.
Need to have an interchangeable lens and at a 3. something crop factor that sensor is dam small for all those features.

 

[Advanced Photo]

I like it

Thats good for you and have fun with it, BUT the question wasnt if you (or I, or anyone) LIKES it.

The question was if thats the technology of the future.

I love the Rodenstock Imagon lens - that doesnt mean I think everyone will have one in the future.

No, the question was: Does it interest you or not. I never asked if it was the future of photography. That question doesn't interest me even.