Lensbaby black and white...

[TamiAz]

Trying to get more practice in with my lensbaby..

 

[Dinardy]

Lovely stuff. I think the empty space works in 1, love the battered tennies in 2.

 

[sleist]

Pleasantly surprised. Never know what to expect with "lensbaby".
These are nice, but I'm not sure why one would need a lensbaby to get these results.
Not being snarky - enjoy your process whatever it may be. Just wondering what the lensbaby did for you here that could not have be done in PP etc.

 

[limr]

Well of course, the other side of that coin is, "Why do it in PP when it can be done with a lensbaby?" (I wasn't being snarky either, I swear.) I think it just comes down to what a person would rather put effort into. I personally would rather spend more time behind a viewfinder to get my result from the camera instead of sitting in front of a computer. But others enjoy that work with the software and prefer to just get a raw image and then play with it at the computer. To each their own, no?

 

[TamiAz]

Pleasantly surprised. Never know what to expect with "lensbaby".
These are nice, but I'm not sure why one would need a lensbaby to get these results.
Not being snarky - enjoy your process whatever it may be. Just wondering what the lensbaby did for you here that could not have be done in PP etc.

I cropped the shoes very tight so most of the blurring from the lensbaby can't be seen and the same thing happened on the leaf when I burned the background. I was pretty impressed how sharp I was able to get the water drops. I've been shooting with my aperture closed down so the blur isn't as strong.

 

[KmH]

#1 as a horizontal make no sense at all to me.

Could you explain what you think all the black negative space on the left side contributes to the image?

+2 is OK. of a bit low on contrast for my tastes, but the DoF could have been done with just about any lens.

 

[TamiAz]

#1 as a horizontal make no sense at all to me.

Could you explain what you think all the black negative space on the left side contributes to the image?

+2 is OK. of a bit low on contrast for my tastes, but the DoF could have been done with just about any lens.

I like negative space.

 

[ceeboy14]

Well of course, the other side of that coin is, "Why do it in PP when it can be done with a lensbaby?" (I wasn't being snarky either, I swear.) I think it just comes down to what a person would rather put effort into. I personally would rather spend more time behind a viewfinder to get my result from the camera instead of sitting in front of a computer. But others enjoy that work with the software and prefer to just get a raw image and then play with it at the computer. To each their own, no?

Yeah..but........it isn't an image until it has been processed from a Raw file. A Raw file is merely a series of 1's and 0's until there is some means of a state change taking place...so, where does one draw the line? You can't get it "right out of the camera" unless you are shooting a .jpg and then, ...I don't know but I kinda-sorta feel, "why bother." Sleist is correct in saying any or all of this can be just as easily accomplished without a Lensbaby and for my two-cents worth, better. The Tennies are flat, lack contrast and have way too much foreground in focus to make the in focus mid ground work. The leaf and drops are a simple macro or long zoom shot away. Sorry, but I am not much on Lensbabys but as Sleist also says, "whatever floats your boat." And yes, I am being snarky; it is a four minute edit.

 

[limr]

Yeah..but........it isn't an image until it has been processed from a Raw file. A Raw file is merely a series of 1's and 0's until there is some means of a state change taking place...so, where does one draw the line? You can't get it "right out of the camera" unless you are shooting a .jpg and then, ...

I shoot film. It is worth the effort to get it right in the camera to begin with.

Edited to add: Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if you're shooting digital or film. It's the same point I already made: some people would rather play with the camera than play with software on a computer. So what does it matter to anyone else if the effect is coming from a lens or an algorithm?

 

[paigew]

I like the shoes originally, before all that contrast was added.

 

[limr]

I like the shoes originally, before all that contrast was added.

So did I. I like both of the original pictures quite a lot, actually.

 

[ceeboy14]

Some people love over or underexposed images, some under saturated, some over. Contrast can be tricky but it is a given range either in film or digital and for a photo to be correct, that range must be captured - unless of course you are going for that over the top, grunge look. The people I find most enamored with flat images are those with no formal training in the art of photography, or those with bad teachers or even those who just cannot see the difference who may well forever wallow in their indifference. My edit is probably a tiny bit too contrasty (and really, it's not; it has a full range of white to black with a good 65-70% variation of middle grays) but it was a 4 minute edit and really not worth any more effort than that. I was far more making a point about 1's and 0's than contrast. However, that said, here's the image with both the histogram and a tonal scale, black to white. It is quite easy to see this images falls way short on the darks side and overall is very flat tonally and no matter who says they like or dislike, the histogram never lies.



Oh, and I shot film for the better part of 40 years...and still do a lot of alt processes using negs from my old 8x10 Deardorff.

 

[KmH]

#1 as a horizontal make no sense at all to me.

Could you explain what you think all the black negative space on the left side contributes to the image?

I like negative space.

Why do you like it?

 

[paigew]

It looks to me like the tone curve has been adjusted to allow for the matte look. I am sorry but no, your edit looks bad and you are wrong. There is almost no detail in the shoes it is so dark. There is nothing flat about the original image. It has darks, lights, and midtones.

What does the lack of formal training have to do with anything? How do you know what training anyone on a forum has? It sounds to me like you are trying to start a fight here...Should we have a "who is better" contest or something. Who knows more? Who can get the most likes? Wtf, have some respect for other photographers. Take their work for what it is. She obviously knows what she is doing. You don't just go and completely change an entire editing style :/

I'm sorry but that just seems very egotistical...."here ya go, I slapped some contrast on it fer ya...perfect" (crotch grab).

 

[ceeboy14]

Not trying to start a fight at all. If you don't like the histogram, then just look at the tone scale. There are no blacks and only a marginal amount of "true" whites in the image. I did nothing to the histogram but open the image, place the histogram atop the image, past the tonal scale to the image and copy the screen. A lack of formal training often means that one learns on their own...and, that's great if one is learning correctly. I can generally tell a degree of formal training by the imagery presented or at least the degree of skill one has acquired through diligent self teaching. The top image indicates a good sense of scale and tonal range; the bottom one does not. I may be offering a different point of view, but "wrong??" naw, just a differing point of view. I added contrast because I felt it needed contrast. The tonal scale proves this is true. Darks are not blacks any more than lights are whites...close rarely gets it unless one is a hi-key craftsman. Give me the original file at something larger than 72 dpi and 400 x 600 and I could probably hit the entire range. The image either wasn't made correctly in the camera or the translation didn't work...my opinion. Obviously, you do not agree. Oh well, that's art for you.