• Photos

  • Level

  • Score

BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Photography Question 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		 

A GREAT fun lens! Try it!


 
 
You all know that I love to share a good thing. I got a great new toy this weekend, the original LensBaby. This thing is fun! I'll be posting some photos that I've done with it to see what you think. Also, if there are some of you out there that have one also, I'd love to see the photos! I'll attach one that I did this weekend, to get some feedback. Really, if you've got $95 to drop, and want something not too serious and fun, this lens is the way to go (and I DON'T work for them, LOL!). Photos to follow...


To love this question, log in above
August 22, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		 
 
 
It seems I can never do this right the first time... Here are the photos!


To love this comment, log in above
August 22, 2006

 

TERESA J. SWEET 		  Can't wait to see the pics, Sipho! I've been wanting a LensBaby for quite a while...just gotta get the spending money for it. LOL. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I'm sure we'll all look forward to the photos!


To love this comment, log in above
August 22, 2006

 

Linda Buchanan 		  I have one, but have had limited success. These pictures make me want to get it out and try it again. Good job.


To love this comment, log in above
August 22, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  Thanks, Linda. I had to underexpose by 5 stops!! I used the 2.8 aperture ring. Post some of yours!


To love this comment, log in above
August 22, 2006

 

Linda Buchanan 		  Maybe after I try again. I deleted the HORRIBLE images I first tried!


To love this comment, log in above
August 22, 2006

 
- Darren J. Gilcher

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Darren J. Gilcher
Darren J. Gilcher's Gallery 		  Pretty cool Sipho, I gotta get one.


To love this comment, log in above
August 22, 2006

 

Bob Chance 		  For those of us who don't have $95 to play with, a used skylight or UV filter and a dab of petoleum jelly can give almost similar results.
Rather than coat the whole filter, as we used to for a soft effect, dab it on and leave the 'sweet spot' off center.
You can then rotate the filter to put you unblurred center spot where you need it.


To love this comment, log in above
August 22, 2006

 

Linda Buchanan 		 
 
 
Iam going to try to upload one an image I made with this. I thought I had deleted them all.


To love this comment, log in above
August 22, 2006

 

Jessica A. Eiss 		  Bob, how do you get the petrolium jelly off of the UV filter? What takes it off the best? Thanks, Jess


To love this comment, log in above
August 22, 2006

 
- Gregory LaGrange

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Gregory LaGrange
Gregory LaGrange's Gallery 		  I've thought about trying plastic wrap rubber-banded around a lens with a hole in it for that affect.

I'm sure laundry detergent or dish washing liquid would get it off.


To love this comment, log in above
August 22, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  Love your avatar, Gregory! You always have the best ones. I never thought of using petroleum jelly, but it makes sense, and you could even get creative and color it with food dye or blackberry juice or something of that nature. Great idea, but since I've already spent the money... For future reference, does KY Jelly work? It's widely known that petroleum jelly breaks things down.... ;)


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 
michellepetersphotography.com - Michelle M. Peters

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Michelle M. Peters
Michelle M. Peters's Gallery 		  I just ordered a Lensbaby and now I absolutely can't wait to play with it! Any advice for its use Sipho?

KY might be easier to remove later since it is water soluable ;o) LOL


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  No advice, I just attached it and shot away. Oh yeah, I shoot a Nikon D70s, so if you shoot digital, you might have some adjustments to make. I had to underexpose by the maximum my camera allows (5 stops) and shoot at a high shutter speed (I was using no aperture ring on the lb, though, for a small sweet spot), and you also have to turn your flash on manual mode for indoor shots or fill flash outside, as there is no TTL metering done by the camera. At least I couldn't figure it out. The only other advice is not to get disgusted after an hour and give up, it takes a couple of tries to get the hang of it.


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  Linda - were you using the macro lens kit on that shot? I bought it, too, but have yet to try it out yet.


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 

Linda Buchanan 		  Yes, I was. I definetly need more practice. I am inspired to get it out again.


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  The only thing I have as far as constructive crit on the photo is that it could use a bit more light! Roses aren't my favorite, but that's all personal preference, anyway. Have you seen the shots (macro) in the ads? Of the bugs? I'm thinking (because of the length of the lens and how close you have to be to focus using the macro kit) is that the photographers have set up on a tripod, prefocused on the flower or leaf, and then remotely snapped the shutter when a bug lands... What do you think?


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 

Linda Buchanan 		  Yes, you would need a tripod. I used a tripod for this, but not the remote release. That wasn't necessary for the flowers. It is too dark, it was inside by window light. The bugs in the ad are great, but patience must be key to those shots, as you said, waiting for the bug to light on the leaf or whatever.


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 
- Gregory LaGrange

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Gregory LaGrange
Gregory LaGrange's Gallery 		  Anything translucent should work the same. But any kind of jellies you have to keep off your fingers, bags, and equipment.
Food coloring is worth looking into. Blue on one side, yellow on the other.


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  Honestly, since she mentioned it, KY jelly is probably better for the lens than Vaseline (petroleum) as it IS water soluble... a joke at first...but something to think about...

I didn't mean blackberry jam or jelly. I'd read one time about a now deceased makeup artist who used to crush raspberries, blackberries, etc with vaseline to use on models....


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 
- Gregory LaGrange

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Gregory LaGrange
Gregory LaGrange's Gallery 		  I didn't mean toast jellies, I meant petroleum or anything that sticks to fingers.


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  You'll have to excuse me. I'm having an idiot day today. I need to go to sleep and start over.


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 
michellepetersphotography.com - Michelle M. Peters

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Michelle M. Peters
Michelle M. Peters's Gallery 		  Whatever you may try to duplicate the 'Lensbaby' sweetspot effect...perhaps it would be safer to use it on say, your UV filter and not directly on a $500 lens! LOL ;o) I still plan on fooling around with my new Lensbaby, but they are interesting alternatives though!

Sipho~ do you have any more LB shots to show yet?


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  Not yet, I'm still deciding. I've got some more cemetery shots that are quite nice, but I want to get out and shoot some more with it.


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 

Bob Chance 		  I'm sure any kind of mild dish soap should do. Of course, we're talking about a cheap, cheap UV filter or something of that nature that you intend to use just for this purpose. I wouldn't do this to an expensive filter whose main use is to protect the front of the lens without disgrading the picture in any way.
One thing though, while your filter has this film of vaseline or KY on it, it will catch dust and dirt like a magnet in a can of metal filings.


To love this comment, log in above
August 23, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		 
 
 
Very true, Bob (about the dust and dirt). And thanks for the idea, I'm going to try it out with one of my old cheapie filters and the kit lens. I'll post the results as soon as I do the photos. Oh, have one last cemetery lensbaby photo I'll post...


To love this comment, log in above
August 24, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  Very true, Bob (about the dust and dirt). And thanks for the idea, I'm going to try it out with one of my old cheapie filters and the kit lens. I'll post the results as soon as I do the photos.


To love this comment, log in above
August 24, 2006

 

dave 		  I almost bought one until I was taught by a Actions designer how to mimic the affect. He doesn't want to spread this knowledge because his best bud is selling the lensbaby, but it is possible in PS to do this. It's aout a 32 steps I'm guessing.


To love this comment, log in above
August 24, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  Hey guys - I liked the original so well I went out and bought the 2.0 version! Also got a ND filter for it (imagine my luck finding a 37mm .9 ND filter in a mom and pop shop!)


To love this comment, log in above
August 25, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  Dave - though I love Love LOVE post production editing, I also equally love getting the effect I want in camera whenever possible!


To love this comment, log in above
August 25, 2006

 
michellepetersphotography.com - Michelle M. Peters

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Michelle M. Peters
Michelle M. Peters's Gallery 		  Yay! I love getting new equipment! :o) What's the difference between the original and the 2.0?


To love this comment, log in above
August 25, 2006

 

Jagadeesh Andrew Owens 		  The 2.0 has magnetic ring apertures and is therefore easier to change. It has coated glass and a sharper sweet spot.


To love this comment, log in above
August 25, 2006

 
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here

Report this Thread