A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Home > Equipment > Lensbabies

Featured Equipment Deals

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

Getting Started in Video Read More

Getting Started in Video

Photographer Ted Kawalerski made the transition from still to motion and has never looked back. Ted takes you through the steps to get started in a medium that will open your photography business to...


Lensbabies

by Bob Atkins, 2004


What's a "lensbaby"?

The "lensbaby" is a simple, single element lens mounted in a flexible housing which allows it not only to be focused, but tilted as well. Yes, it's a tilt lens too. That should make those Holga owners green with envy! The aperture can be varied from f2.8 to f8 via the use of a series of fixed aperture stops. You change stops by removing a rubber retaining ring, changing the stop (which looks like a washer) and replacing the rubber retaining ring.

lb2.jpg (21965 bytes)The "lensbaby" consists of two machined, black anodized, aluminum assemblies. The rear assembly is either an EOS or Nikon-F mount. The front assembly holds the lens and aperture stop and comes with a machined, screw in lens cap which is probably sturdy enough to stop a rifle bullet. None of your cheap plastic lens caps here! The two assemblies are joined by a flexible, corrugated, black plastic tube - something like a short section of vacuum cleaner hose. This flexible coupling allows the lens to be focused by compression and also allows the lens to be tilted by compressing one side more than the other. You can't really simulate much of a shift function since the coupling is pretty resistant to lateral shifting. Infinity focus is possible when the coupling is fully compressed, but when it's fully compressed you can't tilt it. The focal length is approximately 50mm.

Being a single element lens, the image is very soft, especially away from the center, when used at full aperture. You can change the plane of "focus" and move the "sweet spot" of the lens by simultaneously tilting and compressing the lens. As you "stop down", the lens gets sharper and the "sweet spot" gets larger.


Specifications

  • Focal Length: right around 50 mm 
  • Focus Type: Manual. Fingertip, actually 
  • Aperture Type: Interchangeable 
  • Aperture: f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8 
  • Nominal Focus: approximately 1 foot 
  • Minimum Focus: about 12”
  • Maximum Focus: infinity and beyond 
  • Size/Weight: 2.25" high x 2.5" wide / 3.5 oz. 

The "Lensbaby" is available in both Canon EOS and Nikon F mounts. The price is $96 and it carries a 30 day "money back if you don't like it" return policy and a 1 year warranty against manufacturing defects.

Using the lensbaby

It takes a bit of manual dexterity to use the "lensbaby:. You have to compress the lens to focus it, and apply tilt if you want an extra "effect" and that's most easily done by holding the camera body in both hands and using the two middle fingers of each hand on either side of the lens. You can then get the index finger of your right hand on the shutter release, but it can be a bit of a struggle, or at least require a little practice. This is more of an art than a science.

The EOS mount on the sample I used worked fine, but it allowed the lens to be rotated either to the right or left when mounted on the camera. Normally you can only rotate an EOS lens to the right and with 90 degree rotation it snaps into place. The lensbaby does that just fine. To remove an EOS lens you press the lens release button, rotate the lens to the left until it hits the stop (90 degrees) and remove it. With the lensbaby it doesn't hit a stop. If you rotate it 90 degrees to the left you can remove it from the body. If you rotate it more then that (which you can with the lensbaby) you can't remove it. This isn't a problem, but can be a source of confusion at first when you can't seem to get it off the body!

The results

They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people like fuzzy "Holga" type images. Others just see them as out of focus shots taken with a poor quality lens. If you belong to the former group then the "lensbaby" may be just what you are looking for, while if you belong to the latter it certainly won't be. There are those who can create art by using the "qualities" of the lens (or lack of them) to their advantage - and there are those who can't. I may fall into the latter group here, but here are a few example shots. You may find significantly more artistic images on the Lensbabies website. I'd say that the "lensbaby" is probably more useful for semi macro type shots than "infinity landscape" images. at least that's what I found. It's tough to judge the amount of blur from small resized images so I've included one 100% crop section. I've made 4x6" prints that look quite nice. I'm not sure that they'd stand up so well to 8x12 printing on most images, but I could be wrong. I'm not that experienced with Holga or "lensbaby" type images. BTW this lens would probably make "Bokeh" fanatics quite happy. Out of focus areas (and there will be a lot of them) tend to be smooth and structureless.

lb4.jpg (30580 bytes)

Above is a full frame shot using an EOS 10D and an "f5.6" lensbaby

Below is a 100% crop from the center of the image

lb4a.jpg (20104 bytes)

Below is another full frame shot at f5.6 using an EOS 10D

lb5.jpg (24337 bytes)

Finally here's two shots with tilt showing how the area of sharpest focus can be moved around

lb6.jpg (27414 bytes)   lb6a.jpg (27715 bytes)

Conclusion

If you're a Holga fan and own an SLR or DSLR, or if you find low end consumer zoom lenses way too sharp, this may be just what you're looking for. It's not for everyone, but I don't think there's anything like it commercially available elsewhere. It's well made and there isn't a lot that can go wrong with it. You certainly won't be sending it back because the images aren't soft enough....

Where to buy

Normally this is where I say you can get the review item from one of photo.net's affiliate stores, but in this case you can't. You can only get a Lensbaby from the Lensbabies website. If you want a DSLR to go with it, a printer to print the images or paper and ink to print the images with, then please consider purchasing from one of our affiliates and support photo.net by using the links below (see, I knew there was a way to get a plug for them somewhere in this article...)


©Copyright 2004 Bob Atkins. Visit Bob Atkins Photography at www.bobatkins.com

Article created 2004

Readers' Comments


Add a comment



Lex Jenkins , May 06, 2004; 04:17 A.M.


Spiratone Portragon 100mm fixed f/4

While the now discontinued Spiratone Portragon offered the same softness from spherical aberration, it was in a rigid aluminum tube - no tilts or twists. Here's an example and description:

Spiratone Portragon

Later I concocted something similar from an old Wollensack 80mm enlarging lens and an opaque black plastic bag from a box of 5x7 printing paper. The enlarging lens' jam nut held it in place on one side of the bag; a T-mount took care of the other side.

It could produce some pretty extreme distortions in the focal plane but was awkward in use. Stopped down, tho', it didn't have the same spherical aberration as either the Portragon or Lensbaby. It was necessary to handhold the lens, requiring fast film, bright outdoor light or flash.

The Lensbaby appears to be a somewhat handier package for accomplishing the same effect. And the price doesn't seem out of line. When the Spiratone Portragon was first introduced the asking price was around $100.

Ron Chappel , May 06, 2004; 08:57 A.M.

I see these gadgets get alot of negative comment whenever they are discussed.I don't think they are that bad-just way overpriced.
I have used similar home made things before-i recommend doing it that way for anyone wanting to have some fun...

Jean-Baptiste Queru , May 06, 2004; 10:21 A.M.

For other kinds of special effects, I'd also recommend a Loreo Lens-in-a-cap, which can be stopped down to f/64, for pictures that are more uniformly fuzzy, with a very long depth-of-field.

Bob Atkins , May 06, 2004; 01:06 P.M.

Price is always and issue and $96 seems like a lot, but the economics of making small specialty items means that in order to run a business you have to charge that kind of price. Just look at the Stofen flash diffuser. It's a $25 piece of translucent plastic that looks like the bottom half of a small plastic milk bottle. They sell thousands of them though.

You can certainly make something similar your self if you buy an EOS T-mount ($25?) a suitable lens ($2?), a length of flexible tubing ($5?) and you can machine up some sort of holder for the lens and aperture stops ($10?) as well as figuring out a solid way to attach the tube to the two metal parts (without duct tape...). That's quite a bit of work and engineering. For those who aren't good with their hands, just buying something may be the better route!

Balaji   , May 06, 2004; 01:14 P.M.

If your time isn't worth much, then carrying around a second body in the form of a Holga might be appropriate..

so if my time is worth much, then is digital = film ?

Jon Austin , May 06, 2004; 01:42 P.M.

1) I'm sure that my wife (the MBA/Finance) would love for me to mate a $100 lens to my $1,500 dSLR body to approximate a $10 camera!

2) Will the 10D bashers cite these sample photos as further "proof" that the 10D has focus issues?

Ricardo J. Méndez Castro , May 06, 2004; 02:38 P.M.

While I've never used a Holga, I understand that part of their allure is the small unpredictable elements that are introduced because of the imperfections, the random light leaks in the body. You wouldn't get that with this lens. Overall, it seems like the effect for the lensbaby is something you could easily reproduce at will on The Gimp - unlike the Holga's randomness (I'm sure that has been pointed out about the Holga as well, and I'll get a few posts letting me know).

The tilt and compression approach to focusing does sound interesting. It's a pity there isn't any place where I can test drive one to see if I like it.

Philip Wang , May 06, 2004; 03:05 P.M.

Two alternatives:

1) If you are in a spending mood, just go buy some worst lens from eBay. scratch, dirty, rotted, worned, as is, ..., are all the possible keywords you may use to search for. Probably a few dollars can get you one, plus shipping. You will get a bad lens plus a free positive feedback too if you send your payment fast enough.

2) Just defocus using any of your current lens with your digital camera. You may fine tune the "defocus" so it can be a little, or a lot more. Or just don't hold your camera that steady - it will get you some fancy results too.

Bob Atkins , May 06, 2004; 04:09 P.M.

Defocusing a lens is different. All you get is a defocused image (Duh!).

With a simple lens what you get is lots and lots of spherical aberration. This produces a soft-focus effect, not an out-of-focus effect, especially at full aperture.

You can certainly blur an image using your favorite image editor, but it's quite hard to duplicate the effect of spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, flare, astigmatism, field curvature and coma that you get from single element lenses. Whether you want all that stuff is a very personal decision of course. Some people do, some people don't.

I have no connection with this company, and of course they aren't paying me for this review! I'm just pointing out that it's not trivial to try to dupliate these effects digitally. I'm sure it can be done, but it's not simple. Whether it's worth $96 to get these effects depends on the individual.

Beepy . , May 06, 2004; 04:26 P.M.

A cheaper alternative for producing interesting effects. I was asked by someone what happens if the pinhole is off center and I said "You have a shift lens."

Balaji   , May 06, 2004; 08:42 P.M.

so if my time is worth much, then is digital = film ?

No,.....

precisely.

Daniel Hayduk , May 06, 2004; 09:49 P.M.

Just as an alternative to buying a Lensbaby... why not *make* your own lens? That is just what Hassel Weems did... see his Sportsshooter hidden page here

. /daniel

Bob Atkins , May 07, 2004; 12:15 A.M.

...why not *make* your own lens...

For some people time is more important than money, and some people just have no mechanical skills.

If you do have the time and skills, you can build your own "Holgaesque" lens. I built my own lens which not only has focusing, but also an adjustable aperture. I gutted the optics out of a Pentax 50mm lens and rebuilt it with single element optics, keeping the existing focusing mechanism and aperture. Works great, but, while not exactly brain surgery, it's still something you need a reasonable amount of mechanical skill to do.

I'm a "builder". I've built flash diffusers, projection flash systems, lenses, panoramic cameras, all sorts of stuff, but I know lots of photographers who, if they can't buy something, wouldn't dream of trying to design and build it. It takes all sorts.

Bernie Kubiak , May 07, 2004; 06:06 P.M.

Having read about Lensbabies elsewhere and being a non-conformist, I emailed the company and asked if they had lensmounts other than Nikon and Canon available. The reply I got indicated that they were on the way to developing a T mount to adapt their product for the rest of us.

Greg Barnett , May 07, 2004; 09:44 P.M.

I bought one of these a few weeks ago. The main reason was so that I had something to hold me over until I can buy a decent tilt/shift lens.

It certainly isn't a great lens, but so far I have gotten one decent picture with it:

Neil Cowley , May 08, 2004; 12:02 A.M.

    You can certainly blur an image using your favorite image editor, but it's quite hard to duplicate the effect of spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, flare, astigmatism, field curvature and coma that you get from single element lenses. Whether you want all that stuff is a very personal decision of course. Some people do, some people don't.

Zibadun -- , May 08, 2004; 05:18 P.M.

One element lens for a hundred bucks? Why don't you buy a magnifying glass (preferably plastic) in a thrift store for 50 cents and have even better "holga" effect? I can't believe somebody would stick this junk on a precision body with an EF mount. It's like taking out an engine out of your ferrari and putting one in from a weed wacker... I guess you can do it if you are enough rich and stupid.

David B , May 08, 2004; 06:47 P.M.

Boy do I feel stupid. I bought a Hasselblad flexbody.

Stanley Rogouski , May 08, 2004; 07:24 P.M.

Why not just take the photo with your razor sharp 17-40 or 50mm/1.8 and blur it in Photoshop?

David B , May 08, 2004; 08:14 P.M.

What if you don't use photoshop?

Bob Atkins , May 09, 2004; 05:42 P.M.

"Why not just take the photo with your razor sharp 17-40 or 50mm/1.8 and blur it in Photoshop?"

Why not just read the previous comments?

"With a simple lens what you get is lots and lots of spherical aberration. This produces a soft-focus effect, not an out-of-focus effect, especially at full aperture. You can certainly blur an image using your favorite image editor, but it's quite hard to duplicate the effect of spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, flare, astigmatism, field curvature and coma that you get from single element lenses."

Luis Lopez-Penabad , May 10, 2004; 04:42 P.M.

I think the lens looks like a great tool and a lot of fun to use. I will certainly purchase one. Thank you Bob for the nice review.

Stanley Rogouski , May 11, 2004; 03:14 P.M.

"Why not just read the previous comments?"

Sorry about that. I missed it.

Photoshop does, however, have a spherize filter that works quite nicely (although I've used it mostly for correcting distortion on a cheap lens and not adding distortion to a good one).

Dean G , May 12, 2004; 05:04 P.M.

Options are good. I didn't know about this, and now I do. It's another tool for those who have a use for it. Great review. Thanks.

John De Cristofaro , May 14, 2004; 02:38 A.M.

$90 = 6 Holgas.

While I wouldn't pay $90 for something like this, I'm sure there are those that would gladly do so. This does seem like a neat little thing to play around with.

Ralph Dicks , May 16, 2004; 06:51 P.M.

There was a gentelman from Japan who shot in the 70's and 80's with a lens from a Kodak pocket 110 camera mounted in a Pentax K mount. I don't recall his name but Pentax's magazine in the early 80's did an article on his work. The images were blown out and grainy but still had the sharpness of focus aparent underneath the abberations of the lens. That plus the random mechanical defects is what makes a Holga a distinctive tool. That plus it's counter culture cool.

And yes there are a few holga images in my portfolio.

Tommy Huynh , May 19, 2004; 12:27 A.M.

I think many of the comments (Neil, Bob, aside) above are just more evidence of how photo buffs tend to become overly infatuated with equipment and totally forget that the goal is to create an image. Almost as if an image has to be made with a napoleonic 13 elements of flourite to be deemed a good photo.

Evrim Icoz , June 09, 2004; 12:27 P.M.

Tommy, I so agree with you.

Balaji, what are you talkinga about? You make no sense!

If I was shooting film, I would get a Holga, but for digital shooters, this is a great and fun tool. The guy who makes these is a good photographer that I know personally and is always experimenting. FOr people who do not have time to make something like this or do not know how, it can be a great tool. These were $75 at the WPPI btw.

I like to care little equipment so I find myself not using this lens as much. It is tricky and the subkect matter makes a huge difference...

Adrian Hinojosa , June 12, 2004; 11:28 P.M.

The price isn't really extrordinary considering a few rolls of medium format film will quickly add up. The results also seem to be more natural than most people are capable of producing with photoshop. What is really usefull about this review is finding out about a new product, seing examples of what you can do with it and how the company stands behind it. Don't worry though, the price will come down to 10 dollars when the company figures out its more efficient to have their products assembled in Mexico and then you can just blame the unemployment rates on the president.

Ara Kotchian , June 20, 2004; 08:31 P.M.

I looked at the pictures on the Lensbabies web site and they are very nice. Whether you'd pay $96 bucks for one of these or not, this lens is just another example of the saying that "its not the equipment that really matters, its who is using the equipment". Of course we all know this already :-)

Just my .02 dollars worth.

-AK

Robert Burns , June 23, 2004; 06:22 P.M.


I just received my lensbaby. Here are some pictures from last nights playtime.

Lee Hammond , June 27, 2004; 07:22 P.M.

Check out this PS plug-in, for similar [and other] defocus, spherical and chromatic aberration effects, at $20: http://www.flamingpear.com/melancholytron.html

Dustin Meyer , July 09, 2004; 01:51 P.M.

I'm a little new to this posting, but I would just like to say that I received my lensbaby a couple of days ago and I was pretty impressed. I think the cost is justified in the fact that if you take the amount of time and materials to put these lenses together into consideration, then one can realize it's well worth it. Of course there are many different breeds of photographers out there with many different tastes. But I think this little gem can make some great portrait work along with macro. To each his own, but for those of us who've decided to invest in a lensbaby, I think it's a great alternative for those who are looking to get back to the earlier days of pictorialsim with a digital twist! Have a good one! One more thing, for those of you who want to see some great work with a lensbaby, check out:

http://www.peggyirelan.com/index.html

Kristian Olson , July 24, 2004; 07:52 P.M.

It's amazing how many people will bash a product that they've never even tried. Some of you really need to open your minds just a wee bit and get past the $$$$. I don't go around trying to impress people with how much money I've spent on my equipment. Its about the images.

Think outside the box people!! I purchased a lensbaby several months ago and it has more than paid for itself since then. The blur and OOF that you can create with it is fantastic and its much more than just a digiHolga because you have complete control of focus distance and where in the frame you wish your area of focus to be.

I've created some absolute winners with this lens that would not be possible with anything else. Could i spend hours trying to make something similar? Sure, and it wouldn't be constructed anywhere nearly as well or work as flexibly as a lensbaby and my time is worth much more than that.

Best $100 I've ever spent for my dSLR's hands down.

Stephen Faust , September 02, 2004; 01:58 P.M.

I have to agree with many of the comments here. The Lensbabie is an alternative to the stark techno razor sharp images produced with excellent glass on top notch DSLRs or fine grain film. Its about creativity, and the lensbabies offer a creatibity thats not easily offered elsewhere. Much like the creatively captured grainy images of street photography should not be compared to the works of Ansel Adams, as they are totally different, and each has its own place. B&W, color, cross processing, digital manipulations, high speed film, infra red film, unusual angles, and yes, even lensbabies! Its all about creativity, which doesn't always mean technical perfection in an image!

The $100?? Well spent if you add up the cost of the parts, and include the itme it would take you to design and assemble one. Even if the parts are free, if it takes you 10 hours of design and fiddling to get it working properly and last more than a few days, you need to be making $10 or less an hour to break even!!

Time is the most expensive comodity I know. One can always make more money, but one can never make more time!! I'd spend money over using up my time!

jon _ , September 16, 2004; 10:22 P.M.

Good grief. We're talking about 90 dollars here. Most of us lose 5 times that one year after we buy our digital bodies. I tend to think that the people who are complaining about the price aren't those that would use a product like this anyway. Thanks for the review, Bob

Stephen Faust , September 21, 2004; 08:48 P.M.

I bought one shortly after I wrote my comments on Sept 2. I've had a ball with it, and creatively its opened up a new avenure to explore. I've made some outstanding images with this lens/gadget. I'll be adding a folder to my gallery in the near future with lensbabies images.

Eric P , November 08, 2004; 05:24 P.M.

Well I would like to see all of these selective focus shots that you all have made with your Holgas cuz I can't seem to make mine focus in one spot, where I want it to be and not another. some of you need to get off of your high horses and maybe just open your mind to different ideas.

Ronald Gregorio , December 24, 2004; 06:26 A.M.

Let's not lose focus here. I think the point here is that you use this lens not so much to focus on an area but to "defocus" selected areas in a semi-predictable way versus Hoga's unpredictability. Looking at the sample gallery at their website (www.lensbabies.com) and some sample shots on this thread, that's exactly the effect these photographers are looking for. True, using Photoshop can get this effect but adds more steps to the process. Pricewise, if this adds value to your hobby/work, it's worth it. I personally think that if you've got a DSLR that cost around $1,500 plus tons of lenses, you can afford this--do you know how much Nikon's Defocus lenses cost? Good review Bob.

Kevin Mendenhall , January 18, 2005; 09:09 P.M.

Look at it this way: It's a lot cheaper than any of Canon's tilt and shift lenses, and it moves the focus point around the frame almost as well!

Joam Boam , March 05, 2005; 06:18 P.M.

I agree with Z. Do not fool around: buy a proper HOLGA. You can come across one on e-bay for less than $20.

It is much more fun.

Neil Cowley , February 04, 2006; 06:44 P.M.

Well for all the non-believers just tear your 35mm lens off the mount and try using it free form infront of your camera.

Andrew Goldman , January 25, 2007; 10:24 P.M.


Boy Eating Dried Fish, Maxixe, Mozambique

If you want a similar effect for less money try using Vaseline on a skylight filter (keep it on the outside of the filter!)

If you don't want to have the center in focus try keeping an area on one of the four quadrants of the filter clear so you can rotate the filter to compose which parts of the image will be soft.

You can also buy soft soft focus vignette filters or spot filters. This may be a good choice since Photoshop has caused e-bay to be flooded with filters for near nothing.

You can also do it in Photoshop but then you have to report your image as "manipulated"

Patrick Fix , December 08, 2007; 11:09 P.M.

revision

looks nice

Olivier Lalin , March 02, 2008; 04:02 P.M.


BLUR

Funny I have seen this little plastic lens over and over again - I thought of buying it a few times to use it as a little toy camera - A fun game - I have been manipulating images in photoshop too much I guess and boy it is not 1/2 the fun thanks for the posts - I am getting one now

Joe Walsh , April 11, 2008; 10:41 P.M.

How much are they now in 2008?....200 dollars? more? A little single element miniscus lens on a rubber tube?

This has got to be the biggest scam since the Pet Rock.

Michiel de Rond , April 14, 2008; 02:25 P.M.

For all those people that are whining about the Lensbabies price: you should see the box it comes in. It's tiny!

Today I received my Lensbaby (as a gift from my wife :-), and I love it! As some have pointed out already, taking pictures is not about the price of your equipment, it is (or should be) about taking pictures. I'm sure a good photographer can take better pictures with a consumer lens on a 300D than an amateur can with an L lens on a 1D.

Try to think creative and don't see the negative side before even thinking about the product being reviewed. You'll only inhibit yourself and add nothing to the discussion at hand.

Using the Lensbaby is a unique experience, and I'm retty sure it will produce better pictures and last longer than the contraption some people suggested making yourself, unless you're an excelent builder.

And last but definately not least, it is a fun lens that allows me to take pictures in a new way. I for one enjoy it a lot.

Thanks for the review!

David Heinrich , June 25, 2008; 05:26 A.M.

To the prior poster: up to the 3G, the lensbaby was nothing more than a glorified rubber plunger with a cheap lens at the end, which you paid a huge premium for. For a lot less than a Lensbaby, you can buy a toilet plunger, cardboard, body cap, mount adapter for your lens on the front, maybe a UV or completely pass-through filter to put in front of the back element (to prevent dust from getting into the body), and an amazing quality Hexanon or Rokkor/Minolta lens. (this assumes you usea 4/3rds body, in which case you could use a 35mm format lens; if you use an APS-C body, you need a medium-format lens).

Now, making the stabilizing mechanism of the 3G might be a little more difficult, but it's still quite possible.

Imo, this is really just a very expensive, very glorified toilet-plunger with a cheap lens on the end, which you pay a premium for. The 3G is the only lens-baby where that premium can even conceivably be justified, due to the innovative stabilizing mechanism.

Adam Zyto , February 25, 2009; 12:33 A.M.

Madison NJ

Through train window & lensbaby 2.0

Just got a used lensbaby, lots of fun using the manual, selective focus.

Rishi J , March 19, 2009; 11:43 P.M.

I don't really understand why anyone would use a 'lensbaby' when one can just apply a selective gaussian blur through a mask in Adobe Photoshop.

I'm thoroughly perplexed. Please, someone, edumacate me :)

-Rishi

Julian Hebbrecht , October 14, 2009; 11:05 P.M.

All this talk about lensbabies and Holga camera techniques make me laugh. Why bother with this stuff if you can do all this and much more in Photoshop?

Rishi J , October 15, 2009; 12:44 A.M.

EXACTLY. The only filters I *ever* carry with me are those that allow me to save optical information that might otherwise be lost (graduated filters to prevent blowing out of highlights in the sky | polarizers to get rid of reflections and, again, prevent skies from being washed out & potentially blown out in some or all channels).

Lensbaby, color corrections, blur, etc. etc. are all changes to existing data that actually, typically, involve losses. No reason to do that optically and ruin the original when you can do it digitally (reversibly) later!

Seriously, if I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

Clare Waterfall , September 01, 2011; 05:55 A.M.

because it's fun.... if you have the time... I do, I'm going to try it.  I may be eating my words :)

john butchart , March 06, 2012; 07:16 P.M.

I'm going to get one soon...but a photographer friend showed me a trick ....just hold a medium format lens or a standard 50mm or 100mm lens up to our DSLR's mount and tilt the lens to get a similar effect...I've created some cool photos this way , for free! (works better with full frame) 


Add a comment



Notify me of comments