Thank you for more insightful information Moose.
At 11/22/2020 02:02 PM, Britanica Moose wrote:
>On 11/20/2020 11:53 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>Moose, keep them coming. Abstract, impressionistic I enjoy.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Keep 'em coming? How about 80 photos? Taken with everything from cell phones
>to my latest, Gx9 and A7 II <https://photos.app.goo.gl/eiWp74sY3sVdXhfT8>
Great. thanks for sharing. Some nice ones.
>Various Lenbabies, Canon 50/1.2, Sankor 135/2.8, SIMA SF 100/2, CCTV 25/1.4,
>Nikon Soft filters, waterglass, regular lenses, pinhole, bigger than pinhole
>glassless, and whatever I've forgotten.
>
>All are actual photos. ð???
>
>>Not a fan of Lensbaby - due to an experience long ago...
>
>I've been happy with them. When I bought a refurbished Control Freak that
>didn't work properly, service was quick and free. I have a lot (waaay too
>many) and think them well thought out and well performing for their
>specialized uses.
>
>Their first couple were pretty limited. Next, they came up with the idea of
>lenses separate from lens holders - Optic Swap System. The first few of those
>were limited, all 50/2, with various focus characteristics. They use a
>waterhouse stop system, little discs that are held in place magnetically.
>Clever, but slow and fussy, esp. keeping track of all the discs. Up side is
>the "sink strainer" discs in a couple of configurations. It didn't take much
>play with these to see that the star bokeh was not generally to my taste.
>Saved my trying other such designs.
>
>The latest offerings mostly cluster around four types of focus and all include
>aperture diaphragms. Pretty good stuff.
My dislike of Lensbaby has nothing to do with Lensbaby itself but rather from
an experience with an overly self-important photography teacher years ago.
>>I found this article interesting to create similar dreamy effect from the
>>Dyotar 180mm soft focus lens:
>>https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4033718
>>Anyone want to try adding some wire mesh to the back of a lens? Conceiveably
>>one could put a wire screen, cut to fit, in an OM to E mount adapter.
>
>The "problem" (depending on artistic intent) with wire mesh, the "sink
>strainer" aperture plates in many old soft focus lenses, filters with cross
>hairs, little lens droplets, and so on, is that they all show up, one way or
>another, in bokeh.
Interesting observation I would not know off hand. Good to know.
>In addition to the LensBabies, have a few other intentional Soft Focus
>lenses:
>LensBaby   Velvet  28/2.5+
>LensBaby   Velvet  56/1.6
>Holga           60/8.0
>Minolta  Varisoft  85/2.8
>SIMA   Soft Focus 100/2.0
>Spiratone Portragon 100/4.0
>
>Another half dozen or so are interestingly soft at wider apertures because
>they are very early fast designs and/or early third tier brands.
>
>Why so much overlap? Because they all render differently from each other.
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Soft%20Focus/100mmSFlenses.htm>
So finding a lens with the right aberrations seems to be an art in itself. The
Portragon has been mentioned the forums and I was curious. Again thank you for
the sample. I can't say that any of those jump out at me. The combination of
subjects and different lenses can become mind boggling. Do you happen to have a
favorite?
>A lot of companies have made SF lenses at one time or another. Guess who
>hasn't? Nikon. Why? Because their chief lens designer was not happy with their
>prototypes. He was striving to duplicate the look of old LF glass, soft edges
>combined with good DoF.
>
>And guess what? That's the thing with all the above lenses, you have to choose
>your balance between central focus, overall soft/glow, swirl, etc. and DoF.
>Can't have soft AND deep DoF.
>
>His solution was to develop special soft focus filters. They are like nothing
>else I've tried. The full story is here. <https://archive.fo/ICZOA>
>
>Some comparisons with a soft focus lens.
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Camom_LenB_NikonSofts/NikonSoft.htm>
I remember this. The Nikon filter, to my eye, is the most pleasing.
>>Orton effect film technique of combining out of focus + sharp images or low +
>>high F stop images.
>>https://visualwilderness.com/fieldwork/soft-sharp-camera-multiple-exposure-technique
>>There are PS tutorials on how to create the effect, but I believe doing it
>>with lenses and multiple images will offer more and better impressionistic
>>effects.
>
>>https://www.naturettl.com/create-impressionistic-images-using-multiple-exposures/
>
>I don't like either extreme. Shooting multiple exposures in-camera can
>certainly work. But it requires incredible luck or supernatural abilities or
>lots and lots of practice in the details of technique. As a highly eclectic
>photographer, I'm not interested in spending that sort of time - if the
>desired result may be achieved without it.
>
>I also agree that creating such effects in PS is possible, but most often less
>effective than photos.
>
>So why not go in between? Take shots at the multiple settings that may be
>useful, then combine them in PS.This photo shows use of three different
>apertures, combined in PS for the look I was shooting for, and how I did it.
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/SIMA/HydraMix.htm>
>
>I believe that all the effects in the above two links would be more easily and
>reliably achieved that way.
I agree. The Sony does not have multiple exposure and I would find it too much
guess work at my level of experience, so photoshop combining is my preferred
route.
Interesting mask use in this last example, which speaks to PS route has more
control.
>>Some interesting techniques here.
>>https://www.daylighted.com/blog/impressionistic-photography/
>
>Interesting, and I like a couple quite a lot. As above, they take multiple
>shots, then mix/merge them in PS.
>
>Softly Long Winded Moose
Much appreciated.
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|