On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Bob W <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: PDML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Walker >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Charles Robinson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > >> >> On Apr 7, 2015, at 12:46 , John <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Ran across this one while wandering around the web. >> >> >> >> http://lensbaby.com/usa/velvet56.php >> >> >> >> 56mm f/1.6 manual focus. Seems to be reasonably priced. >> >> >> >> Generally I wouldn't mention such except that it is one of the few >> >> I've seen that IS available in Pentax K-mount. >> >> >> >> Start's shipping 13 April. >> >> >> > >> > I've never understood the appeal of the "Lensbaby" line.. >> > >> > Isn't it just a way to get "Instamatic" quality shots from your > multi-thousand >> dollar digital setup? What is the appeal? >> >> Are you saying that is wrong? >> >> If you buy the same camera that everyone does, and use the same lenses >> that everyone does, using the best technically perfect techniques that >> (almost) everyone does, then aside from your unique viewpoint and subject, >> you'll get the same looking shots as everyone does. >> >> What if you want to stand out from the crowd; look different? Then change >> one of the constants in the chain. >> >> It's that simple. > > You just get a lot of gimmicky shots that very rapidly tire and become > dated. Show me a great photographer whose work has lasted for more than 15 > minutes and you'll see that they don't have gimmicks, they have something > interesting to say, a personal vision and the ability to communicate it. > Great photography is about the subject matter, not the technique. Technical > skills are there to serve the subject, and should be invisible.
A challenge! :) How about André Kertész and his warped mirrors? http://www.lanciatrendvisions.com/en/article/at-the-origin-of-distortion Man Ray's Rayographs and solarization? http://daisywarejarrett.com/2012/01/30/man-rays-rayographs-solarization/ The only two that come to mind atm. > As an example, take a look at a collection of David Douglas Duncan's work. > The stuff for which he is remembered is simple and direct, but he also spent > an inordinate amount of time playing with fancy filters which produced > multiple images, and kaleidoscopic stuff and similar garbage which just > looks embarrassing amidst his great work, like something from a copy of > Amateur Photographer 1968. > >> aside from your unique viewpoint and subject, >> you'll get the same looking shots as everyone does. > > Er, yes - it's the viewpoint and subject that make the photograph Quite, I agree! And those are the aspects that I myself try to vary, rather than using gimmicky glass, at least so far. But what about if you are working in a genre like fashion where all you have to work with are the same models, styles, makeup and props as everyone else? What do you do? You grab at every straw available. You stick bits of clear plastic in front of the lens; you use distorting lenses; you colour filter your lights; etc. I wholly agree that if you stick a Lensbaby onto your camera and shoot like that incessantly it would be gimmicky and boring in no time at all. But why not introduce the Lensbaby now and then, like a spice to cooking. The Lensbaby is like those sugary coloured sprinkles on certain doughnuts: you don't want to see them on all the doughnuts, but they are a welcome addition now and then. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
