Lensbaby vs. Photoshop?Newer Topic | Older Topic
|Lensbaby vs. Photoshop? posted by FretNoMore November 06, 2004 06:07PM||reply | quote|
I showed some pictures in other discussion groups and inevitably someone steps in with "waste of money, this can be done in Photoshop".
I was asked to supply pictures with and without Lensbaby to help in developing a PS action, but declined with the following response:
"Frankly I don't like the concept of a Lensbaby action, that's not what this lens is about to me. The effect can most likely be approximated in Photoshop but I'm not thrilled by the idea. I prefer to be out in the field and seeing it through the viewfinder. There's some magic lost if you sit at home and try to re-create what to me should be a spontaneous capture. It's not just about the effect, it's the whole process of getting the shot that is the Lensbaby to me. Maybe that sounds like some philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but the Lensbaby is such a welcome break from pixel-perfect and Photoshop fiddling that I can't see myself doing this in the computer rather than in the camera."
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
Post Edited (11-08-04 06:29)
|Re: Lensbaby vs. Photoshop? posted by slowpic November 07, 2004 01:09AM||reply | quote|
I'm not too sure that the lensbaby effect could be done
by a PhotoShop action: The softening, the color smoothing
and the intuitive spread of their intensities around an image
are achieved by subtle "analog" parameters which are
hardware "implemented" at a twist of your finger tips.
Maybe it would be possible to simulate a given lensbaby
image with a lot of filter work and layers. Nevertheless,
I wouldn't use such filters/actions as the real lensbaby
feel establishes at the time of making a picture.
A PhotoShop action/filter compared to the real lensbaby
would be like a 3D rendering (e.g. terragen) of a landscape
compared to a beautiful real world landscape at the moment
I'm standing there. I guess, a "mega sunset plugin" for
PhotoShop wouldn't sell very well due to the fact that
people prefer the real scene ... they want to see it with
their own eyes and then *keep* it.
Just my opinion, of course ;)
With kind regards,
|Re: Lensbaby vs. Photoshop? posted by juvand November 07, 2004 03:58AM||reply | quote|
posted by juvand
I'm quite good in Photoshop and I tried creating Lensbaby effects with Photoshop. Sometimes that involved 6-7 layers and very complicated post-processing. I was never completely satisfied with my Photoshop tries. Their was always some subtle differences that makes Lansbaby photos more natural and Photoshop photos hokey. I agree that those differences might be really small but that makes the whole world difference to me. Also, I like shooting with Lensbaby - I'm fast with it.
|Re: Lensbaby vs. Photoshop? posted by Guchot November 07, 2004 06:22AM||reply | quote|
posted by Guchot
I don't no if it is possible to simulate the Lensbaby-Effect with Photoshop. But even if it is possible, it's different fromusing the Lensbaby directly. When using the Bay, you create the whole picture through your viewfinder. In Photoshop you use filters on an existing picture. I think that is a big difference.
|Re: Lensbaby vs. Photoshop? posted by Craig (Admin) November 07, 2004 01:50PM||reply | quote|
posted by Craig
Mein Deutsch stinkt.
Thanks for asking.
P.S. After going digital I was spending all my time in front of the computer. I wanted to get back to creating in-camera but not be stuck shooting my most creative shots on film when everything else was shot digitally. So along came the Lensbaby. Whether it can be done in Photoshop or not, I don't want to take the time. To me time in front of the computer is time away from creating more images in-camera that, when seen through the viewfinder, reflect my perspective of the world.
You could not step twice into the same rivers; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.
Heraclitus of Ephesus
|Newer Topic | Older Topic|