When I look at one of my images and try to decide if I like or not, I try to see a story, paragraph, or even a sentence of meaning … maybe even a word. Sometimes those words are there in quantity, other times the image remains mute, having nothing at all to say.
Yesterday, in the steady rain, I saw a number of possibilities of images that could have possibly spoken to me. There, in the glen, was a small stream burbling over the rocks. Standing sentinel over the bank, the watchful eyes of a Beech tree. There were any number of combinations of photos that I could have shot. Since I had on my boots, I could have gone into the stream, near it, almost anywhere. With my 50mm lens, or 18-270mm, I certainly could have had a composition that I would think would be, not only pleasing, but meaningful, too. A composition that would have given the viewer, a sense of that stream. A photo that spoke.
There were many times during this shoot when I thought to change lenses. Why? Because this was a once in a lifetime shoot. No, I wasn’t at any exotic location that I couldn’t get back to, but think about it … all of our shots are once in a lifetime. Never again will that exact moment pass, that exact configuration of time and space. It’s quite humbling. Sure, there will be other times that it will be raining, and I’ll be there, probably not with the Lensbaby, though.
Anyway, after having used the Lensbaby a number of times, I run hot and cold with it. I’ve seen some good portraits, but have yet to see any good landscape shots, but somehow, I keep believing that I might be able to pull one off. 
No go. A lot of my landscape shots seem to give me motion sickness. It just looks unnatural. It looks gimmicky.
A friend of mine, Stephen, asked me if he should get a Lensbaby. I told him that I’d let him borrow mine for a month and he could see if it fit his particular shooting style. I told him that he’d either love it or absolutely hate it, but that it was for him to decide. Not me.
Going back to the above metaphor about pictures having something to say. If the picture has nothing to say in the first place, no amount of tricks, I think, is going to give it a voice. However, if you have found that photo that has a voice, then using the Lensbaby may introduce a bit too much noise and that voice may never be heard. It could be the wrong tool for the job, but it just isn’t getting the job done for me.
Determined not to give up, I’ve switched aperture disks and have gone from the f/4 to the f/5.6 to take away a little more of the effect. With a small enough aperture, I’m pretty sure that it will turn into a regular 50mm lens, albeit a very sloooooowwwww 50mm lens! We’ll see what happens. I’m going to try it on some different things, periodically.
Related Posts :
Nearly every time that I reach into my bag to pull out my camera or to perhaps change a lens ...
I remember as a kid that whenever it rained during the warmer months that I would grab a Popsi ...
The other day I received a phone call from my friend Stephen. He was just calling to check in ...
12 Responses to “Lensbaby: Love it? Hate it? Don’t care?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I know exactly what you mean about the motion sickness thing – I got the ‘warp speed’ effect when i used it too. A friend did some great stuff with one but he was shooting run down houses and as you said, he used the f5.6 or smaller aperture to make the effect less overbearing.
I’ve been thinking of trying out the new version of the lensbaby but I must admit, it’s mostly for the zone plate and pinhole options. I had been planning to make a zone-plate-body-cap thing for my camera for some time so that’s the expensive and lazy option.
I do find that I like the holga lens far better than the lensbaby, because somehow it feels less contrived. I think the contrast between the sharpness at the centre and the crazy zoom can just be a bit too much and take away from the actual image. There’s also the issue of fitting the tools to the job – over the time I’ve been using my lenses I know what each one likes to shoot – it comes kind of close to what you said about ‘favourite weapons’ and can let you lapse into laziness but it definitely has some merit. I was in a city and tried taking pictures with all my lenses, and nothing started to happen for me until I used the holga one. Sometimes it’s best to go with that, rather than against it just out of principle.
Sorry, rambling!
I have come to learn that it takes A LOT of practice with the Lensbaby to get a feel for what it works on and what it doesn’t – can’t even say I am quite there yet.
The second image of the tree works for me a lot more than the stream one here. But I think you HAVE to take both of these types of shots to begin to develop what you like or don’t like to do with it.
There are some people that use them really well without the images falling into the gimmick realm – I am still trying to develop my eye for that myself.
@Mark: I would agree that you need a LOT of practice. That’s why I keep going with it. I’m determined not to let it defeat me. As for the photos, I certainly agree with you. I wanted to show both types. I didn’t really like the first one, but wanted to show it anyway. The other, works better for me, though I’m not in love with it.
Are you planning, then, to regularly incorporate this lens into your play sessions?If so, will you be using it for the entire session, or just for a segment of the session?
@Anita: I plan to incorporate it into my play sessions; however, I will have to use it for the entire duration of the ‘play’, as there is a very strong urge to remove it. I want to get past that thought that nothing worthwhile can be had with the lens. I want to let myself be free to experiment. Mind you, not forcing myself, but being free to experiment. Giving myself permission, if you will.
I’ve always felt I should like the lensbaby – it appeals to many of the things I like to do in photography, but the reality of using a lensbaby never seems to live up to the hope I have for it.
I’ve bought and since sold two different types of lensbaby lenses. I made a few good shots with both of them, but never really liked the results and rarely like the results I see with it, either. The creative aperture kit came closest to sparking my interest.
@Gordon: I’d have to agree. I would think that, with the number of portraits that you do, that you’d find the Lensbaby quite useful.
It seems that I am really in the minority here when I state that the lensbaby has nothing really attractive for me. Probably just a primitive reflex in me says that the ability to render a sharp image of reality is one of the outstanding as well as constitutional characteristics of photography. That can imply using selective sharpness and cherishing blur in the bokeh, that still applies to motion blur even when no sharp core image is visible any more. And over centuries we have developed this ability of sharp, detailed rendering and received new insights in our subjects.
With the lensbaby, the holga of course comes to mind, too. While I would not run after it, I still see a crucial difference in concepts: The holga is a primitive camera which adds imperfection over imperfection and then profits from the superb tolerance of modern film, especially in accepting overexposure and in this way creating softly trailing off highlights, creating a special signature look.
But the lensbaby limits a sophisticated camera and the unsharpness becomes – just in my eyes – something artificial, and additive, like the cross filter stuff we have been overfed with some decades ago.
Sigh… probably I’m only too square and lacking phantasy, so forgive my ignorance.
@Markus: I believe that I feel the same way, too, but sometimes I think that I am perhaps not using the tool right, or perhaps haven’t found a good subject for it. I don’t feel compelled to use it, but sometimes, after it seeing sit in the bag for long periods of time, I just want to give it a go.
I know exactly what you mean about the motion sickness. Lensbaby shots all too often give me that feeling. I have seen a few that seem to work well. I have seen some great portraits made with them. Some people seem to use them more effectively than others. Sometimes it just seems random and, dare I say…pointless.
Like you say they do seem a bit gimmicky. It also seems that when I see a photo that was taken with a lensbaby and a “normal” one processed with some free software that mimics tilt shift, the differences are negligible. (I don’t remember the name of the free-software plug-in, I don’t have it, but if I can find it I will post it.)
I have yet to try one…I guess if someone gave me one, I wouldn’t complain and would probably play with it, take some awful shots, get frustrated, and give up, but I don’t have the inclination to make a purchase.
I can appreciate your desire to revisit this lens from time to time.
I’m with Markus on this one. I simply can’t seem to get that much out of lensbabies. Even works of a real pro like like Craig Tanner, whom I really admire for his landscape works, seem to be so much more natural when he uses a “normal” lens.
[...] Paul Lester Photography ” Blog Archive ” Lensbaby: Love it? Hate it … [...]