I never understood Lensbaby? As one online commentator said, after
reviewing all the Flickr photos tagged Lensbaby, the good photos would
have been good no matter what. The Lensbaby did not improve
anything. So thank you for clarifying.
WayneS
At 7/7/2020 10:54 AM, Ken wrote:
>> When bad bokeh is good bokeh or "artistic", and vintage lens formulas.
>
>For those times when I need to have the optical equivalent of a
>nervous breakdown, there is the OM Zuiko 50/1.4 which will let me soak
>in a nice warm bubble bath until the feeling dies down. Not only is my
>itch satisfied, but I'm clean and my skin is soft.
>
>
>> What is curious to me is these lenses seem to defy what is considered good
>> and bad bokeh by Ken Rockwell's definition, where they would be classified
>> as "Poor Bokeh": https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
>
>The think to keep in mind about Ken Rockwell is that he's kinda the
>"Kenye West" of the photography world. He'll say some really
>outrageous things to prove a point, to get people talking, and of
>course, to spend money buying his stuff. Sometimes, his opinion on
>what is great/good/bad/ugly may seem a little off, but I think he's
>got a tighter handle on what people really need, not what they want.
>His grading of bokeh is highly accurate when it comes to maximum
>usability. Bubble-Butt-Bokeh is awesome for that one or two pictures a
>year that you may think you want to take. But it's highly unusable the
>rest of the time.
>
>It's just another "Lensbaby". A rather well-made and expensive
>Lensbaby, but it still has that single-use benefit. I couldn't use
>that lens for general use in the 100mm focal length.
>
>AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|