Nice pictures, Daniel!
Love the sharky one!
Ahhhh photoshop... how I love thee. (I too, need a legal copy. Maybe someday. *shakes fists* someday.)
I remember my first real breakthrough with photoshop, was when I succesfully did a "clone yourself in a photo" . . . I was so excited when I got it, and I've pretty much started learning more and more things on Photoshop. I tend to do more photo manipulation stuff on photoshop. I can't do vectoring at all, and I can't really make anything out of scratch, although I'm slowly learning how to do those as well. It's certainly an interesting hobby.
Going back to LensBaby lenses... I'm curious... So basically the effect is to make the targeted object in focus, while there's a slight radial blur as you progress away from the object.
This an be done in Photoshop (much like the TiltShift effect, if your camera doesn't have that option, OR if you don't own a tiltshift lense).
Here, I demonstrate an "artificial" lensbaby effect, with the help of photoshop. First, I went and found a picture of something that had the lensbaby effect, and then, I try to re-create it, using another stock photo, and manipulate the photo in photoshop (cs6).
(Image shot with a Lensbaby Lense)
Granted, I just learned how to do this within a couple minutes (okay, maybe 20 minutes of screwing around in photoshop, trying to find what effects were what...lol)
And this is what I got:
(Stock Image)
(Edited Stock Image with "Artificial Lensbaby" Effect)
What I'm trying to get at....with how software these days are getting more and more powerful, is it still really necessary to buy such expensive lenses? TiltShift lenses (good ones) are pricey, anywhere from $1000+... I'm pretty sure Lensbaby lenses cost a pretty penny as well. I'm sure to the untrained eye (such as myself)... you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a photo that has been manipulated through photoshop, or one that uses the necessary lens. Or...is there?
Thoughts? Opinions? Cheese?
:
