# Anyone use a Lensbaby Tilt Transformer?



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm not. The whole tilt/shift thing is becoming a gimmick and will eventually pass. LensBaby is catching the tail end of it methinks, but probably a lot cheaper than $2500 per copy for the real thing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> I'm not. The whole *tilt/shift thing is becoming a gimmick* and will eventually pass. LensBaby is catching the tail end of it methinks, but probably a lot cheaper than $2500 per copy for the real thing.


I have to somewhat disagree kps. I know where you are coming from when it comes to the use of a tilt/shift lens for "special effects" however their use in architectural and landscape photography is not a gimmick where they serve the purpose of "straightening" the apparent convergence of parallel lines and/or achieving overall sharpness of focus without having to use a very small aperture.

For these specific purposes a true (not Lensbaby) tilt/shift lens will continue to serve a valid (non-gimmick) purpose.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Not that a pro's use thereof tacitly endorses a particular product, but I don't know a single pro who owns a Lensbaby. In fairness, I've never asked any of them either, but in looking at hundreds of their portfolios, I've never seen a professional's Lensbaby portrait. It's an interesting effect, but a one trick pony. Not the sort of thing you want to see a whole wedding done with, for instance.

That being said, there are software solutions which come pretty close to a Lensbaby effect if done well.

As far as "real" T/S lenses are concerned, we don't use them for our architectural photography simply because many times they aren't wide enough. Get inside a home & try to completely cover the interior with a 17mm (Canon's widest) lens. We use a 12-24 rectilinear ("normal") lens, largely at the 12mm end, & adjust convergence via Transform in Photoshop.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Having used 4x5 cameras for a number of years, I will say that I loved some of the things I could do with shifts, swings and tilts. That said doing it right required as much as half an hour to set-up the camera. Nowadays I can achieve excellent results after the fact with PhotoShop and in a fraction of the time it takes to set up a shot on the 4x5. 

Still, there are rare occasions when I wish I could afford a Graphlok style digital back for that old 4x5.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> Not that a pro's use thereof tacitly endorses a particular product, but I don't know a single pro who owns a Lensbaby. In fairness, I've never asked any of them either, but in looking at hundreds of their portfolios, I've never seen a professional's Lensbaby portrait. It's an interesting effect, but a one trick pony. Not the sort of thing you want to see a whole wedding done with, for instance.
> 
> That being said, there are software solutions which come pretty close to a Lensbaby effect if done well.
> 
> *As far as "real" T/S lenses are concerned, we don't use them for our architectural photography simply because many times they aren't wide enough. Get inside a home & try to completely cover the interior with a 17mm (Canon's widest) lens. We use a 12-24 rectilinear ("normal") lens, largely at the 12mm end, & adjust convergence via Transform in Photoshop.*


Well interiors are another matter, not what I would call architectural, but do whatever suits your needs...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Having used 4x5 cameras for a number of years, I will say that I loved some of the things I could do with shifts, swings and tilts. That said doing it right required as much as half an hour to set-up the camera. Nowadays I can achieve excellent results after the fact with *PhotoShop and in a fraction of the time* it takes to set up a shot on the 4x5.
> 
> Still, there are rare occasions when I wish I could afford a Graphlok style digital back for that old 4x5.


Well yes but it still requires logarithmic extrapolation and is not suitable for all requirements... for example when shooting film which would then require the cost of scanning at high resolution and the waiting time as most would not have the means to do such scanning in house.

A T/S lens is a luxury that most cannot afford but for those in the business of high end architectural and landscape photography it still can serve a very valued purpose is all I am saying... special effects aside.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

screature said:


> not what I would call architectural,


Huh?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> Huh?


I understand your confusion, but for the most part when one thinks of architectural photography in strict terms one thinks exterior not interior. Due to the relatively limited depth of field inherent in interiors the apparent convergence of parallel lines is not of that much significance relatively speaking if ones lens selection is appropriate.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I don't think there's any confusion at all, architectural photography entails exterior, interior, aerial and structural.


----------



## phuviano (Sep 14, 2005)

I've never liked the lensbaby results. Its a personal thing, there's no right or wrong answer.

I'm too cheap to buy a real tilt shift, so I use photoshop to create a tilt shift like effect. Its not the same as a tilt shift lens, but imo it creates an effect that's good enough for me. In the end, its what the end user thinks of the photo, and the effect. So each to their own.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kps said:


> I don't think there's any confusion at all, architectural photography entails exterior, interior, aerial and structural.


Ding, ding, ding!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

screature said:


> Due to the relatively limited depth of field inherent in interiors the apparent convergence of parallel lines is not of that much significance relatively speaking if ones lens selection is appropriate.


I'm having a real hard time trying to figger out what you're saying here...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> I don't think there's any confusion at all, *architectural photography entails exterior, interior, aerial and structural*.


Well maybe so but in common parlance or in terms of of art history the vast majority of what is considered architectural photography is exterior... for example take a look at Google when you enter architectural photography and look for images. I would say easily 95% of the photos referenced are exterior... at any rate it really doesn't matter and I don't want to argue about it as you and I both have better things to do.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> I'm having a real hard time trying to figger out what you're saying here...


Apparent convergent parallels are less obvious in a limited depth of field... i.e. relative near to far... depending on the lens you use.

In terms of genre the predominance of what is "generally" considered architectural photography is shots of exteriors, if your understanding extends to interiors great... never mind and my bad and didn't mean to offend.... let's move on.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

screature said:


> ... at any rate it really doesn't matter and I don't want to argue about it as you and I both have better things to do.


That, I can definitely agree with...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

screature said:


> Apparent convergent parallels are less obvious in a limited depth of field... i.e. relative near to far... depending on the lens you use.


Any detail is less obvious outside of your DOF. That's academic. However, in architectural photography, generally, you want as much DOF as possible.

By & large, T/S lenses (again, in architectural photography) are used to straighten out vertical parallels, keystoning, rather than blur everything horizontal save a narrow POV.

I'm not offended, I'm just quite surprised that anyone wouldn't consider interiors as a genuine branch of architectural photography.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> Any detail is less obvious outside of your DOF. That's academic. However, in architectural photography, generally, you want as much DOF as possible.
> *
> By & large, T/S lenses (again, in architectural photography) are used to straighten out vertical parallels, keystoning, rather than blur everything horizontal save a narrow POV.
> *
> I'm not offended, I'm just quite *surprised that anyone wouldn't consider interiors as a genuine branch of architectural photography*.


Agreed, exactly the point I made at the beginning of the thread as to the ongoing use (all beit limited) of T/S lenses. 

Yeah having thought about it I know you are right, it is a branch... interiors just aren't generally what I think of when I think of architectural photography. Once again my bad.


----------



## Todd (Oct 14, 2002)

I bought 2 (1 Nikon F mount, 1 Canon EF mount) Composer Pros with the Sweet 35 optic to try in the rental fleet. I've been able to play with them a little. They're certainly fun and they reward the patient, tinkering photographer type. We'll see if they're popular rentals or not.


----------

