Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-19-2015, 01:17 PM   #46
Senior Member
kentishrev's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 180
To try and get back to the starting point of this thread........it just seems a VERY expensive approach if you are looking to produce that kind of effect. The 07 Mount Shield Lens for the Q does a very similar job for a lot less. The suggestion around a smeared UV filter sounds worth a try too. And I question that the effort involved in doing this in Photoshop is really that hard. How tricky would it be to produce a Mount Shield Lens for a K Mount?

04-19-2015, 08:14 PM   #47
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,097
A zone plate on your camera is also an less expensive method of creating a pictorial is to image. Art is in the eyes of its creator, no one has to agree with the artist but to state that it is not art just because you do not like or appreciate it is not correct. No more than me saying that turnips are not food.

I do not agree with the concept that a reproduction of an oil painting is just as good as the real thing or that copying an original work of art is a worthy endeavor unless you are learning how the masters made their work. Artists work is of value and is not out their for your free use. Just my private rant.
04-19-2015, 11:47 PM   #48
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
A zone plate on your camera is also an less expensive method of creating a pictorial is to image. Art is in the eyes of its creator, no one has to agree with the artist but to state that it is not art just because you do not like or appreciate it is not correct. No more than me saying that turnips are not food.

I do not agree with the concept that a reproduction of an oil painting is just as good as the real thing or that copying an original work of art is a worthy endeavor unless you are learning how the masters made their work. Artists work is of value and is not out their for your free use. Just my private rant.
- If you do your own Pollack, you'll copy the technique, not the actual painting. So there no copyright issue. There should not be holdup of ideas. In particular because one just think of pourring painting on a canevas in a given way should not mean he is the only one on earth that can do that and all others should give him money if they do the same. Imagine if we had to be retricted to 1 Artist for each Art style (for example 1 artist for impressionism), this would have denied humanity lot of fine piece of Art.
- A copy can be under licence and be legitimate. Many artist sell copies of their art to increase revenue. It is also a comon exercie in fact in Art school to learn from the masters and actually a copy made by a more talented artist can be better than the original. There lot of value in the exercise.
- There no issue with copying and old piece of Art. In France it stop 70years after the death of the Artist. It already let lot of time for the Artists and it's familly to make money. There no need to make it last forever.
- Finally if you appreciate a particular work aquiring a good copy of it can be much more affordable than trying to get the orginal. Just imagine if you want a Van Gogh in your living room... Being fetishist and accepting only the original will just mean you'll not get it at all and you'll have to live near the museum that has it if you want to see it on a regular basis. This is not practical.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 04-19-2015 at 11:53 PM.
04-20-2015, 12:24 AM   #49
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,159
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
- If you do your own Pollack, you'll copy the technique, not the actual painting. So there no copyright issue. There should not be holdup of ideas. In particular because one just think of pourring painting on a canevas in a given way should not mean he is the only one on earth that can do that and all others should give him money if they do the same. Imagine if we had to be retricted to 1 Artist for each Art style (for example 1 artist for impressionism), this would have denied humanity lot of fine piece of Art.
- A copy can be under licence and be legitimate. Many artist sell copies of their art to increase revenue. It is also a comon exercie in fact in Art school to learn from the masters and actually a copy made by a more talented artist can be better than the original. There lot of value in the exercise.
- There no issue with copying and old piece of Art. In France it stop 70years after the death of the Artist. It already let lot of time for the Artists and it's familly to make money. There no need to make it last forever.
- Finally if you appreciate a particular work aquiring a good copy of it can be much more affordable than trying to get the orginal. Just imagine if you want a Van Gogh in your living room... Being fetishist and accepting only the original will just mean you'll not get it at all and you'll have to live near the museum that has it if you want to see it on a regular basis. This is not practical.
So?
In which is that any contradication to redrockcoulee's post ? Or mine btw ?

04-20-2015, 01:00 AM   #50
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
So?
In which is that any contradication to redrockcoulee's post ? Or mine btw ?
Well for me I said one could be as fine doing his own Pollack if he like the style. It might be more fun (and far less expensive too). For sure it would not be the same painting, more the style. It might end up better, at least for the one making it.

I thought but maybe wrong that the reply of redrockcoulee on copying. There many legitimate use of copying and there also inspiration. For me the paying for the original is just an (old) way to recognise the author, but like stocks it is worth only when you pay the author directly. If you buy from another buyer, you are not actually helping one bit.
04-20-2015, 01:40 AM - 1 Like   #51
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,317
QuoteOriginally posted by kentishrev Quote
And I question that the effort involved in doing this in Photoshop is really that hard. How tricky would it be to produce a Mount Shield Lens for a K Mount?
There are already some lomo lenses for Kmount. Holga makes two, I think. And then there are some pinhole "lenses" as well. These are available for under $50 each, I think. Not to mention older lenses. There are plenty of m42 lenses that will produce a soft, velvety, low contrast type photo.

Its much easier to buy imperfection, than to buy a lens that perfectly imitates an imperfection..
05-02-2015, 09:04 AM   #52
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Dallas, TX
Photos: Albums
Posts: 71
I bought this lens, and returned it...

Two reasons -
The lens has a serious design flaw IMO. I use an adapter to use on full frame Sony A7. The entire lens barrel is essentially a focus ring. It's easy to focus but impossible to mount/unmount from the adapter - no where to grip. If you leave the adapter on the entire time that's fine, but I only have one adapter for multiple lenses.
The bokeh is nice most of the time, but sometimes it produces a weird white dot in the center of the out of focus highlight area. Very unusual. Usually the outer ring glows but this is the opposite.

By the way, this lens seems to be designed to be shot around f4-f8. Even at f5.6, the out of focus area is very dreamy (on Full Frame). Unlike other soft focus lens i've used.
05-02-2015, 09:10 AM   #53
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,317
QuoteOriginally posted by brelip Quote
I bought this lens, and returned it...
Can you maybe post some photos that you took with it?

05-02-2015, 08:56 PM - 1 Like   #54
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Dallas, TX
Photos: Albums
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Can you maybe post some photos that you took with it?
here's a cropped (about 1:3) image showing the weird bokeh. I think this was about f2. Focus is on the light switch.

05-07-2015, 06:23 AM   #55
Site Supporter
shiner's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N GA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,325
Wow, I was all hot to order one of these, but you guys have convinced me that it is a steamy POS. I'll get that navigation chip for my car, instead.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
f1.6 in pk, lens, lensbaby, lensbaby velvet 56mm, mount, pentax news, pentax rumors, uv filter, velvet, velvet 56mm f1.6
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Fuji XF 56mm f1.2 R Lens - Like New Qwntm Sold Items 0 09-27-2014 05:27 PM
Nature Morning Buck in Velvet 45 Mike Post Your Photos! 2 07-20-2014 02:37 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax mount. Like new in original package. $315 grahame Sold Items 8 11-20-2013 09:18 AM
Sears 80-200mm PK-mount lens doesn't mount on K1000 kylemsguy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 09-19-2013 11:44 AM
New 500 f5.6 in Pentax mount WPRESTO Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 10-04-2011 03:13 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:09 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top