Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi,
You might consider getting an old lens, like an Auto Takumar, which can be
purchased for a reasonable price, especially if the front element has some
"cleaning marks."
They are surprisingly "sharp", however, compared to the effects of one
of the "soft" lenses like the Pentax 85 2.8 soft. I'm not sure what is
happening optically inside those lenses that create that effect, but I'm
sure an aproximation can be made in PS if you could break it down to
aproximate transformations of the original image.
Right now I'm looking for one of those - one recently went for $37.00 on an
auction site and was described as being in mint condition. I picked one up
not too long ago for $6.00 plus shipping - it had a ding in the front
threads so a filter wouldn't attach properly.
Wow. Good deal.
Also, look at some Russian lenses. I've used one that I borrowed from Juan
that gave reasonably soft results, and just bought an Industar for the
Leica, also for a measly $6.00 plus shipping.
I like the second photo quite a bit, so much so that I couldn't help
playing around with it a bit in PS. I did it for my own pleasure, but if
you'd like to see it, just say the word.
I would like to see it, thanks for looking.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Gonz
Thanks for the comments Derby. I think it might be useful to me to take
a picture with a soft lens to see what it actually looks like vs the
same picture using a normal lens. I might take up an offer that was
made by a member to let me borrow one.
The gaussian blur is only a layer that is partially contributing to the
final image. I might try adding a series of layers with varying degrees
of contribution from each.
rg
Derby Chang wrote:
Gonz wrote:
Oops wrong pic. It should have been:
http://www.g0nz.com/images/k2softaprox.jpg
--
Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I
was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's
a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man?
- Mitch Hedberg
