A few years ago I was presented with an interesting set of masks for creating beautiful little pieces. Unfortunately, I only remembered about him recently. I express my deep gratitude to the project bokeh.in.ua for this gift.
'Bokeh art' masks. Photo taken hence
The masks are supplied in a stylish plastic box. There is a clear and simple instruction in Russian, English and Ukrainian. The kit includes 28 masks for lenses with a front filter diameter of 52 mm and 5 adapters for lenses with a filter diameter of 58, 62, 67, 72 and 77 mm. The attachments and adapters are also made of nice flexible matte plastic that will last much longer than cheap Chinese paper alternatives. By the way, the 'MADE IN UKRAINE' attachments.
'Bokeh art' masks. Photo taken hence
'Bokeh art' masks. Photo taken hence
Working with them is not difficult. It is enough to install such a mask-nozzle in front of the front lens of the lens, after which in the blur zone (defocused background or foreground) all the point light sources will take the form of the selected mask.
'Bokeh art' masks. Photo taken hence
Shaped bokeh is best achieved with fast lenses up to f / 2.8. The example below uses an 85mm f / 1.8 lens with a butterfly attachment.
Example bokeh art
Important: with lenses that have low aperture, for example, F / 3.5-5.6, it will be extremely difficult to get the cherished result. But there are no problems with any budget 50 fifty / fifty class, or similar solutions.
A similar mask / filter / nozzle can create yourself, but using ready-made sets is much easier.
'Bokeh art' has Facebook group, you can see examples there, ask questions, offer cooperation or just buy an interesting little thing for a gift to a amateur photographer.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Butterfly lights are valid. How much is such a pleasure?
Send to Lithuania? I want to support the manufacturer!
Lived (((((((
And there was a time Arkady himself did bokeh masks and we studied with him.
It is sad for such globalization.
Malshik is chopping cabbage.
As far as I know, chopping cabbage in this field is extremely unprofitable (I'm specifically talking about this bokeh art set)
And can you chop a lot of cabbage in this way? You probably have never dealt with sales.
he has a link to makeshift, no one forbids
I am well acquainted with that article. it's about a changed approach.
I'll go throw transistors
I made such masks myself, from ordinary thick cardboard, worked well. I applied the lens, circled the contour in diameter, then drew the design by hand and cut the whole thing out with a scatter (you can paint the ends of the holes with a black marker), leaving the petals (4-6) for which then with the help of an elastic band from the money it is all wonderful and reliably attached to lens barrel.
I wouldn’t buy such ones, and I wouldn’t recommend buying them, and for these reasons:
1. The diameter of the circle into which this or that image fits (for example, the same snowflake or heart), it is best to select it for a specific lens, trying to do the largest possible, but so that later the edges on the final photo are not cut off. For the same 85 / 1,4 - this will be about twice as much as in the pictures, this will lead to a strong drop in the real aperture (it is more difficult to focus, it may be necessary to raise the ISO more, with a small drop in the aperture you can still use the “A ”With exposure compensation, and most importantly - the very bokeh for which everything was started will be less pronounced, simply too small, this is especially critical for crop).
In ready-made ones, they were reinsured, in appearance I would say that this is just right for lenses of class 50 / 1,8 approximately. Well, it is understandable - after all, these are the most common.
2. Buying ready-made you limit yourself to the typical design of symbols. Even if this type of set is 200 pieces, it is still a finite number. Stars, hearts, snowflakes, butterflies. What about coffee beans or tyrannosaurus? All 200 100% will never be useful to you, 2-3 at most, well, let it be 10, but pay for 200. And in a small set - there are more chances that what you need is not at all.
Besides, is it the same if I understand correctly for art photography? And who said that such a tree would suit me? Or maybe I need one, but only with toys and a star on top? In general, there is no need to limit yourself out of the blue in creativity.
3. As for durability - here it is kmk, it is completely unnecessary here, well, you will not do more than one or two photo sessions with the same picture, believe me - this effect quickly enough sets the teeth on edge (like Instagram filters “for film”, yeah ) and is good strictly in moderation. in such an application, even writing paper will serve quite well.
4. If photography is first and foremost a hobby, then cut-out drawings are a great way to diversify it a little; pumping fine motor skills, again, will not hurt anyone.
Well, and 5. Ready to order, wait, pay money. And DIY is here, now, and conditionally free.
There are also disadvantages of course: it is easier to rotate ready-to-use lenses when using them, achieving the desired angle of rotation of the effect.
Well, such masks as “minced bokeh” (c) [third row, second from the right] or a hieroglyph can be cut out beautifully, but with most of them there will be no problems.
Furiously plus. This is a simplified, cheaper replica from the Chinese Qalart kit (which is also, most likely, a replica from something), designed specifically for a small front glass of the 50 / 1.8 STM type with 49 mm. And all apertures are usually bigger - 67mm, or even 77mm, so I’m confused by the huge aperture ratio, if it is cut by this bunch of at least half. And it is necessary to shoot in the dark some garlands-lights in most cases.
but ... what kind of "minced meat" picture gives?) I cut out asterisks / hearts from nonfiction ... and I don't even know how to google this)
The drawing gives an interesting and very peculiar, there is a corresponding article on Radozhiv.
Walking is the way to go - "minced bokeh".
Sucks.
In a word, in photographic equipment there is a complete dead end ... There is absolutely nothing to come up with to mow the grandmas, all sorts of crap has gone ... I think that soon all these Profotos and Russian photos will begin to close ... whichever side you look at it ... Baryzhniye used to be (for example Playboy), but it was of high quality and exclusive ... And now, wherever you look, all kinds of crap are expensive and in bulk, and nobody needs it ... , if the bulk of people don't need it ... In short, the whole world is in shit, no matter what you look at ...
It all depends on the point of view and method of perception. Glory to all the gods, photography just teaches different methods of perception. Now in photography a lot of technical restrictions are removed, there are only limitations in the capabilities of photographers.
In the post-Soviet space, a very negative attitude has developed towards making money, in this regard, these countries are very far behind the Protestant and Confucian countries where this art was brought to perfection, for example, Germany and Japan. Although a person who earns himself, pays taxes to his country, does not ask anything from the state today and is a hero of our time, and if this person also provides jobs, then he is a double hero. When it comes to photography, it’s hard to expect something revolutionary every day. Today, even the most budget SLR with a certain set of inexpensive lenses provides ample creative opportunities. This is the fruit of the "bargaining" of such companies as: Kenon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and the like
this is ordinary envy. the neighbor did, but I didn’t guess
Why envy ...? I can't understand what is guided by a person who writes to someone the words "this is envy" ... Is that what you are guided by ..?
I have two non-entry-level Nikon DSLRs and about ten different lens companies ... This is even a bit too much for me, but let it be, since there is ... Why envy ...? It will be necessary, I will buy something else from photographic equipment ...
I'm just stating facts that say that there is nothing to invent in photographic equipment, but they want more and more profits ... New models are being released, in which only the name of the model is new, and some functions have become worse or have disappeared altogether ... That is, firms of any industry have started to deceive users ... Deception consists of different forms - filters for vacuum cleaners, deliberate deterioration of functionality (D7200 -> D7500), reduction of service life and all that, you can list for a long time ... One example -> now many people buy Soviet and Imported (made during USSR in Japan, Germany) radio engineering, restore it and use it at home ... Why ...? Because that radio engineering, be it Soviet, be it Imported of that time, is of much better quality than the current one, its sound quality is much better than that of the current one, and it looks much more beautiful and pleasant than the shit that is being done now ... It's me I'm not talking about how much this scam now costs in the form of DACs, interconnect and speaker cables with the inscription “oxygen-free copper” ... This is pure fraud ... Since 1960, all copper has been produced using oxygen-free technology ... Before that, there was simply no technology smelting without oxygen molecules ... Therefore, that copper (before the 60s) was not very high quality ...
This is now called marketing. Kenon generally sells the same SLR under a different name. As for the quality, I do not agree with the refrigerator, washing machine, laptop, TV everything has been working for more than eight years, nothing has broken.
Buy, restore and use solely for nastolgichesky and / or collection reasons. The technique is better than the current one, but by any objective parameters and in the outsole is not suitable for the modern one: compare the THD, power, S / N, dimensions / weight, power consumption, etc. tube amplifier and modern on MOSFET, vinyl and modern high-cut (at least 96/24), etc.
It's like with a car: I'm sure a lot of people like the design of cars, say, 60-70s, and no one will argue that they were doing much better than the current disposable consumer goods made of powdered metal, plastic and monitors. But even those who have money for well-preserved or restored classics for some reason goes to the salon for a new LC200 or Taureg and not for a GAZ-21 or Thunderbird, and if they do, they go once a year before the exhibition and back: by traffic jams are one "consumer goods".
And the answer is that possessing, using and seeing vintage is subjectively pleasant, but the objective result is much better for modern consumer goods, not to mention practicality.
Cars are not at all in the subject here ... Because now cars are made more comfortable than they were before, although my friend drives only two Volkswagen 196s of some year of release and says that he does not need modern crap at cosmic prices ... But what As for radio equipment, here is something completely different ... What you wrote about is unjustifiably expensive ... The price of all these DACs consists solely of greed and nothing else ... These DACs make sense, if someone has free or stolen money ... Once, I heard how a DAC for 200 thousand rubles sounds and compared its sound with the sound of just a good sound card for 7 thousand rubles and was convinced once again that such a price for these DACs is nothing but a scam ... And tube amplifiers sound better ... Even transistor amplifiers released before '94 sound much nicer than the current crap at a cosmic price ... I am especially amused by the inscriptions “Oxygen-free copper interconnect cable” and “Price $ 3000” ... Who is it for ...? For thieves or for people without brains ...? There has been no copper with oxygen molecules since the 60s of the last century ... And before that there was simply no technology for making copper without oxygen ... This inscription, pure fraud, which is now called differently - marketing ... But whatever you call it, the meaning of the name change does not change ... Recently I compared two interconnect cables with Aliexpress (by Ali's standards - good) ... One - 70 cm long, the other - 10 meters long ... So what ...? Nothing has changed in the sound ... Nothing from the words "nothing at all" ... That's the whole theme ...
Your idea is understandable, and there is a place to be in real life, but in my opinion the fears are, let's say, somewhat exaggerated.
Personally, I make interconnect cables for myself exactly the length that I need, from the microphone wire sold for a cut in the nearest store for musicians (at 60 rubles per meter if I remember correctly) and terminals with Ali; which, by the way, and I wish you, it hardly requires physical or mental efforts, and after that you will be more relaxed to look at the marketing tricks.
Yes, and acoustic wires - in principle, you can also pile yourself: this one cost me about 10 tr. - 2x3 meters, cross-section of lived in 4 squares (if anyone understands).
Cable for acoustics - 10t.r.? This already smacks of audiophile)
For all objective parameters, the PVA of the cross section you need is quite enough.
Interblock is even cheaper than yours I use: about $ 0.8 per meter. This microphone cable is enough to connect a dynamic microphone ≈100 meter cable laid in the room without interference (of course, a balanced connection, and the isolation of the earths). He himself was a little surprised.
Well, it turned out beautifully?))
I don’t know where you can stick these masks. Arkady doesn’t have a lot of examples either. Fish and bones in bokeh is the pinnacle of madness. If someone does not agree, let him give the plot of a photo with bokeh, where bones and bats are present ... ..
Halloween photo shoot, no? Or Baba on our tree?
It all depends on the perception and flexibility of the photographer:
bones 1, 2, 3. The plot is simple, the dog dreams about bones, or she dreams of bones.
Bats adds mysticism to the photo, an example 1, Halloween card etc., while I just wrote in the search for a combination of bokeh + the right word.
Oh, by the way, Julia Wimmerlin is a Kievite who moved to Switzerland. An amazing photographer, I follow her work. Never afraid to experiment. And the light brush, and tilt-shift, and drones. Very varied and always interesting.
“The plot is simple, the dog dreams of bones, or she dreams of bones.” Then we will take a picture of a miserable bum, and instead of the bokeh of a trash heap, as it should be, we will insert bokeh from vodka bottles ... ... experiment with this bullshit (masks) - do not respect ourselves ...
Not respecting yourself - continue to bend your line further. You asked, you were answered, evading and coming up with new challenges means not accepting the obvious. Art has no boundaries, there are many interesting films about homeless people, by the way, this aspect has already been discussed somewhere.
For you, dear Arkady, art has no boundaries. But many set these boundaries for themselves. I don’t bend my line, but only express my opinion. I’m sure you yourself saw these masks in one place, otherwise you would not have posted such a “set ”Examples and did not refer to other people's photos with the same plot .... I love photos of homeless people (google at your leisure), but only without bottles in bokeh.)
- I love crypts, I love cast iron. - Bayonet (DMB).
Don't be so stuffy, by God. “Not respecting yourself” means not broadening your horizons by limiting yourself to a bunch of time-tested rules and techniques. Photography does not stand still, it evolves, something new is constantly being created, and this cardboard crap, which you consider useless, has played enough about eight years ago, filmed a bunch of different photos, both interesting and original, and not very much, even in video they actively used it, and so often that in the end everybody got tired of this crap, and only beginners are playing it now. These masks are a tool. And the fact that you do not know how or do not want to use the tool is not the problem of the tool.
Confused, dear. Evolution is an improvement. And if “something new” is created by this cardboard crap, among other things, then this is degradation.
This "cardboard crap" is just a tool that can be very appropriate in a particular situation. What a moronic Russian manner to shout “NO NEED” on any occasion. You don't need - your problems, your opinion is very valuable to us, stay on the line.
Nobody needs 99% of pictures without figures in bokeh, if we go this way.
You say, don’t talk ... ..What does it mean that no one (another manner of speaking for everyone) doesn’t need it? Well, you may not need it, and I and another 99% consider other people's work with great interest.
I don’t quite understand reading all these comments. That Arkady earns something. Someone is limiting something. That the author of these masks limits something to someone. Are you professional photographers or are you striving for this? Or would you just pee? You do not think that you yourself will choose a lens for yourself. And where will you go? Naturally to Radozhiva. Huge work has been done here. This is a resource of the author. He has the right to earn money here. And this is normal. Have you heard of motivation? This is the first. Secondly, someone already noticed that this is not a product so that you can earn something on it. Thirdly, what are these words baryzhestvo and so on? Well, let's express our gratitude to the author for teaching you the same. And he taught me using the same resource. Bokeh masks are naturally specific and narrowly targeted. Some people, for example, are not interested in cutting hearts and other snowflakes themselves. For example for stock photographers. They earn it. And believe them they are diverse topics, who do not know. With all due respect to colleagues, when there’s nothing to write about, we’ll charge about field workers and about the fact that the whole world is in shit. I don’t know, but I’m somehow ashamed to read THIS on the resource of the author, who again I put a lot of work here. I do not like the product, whether it’s a bokeh mask, whether it’s something from yongnau, whether it be a mirrorless mirror. Well, write at least a little constructively. You also write that Arkady is bad, because on his resource he places vulgar toys and socks, I'm sorry in SEARCH advertising. FSE is a scumbag Malshik. Not a good one. By the way, I have a vise and pressure gauges there, sorry for my frankness. Dear colleagues. Be kind.
I don’t earn money on these masks. Personally, I really like this idea, but everyone can and sees what is convenient to see, there is no escape from this.
Arkady, hello.
Allow the question off-topic.
There is a lens from the Vega 11-U magnifier, bought after a review on your site. I use Kenon 1000D on the camera as a macro lens. Since I like his picture, I do not leave hope to shoot other genres.
The question is - will it start with such a helicoid? The link is long, I'll leave it at the end of the post.
All adapters are available - ring M39-M42, M42-EOS.
Confusingly, if I use a lens with extension rings, it becomes even more macro, so to speak. This thing, in fact, also increases the distance between the lens and the matrix and allows you to change it within 5 mm - there is a suspicion that I will be able to more or less focus in macro, and focusing into the distance will remain inaccessible.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tinray-M42-to-M42-Focusing-Helicoid-Ring-Adapter-12-17mm-Macro-Extension-Tube/183208821326?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3Db8da5027651c4584b49199005068fcb1%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D15%26sd%3D332734307802%26itm%3D183208821326&_trksid=p2481888.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3A7389b806-4974-11e9-9ed2-74dbd1804016%7Cparentrq%3A90a64c3f1690aade24d323e1ffff7cdb%7Ciid%3A1
You will have to buy an extra large working distance for this lens from a mirrorless camera.
It's a shame :( It’s not fate, apparently. Thanks for the clarification
Our tsia trouble for you ...?
using such masks on lenses actually significantly lowers the luminous flux ... and is there any point in that?
The ND filter also lowers, but this does not mean that it is meaningless))
And the same polaric, by the way, also significantly lowers, and nevertheless - in some cases it is simply irreplaceable.
Well, a polarik is still more often used when shooting a landscape during the day to get a darker sky, and there this problem does not stand so seriously. Well, reflections still, but they also use a tripod quite often there. And the ND filter originally had this purpose. So the arguments are not very :)
The problem with masks is the small size of a relatively large screen lens. Aperture lenses are usually large. Therefore, the luminous flux is not just reduced, it is meaninglessly reduced :)
Well goes down and okay. I doubt that the light will be directly critically missed. For the studio this should not be a problem, as in the landscape. But there will be an effect
Work on the Internet
Meat grinder photo, Nikon D3200, Nikror AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
Photo on the "meat grinder" - 2
Photo on the "meat grinder" - 3
How would this be removed?
Hooray! I have Nikkor 50 MM, 1.8G, And again to the meat grinder ...
Hooray! I have Nikkor 50 MM, 1.8G, And again to the meat grinder ... 2