Lauren and the Leaves: the Lenticular Results


Last autumn, I photographed my friend Lauren as she tossed autumn leaves into the air.  I used my Nimslo four-lensed film camera to capture the moment, and combined all four images into a magic-motion print.

I posted the picture in my blog, and received some comment blowback from a lenticular “expert” who felt that my efforts were not up to the standard of his talents.  Undashed by his criticism, I sent my lenticular print of Lauren and the Leaves to one of my trusted lenticular single-print companies, Snap3D.  I ordered a 16×20 print, just as a test.

The goal?  See if my Nimslo shot might turn out as a successful printed image.

In order to show you the results… here they are.

Well, I have a better idea when it comes to “showcasing” the print.

Why not get my model friend Lauren to show the artwork herself?

See, the other day we met up so that I could get her to sign a New York State Fair model release – I need those if I enter a picture of anyone with a recognizable face in the photo.  Backs of heads are okay, front of heads you need a signed release.

And trust me, she loved the picture.  So I asked if she would be interested in showing off the photo in a YouTube video.  She agreed.

So, here’s Lauren of “Lauren and the Leaves” fame modeling the print of Lauren and the Leaves.  Enjoy.

Nice, eh?

So here’s the deal.  This is definitely earmarked for the New York State Fair, and maybe even for the Durham Fair afterward, since both photo fairs take 16×20 prints as standard display.

And once this picture claims some success … notice I said “once,” not “if” or “maybe” or “hopefully”…

Then I feel that I’ve gotten what I need from this project.


4 thoughts on “Lauren and the Leaves: the Lenticular Results”

  1. I would say that since I’ve been creating lenticular for more than 20 years now that does qualify me as an “expert”.
    4 images might look fine enough from a novice’s standpoint, but I can tell you from an expert’s perspective it would be even better using more frames. It would me smoother/less choppy. Doing it digitally would also allow you much, much more control over where elements fall in space. I love to see you trying, but if you as an artist would like to improve and have more control over your process then I offer my advice only for that purpose. I hope you can appreciate that. Here’s an example of a lenticular I just completed for Disney, for their Star Wars Cruise. It’s shown at the 17 minute mark…


    1. Sure, more frames make for a better/smoother lenticular. But 4 can be plenty to capture the action as he has. To increase the impact, increase the size a bit and then using software to “tween” extra frames to fill in the gaps. I’ve made many nice 16×20 and large prints from Nimslo negatives that turned out just fine. It’s more important to use them from the right distance than to complain that they don’t capture enough frames. Let’s see you capture an action sequence of 24 frames with something you can hold in your hand.


      1. Harvey,
        I wouldn’t. For an action lenticular I’d do it in a top-to-bottom lens direction (so the lens is running like Venetian blinds, not up and down like a picket fence like you have to do for 3d/walk-by pieces).
        Like this:

        I’m wondering why, if the camera’s lenses are side by side why you are getting a zoom like-effect at the bottom where the leaves are on the ground. Everything else is moving as it should…side to side…for a 3d piece. Is that because the film moved around in the camera, or you weren’t using a tripod? I’m just wondering. I’ve seen stuff like this before with film and I think it’s because the film is not always straight along x, y, or z axis in the camera…Or maybe when it was scanned in something wasn’t quite right.


  2. What I love about this picture is that it was done in an old fashioned style, it was fun and it came out very nice. What more could one ask for, beats me. Thank you, Chuck for trusting for this project!


Comments are closed.