Lytro’s Interactive Light Field Images are Now Viewable in Full Glory on 500px


One of (if not the) main challenges Lytro faces as it attempts to bring light field photography into the mainstream is the fact that there aren’t a lot of places you can actually experience the ‘living’ images where they’re, to use Lytro’s vernacular, alive.

Most places just don’t support viewing of the interactive images, and while Lytro has taken some steps to remedy this in the past, the company just took what amounts to a giant leap.

Putting its partnership with 500px to good use, Lytro yesterday announced that the ‘living’ images will be very much alive on the photo sharing site.

Announced in a blog post on 500px ISO, the move comes as publicity continues to swirl around the recently-released Lytro Illum and its potential to change photography as we know it.

And now that the interactive images taken with this camera will be viewable on one of the Web’s most popular photo sharing sites, one of the major hurdles standing in Lytro’s way has been, if not removed, then significantly shortened.

To find out more about the shift or take advantage of a 500px-exclusive discount on the Lytro Illum, head over to the ISO blog by clicking here. You can also visit (and bookmark) Lytro’s newly-created 500px profile to keep up with the best-of-the-best living images the site’s users upload.

  • Cathal Twomey

    this only works digitally, which is great and all that…..however not much good if you print off your photos , unless you print off 2 versions,with the different depths of field…. but still i can see the merit.. just NAW…not that interested

  • Jim Johnson

    The idea is that you pick or refine your focus, then print.

    It’s designed to give you some wiggle room in case you didn’t get what you wanted in camera, or to give you another option after you have captured it.

    The digital thing is just a demonstration of what you can do.

  • Cathal Twomey

    I can see that Jim, its just Why?…get it right in camera first day..all these options will become a nightmare for your workflow down the road..

  • Jonathan Maniago

    A decade later, we’ll be watching light field movies on YouTube++.

    Or not. Who knows?

  • Aezreth

    The word “gimmick” comes to mind…

  • Jim Johnson

    I completely agree that this would be a workflow nightmare for professionals, but I do see its merit with others. We’ve all had those moments when we missed the focus mark.

    The one thing I lament, though, is that this is another way that technology will make up for laziness or sloppiness, and “fixing it in post” will become de rigueur. And images, overall, will suffer. I mean, why make a choice on what you want in focus and compose the shot around that when you can just decide later?

    Skill, to me, is trying to accomplish something then accomplishing it. This allows you to shoot without a complete vision for what the final image will be.

  • yamaha83

    Im all for getting it right in camera but the more info within a file is always better. thats why most professionals shoot RAW. i try and get my white balance right in camera but its nice being able to have full control of that after the fact. the use for this could be amazing in post. you can shoot shallow DOF and then later in post decide you want more in focus, or the other way around. plus most people these days view images online or on the computer so its a cool feature in that regard,.

  • OtterMatt

    Total fad. No serious photographer would ever consider using this technology.
    1) get it right in camera. take a few exposures at different focal lengths if you’re not sure it’s perfect on the first shot. it’s not like digital storage is expensive or complicated.
    2) what photographer would seriously think about giving a viewer control over the DOF? Isn’t that, yanno, a huge part of the artistic view? It’s like putting a blank canvas in a museum and just putting paints around for people to ruin it by painting profanities and crude phallic shapes onto it. I know crowd-sourcing is the new “thing”, but it just ruins art. Giving more options to the viewer denigrates the vision of the artist, for good or ill, and in this case, I see much more “ill” than “good”.

  • Banan Tarr

    So their “revolutionary” technology amounts to watching a clunky movie where the focus slowly moves from one element in a static frame to another? Got it ;)

  • AtticusDrowning

    I’m intrigued by how Lytro is going to grow in this first decade or so. Enhancing their presence online with sites like 500px is a step in the right direction for them.

    Personally, I see no reason to try to shoehorn this technology into my workflow. I have no desire to give clients control over how they view my work. I choose my focal points carefully, and I have a multitude of reasons why I use depth of field as a compositional tool.

    I do think, however, that this concept can be used as a way to tell a story with a static image. Even though it isn’t something I’m interested in utilizing, it will be fun to see what artists do with it.

  • bob cooley

    And 500px manages to get a little less relevant… le sigh.

  • vonrock

    I’m missing something, I have apps that I can essentially do this focus/blurr close/far.
    But I’m a cheap shot.

  • Cam Macduff

    They should put this in the hands of some comic book creators. You could make an awesome comic like storybook online using their reframe/refocus method. That could be quite cool for a campaign or marketing piece…

  • lexplex

    It’s kinda fun, but not really worth the expense at this stage. If it was a feature on a camera phone then I would be interested, but definitely not worth spending hundreds of pounds on and lugging around. For most photographs the functionality that this adds will be totally redundant. You need subjects close to the camera and spread along the focal plane. This tech is interesting and has some use but only some time in the future when it’s much cheaper and easier to manufacture and handle, and some of the functional problems have been resolved.

  • annacwebber

    The ILLUM files export out at 4mp… A detail I thought was odd for a 40mp sensor due to all the slices and compressing that occurs. The camera is at this time solely designed for use in the digital space as an interactive, “living photograph”

  • annacwebber

    It can be looked at a way of having more control, alternatively… You create a story/experience, almost forcing the viewer to move through the photo and discover what the photographer intended, and wants the viewer to see.