It is easy, and everyone can do it, if they wish.

Back to basics.

This may be quite lengthy, a bit of a Friday story/blog, (although it is being written on a Tuesday)

I've been 'involved' with computing for 40 or so years. I've been 'less involved' with photography, but for more than 50 years. Personally, I am disappointed in how personal computers have developed, and also I have a similar disappointment in the lack of development of digital cameras/photography. Some things make me a bit 'crabby', even 'goat-like' according to some.

I have a belief that software can achieve much more than it does. Rapid development is stifled by marketing, company greed, patents, copyrights and so on (although there is a strong counterargument to this).

Recently, I've also been musing over the overlapping of art/science/photography. Photography is not considered as art in some societies, and from time to time I can stir a few rumblings here on opf. I was thinking of developing a Venn diagram, or similar showing, the real world and the world of images, and how the various sub categories of images overlap. We tend to talk in general terms wrt photography, but the aspirations of a wedding photographer are most likely far different than those of a landscape photographer.

More recently, I have read the quick review that Michael had undertaken on an expensive tilt shift lens in some comparisons with a lower priced canon (I see little difference in image quality, more awkwardness in use) and then Dawid's lonely bench, again taken with not a cheap lens. I see folk actually buying 'lensbabies', possibly not knowing that you can do similar with software, or with Vaseline coated filters. I think some of these purchases, are for some folk more like a pride of ownership thing - my car is better than your car 'cos it costs more, my P&S is better than your 5d, 'cos it's got more pixels, and so on. Comparative tests and assessments are virtually impossible to carry out, putting images side by side on web page, images taken at the limits of the sciences we are dealing with, can be quite meaningless. Maybe like using a garden fork to comb your hair, it sort of may work, but its a bit clumsy. I see folk coming into the digital photography arena, and being upset because they can not achieve the results that they think they should. There is a considerable misrepresentation of the camera capabilities at all levels of camera, and few raw beginners begin in 'raw', and initially they do not realise that they need to understand the other half (maybe its 80%) of the image making process, the essential stages in post processing. It is these often heavily post processed images that are used to advertise how great the camera is.

Many years ago, arguing with mechanical engineers, I tried explaining how I thought micro processors and electronics would be changing mechanical engineering. Specifically a carburettor, a fairly complex mechanical device, could be replaced with a simple electrically operated on/off fuel valve, with high speed electronic control - pulse width modulated - fuel flow. Some time later fuel injection became popular in car engines.

Currently, my belief is that you could make lenses out of old beer bottles, and correct for all the errors in software. Take a test chart with the lens, the software corrects for all aberrations - sort of more extreme ptlens, or whatever, connected with icc profiling, say.

You may know that I have also been exploring the possibility of getting into lf film, at very low cost, but I'm stuck on finding a lens. So, that is a bit of background to where I am at the moment, and if you are still reading this, then you must be here too....

Time to test a concept. Put my money where my mouth is - (small money, big mouth). Make my own lens, write my own software (or adapt a workflow to use existing software.)

I have a canon 20D camera. I have a set of cheap macro rings. I have a couple of even cheaper magnifying glasses. I have some sticky tape.






Now for the science....

Literally five minutes work, anyone can duplicate. This is _exactly_ what I did.

Step 1) look through one lens. If I position my eye, lens & object in line, I can, by moving my head and/or lens, get a magnified image. The magnifying glass operates succesfully, although the image stabalisation is not very good.

Step 2) tape lens to end of extension tubes. (mark 1 lens) (if you have no macro extension tubes then make a tube of cardboard.) these tubes were very cheap, but the air in them is as good as in tubes at twenty times the price.

Step 3) look through camera viewfinder, moving camera towards object. Result - nothing - no image, just light, maybe some shadows.

Step 4) inspiration..... use both lenses

step 5) hold second lens in front of camera and Mk 1 lens, move it to and fro - hey, sometimes I can see something, sometimes it is almost sharp, I have a new/old definition of a manual focus lens.

step 6) make Mk 2 lens. it is as shown below.






No real care was taken to line up the lens, or to make it all perfectly light tight - just taped together for a quick test for principle of operation.


step 7) take photo of something.

step 8) load image into pc.

step 9) find image on pc using picasa2.

step 10) be amazed, really, really amazed - what magical powers have been unleashed?

step 11) resize image, post on opf for 'peer review'. (I should have wiped out the exif file details, and persuaded some one else to post it under their name, for perhaps more unbiased views.)

step 12) revel in the praise (trying desparately not to give too much away wrt 'the secret of my success', without lying to those who may also have guessed.

step 13)The next stage - we have sand, I can make charcoal, hence I can make glass ;-)

but, magnifying glasses don't come much cheaper than this -




The image is posted here. http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4478

Yes, it was that simple - no post processing, no cropping, just converted raw image to jpg and resized for web (twice with Irfan view - too big the first time, and I forgot my copyright notice - so I jpg'ed the jpg - usually a bad move - non colour managed, then again (at Asher's request) with cs2 to assign srgb. Apart from 3 jpg chain, which was not deliberate, just laziness, there was absolutely no other processing involved.

Result - In another thread, where I was attempting to get to grips with 'art', I found a couple of images which did not comply with my personal definitions - I mentioned an important word - 'luck'. Although some may say that there was some skill in producing this orchid image, it was actually at least 99% luck - I just wish I had the same with lottery tickets.

The orchids (white ones) were a birthday present to my wife from our son. They were in the middle of the room on a low table. There was daylight from the patio doors, about 8ft away. I never moved the flowers, or adjusted the curtains. I went into the room, thought 'the orchids will do'. The 'lens' has no aperture setting, no focussing capabilities. For framing and focus I simply moved closer/further from the subject. It happened that for that object size, it was this much in focus at the distance to give the image cropped as shown. I never adjusted the iso value from whatever it was before. Manual focus with a sharp lens is tricky on the 20d, for this blunt lens, I started from where just beyond where it looked sharpest, set to multi-shot, and gradually moved the camera towards the flowers. The image posted was marginally 'sharper' than the other four or five.

I went back with the 24/70L - took some shots of the orchid - I'll really have to work on those to get them to look OK.

Having made up the lens again for the purpose of photographing the components, I took a few shots of a couple of more subjects. In this case the light was brighter, so I had to get really technical and change the iso setting of the camera, but again no processing.

I am not a professional photographer. For some professional photography you do not need professional gear. This maybe pushes this to the extreme, but the fundamentals of most professions is to trade off luck against skill and knowledge. If you have the five minutes, and a couple of magnifying glasses, and cardboard and tape, then this sort of messing about can be fun, and if luck is on your side, you may surprise yourself, maybe a few others. I could write another blog on why I personally like this orchid image.

but, just in case you wonder, I have just shown the image to my wife. Her response ---- 'Daaaad.., that's a failure!', and usually, she is right.....

Best wishes,

Ray

three more

three more














Best wishes,

Ray

Good to hear your account of the orchid photo.

Have you seen the fine work of Mark Tucker and his "plungercam"?--

http://www.marktucker.com/plungercam/

Hi David,

Thanks for the link. If I'm developing something, I tend to walk my own path. If it crosses others, or follows theirs, then that is OK. I had not heard of any of the guys mentioned on the other thread, either. For me, this may be a starting point, it may be an ending point.

One thing that folk used to film may appreciate, is that there is that sort of excitement, when you first brought your prints into daylight, since you can't see exactly how blunt these images are, until it's on the vdu. It is not like having to face hours of photoshopping.

Having had a quick glance at Mark's site, it seems he's coming from some other direction, and probably going another way, too.

Best wishes,

Ray

A few more random thoughts - one of the things I've noticed with these images, is the gradual tone changes, the smoothness, softness, whatever. I think it may require some skilful post processing to get a normal sharp image taken with a standard lens to give that result. Maybe, it can not be done.

Now, the real world, the real orchid/leaf/lily, exists in the analogue world. This crude lens sits in the analogue domain too. Whatever we do digitally in post processing may just be too coarse, too jaggy, to allow us to easily transfer the results back into the analogue world, to get the smoothness I mentioned.

Best wishes,

Ray

How could I be more delighted, Ray?

Magnificent in the true path of photographers much greater than I could hope to be! I enjoyed that fact that you used simple approaches to your quest and bypassed the status-ownership crap that we are smothered with. I don't think you have arrived at some artistic Nirvana place for me to be jealous of, at least, not yet!!!!

However, your work is humbling and should make people reassess how we might approach problems is general.

I hope Ray that you might look at the reference to the website of Jim Galli. He is known for disrespect to the grand and has rescued many forgotten and some considered worthless antique even ugly lenses, some with shutters and apertures, others not. He takes things apart and reassembled fronts and backs or uses pieces on their own without any respect for the make, intended function or status of one part or another! Mostly, he is worth visiting since he has shown how these old neglected pirces of glass can yield great looking images.

I'm excited that you too are guided by your own imperatives, but still think you might like to pick up some worth-almost-nothing vintage lenses for your experiments!

Asher

Thanks, Asher, and everyone else.

One of the things to consider, is that even old lenses are not obtainable for many of us. I do not really want to use an old lens, since whatever comes out, is not repeatable for others, unless the same lens can be obtained. These magnifying glasses were about 2 gbp, I bought them some months ago, have used them for their original purposes (still had the packaging). They were bought from the local 'cheap shop', I expect everywhere has similar shops that sell toilet rolls, soap, plastic cups and the like. I suspect Leica equivalents can be bought in a stationary store, such as Staples or WH Smith's. This is easier than making a pin hole, and the bokeh is far, far better ;-).

For the image of the leaf, the exif shows as f1.8, iso 100, speed 1/800. If I had used say my 24/70L, then I do not think I could have achieved this quality, I wouldn't dream of pushing it that far from normal, into this more ethereal domain, and the Canon lens characteristics would probably not have got the 'glow' around the edges of the leaf, since that is possibly the opposite of what the Canon lenses are designed for. The temptation is to add some sort of aperture control, or otherwise increase the sharpness. There has been no attempt at any processing whatsoever on these images, no attempt of setting up the subject, lighting, whatever. I've no idea of what any test charts may look like, but I think you may well agree the results look as if they could be printed, and that they may not look out of place hung on someone's wall.

I have some 9 inch plastic drain pipe - I can see a telephoto lens in the distant future ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

Ray, what a wonderful thread. I am also deeply involved in software, and I share your sentiments about the state of the art having to be further. We are doing a lot of research to try to contribute a bit in that regard

Bravo on your lens! You know what the worst bit is? I have a 1970s Ramsa 135mm f/1.8 lens that actually ghosts/glows more than your constructed lens! My images with it look exactly like your flowers, wonderfully soft and dreamy, to the point of no-use! (I suspect there is extreme reflection off the sensor back into the lens or something).

I do love the second flower of your second post... the interplay between the beautiful colours, the softness, and the bright highlights, is very pleasing indeed.

You know, it all depends what the intent is, and what visual style you want to project. If you want the style you have shown here, you'd have to work quite a bit with your 24-70 to get it. Analogue or not, I do believe you could achieve exactly that (of course, it's so much easier to destroy information that to create it!) but, on the other hand, if you want the style and clarity your 24-70 provides, it'd be near impossible to perform image processing to achieve the same result.

I do believe, not *impossible* - but very, very difficult. The best any artist/scientist/photographer can do, is to keep an open mind, and use the right tool for the right job. You seem to have illustrated that here phenomenally well here, sir!

Ray West said:

I have some 9 inch plastic drain pipe - I can see a telephoto lens in the distant future

Click to expand...

Hi Ray

Very enjoyable thread, I admire your creativity and invention and look forward to your telephoto lens, fascinating!

its true

Hey Ray,

I've been down this path quite a bit lately. I started with literally hand holding objectives in front of my open lens mount and then went on from there. The hand holding gives you tilt and shift options as well. I don't think its too hard to make your own bellows either.

All kinds of stuff works, but I have found old kodak pocket camera lenses to be great and they are not too expensive.

You can also order meniscus lenses from places like edmunds too for about $10.

Old lenses also work really well too for parts.

Eric

Ray West said:

I have some 9 inch plastic drain pipe - I can see a telephoto lens in the distant future ;-)

Click to expand...

That one caught me off guard and I choked a little bit on my ice water laughing.

Regards,
Greg

Bonjour Ray
No doubt your approach is meaningfull… it MUST recall all of us, that photography(ies) is all about photographer's intent.
The "pro" camera and lenses as well as cardboard "bricolage" are just tools… wether they are affordable or not.
If you're poor, if you're rich, if you're a pro or if you're a newbie amateur, what counts is:
- what your intent is
- how you'll reach your goal/aim/wish

In the past numerous artists had shown that there can be art with almost no tool, as an example I would link to Andy Warhol and his polaroid pics / Red Books. The question is not to like or not his work, the answer is that it is considered by many as Art…

So back to your thread, yes is does prove that you're intent is:
- get rid of expensive gear and software
- build you're own stuff with your brain and hands
- show and produce delicate images by no chance, but research and creativity

The question is not that I like it or not, the answer is that you've brung a real answer and certainly a lot of questionning to some of us. And this is UNVALUABLE!

Thank you Ray for this refreshing approach.

Now Monsieur Nicolas,

Do you like the soft images? Even a little?

Just like a silk scarf you notice, but not the lady as she passes?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Now Monsieur Nicolas,

Do you like the soft images? Even a little?

Just like a silk scarf you notice, but not the lady as she passes?

Asher

Click to expand...

Sir Asher

my opinion on the pictures is not important. I may lik'em or not, it's another debate…

What is important to me in this thread is the approach, technically but above that, intentionaly…

I'm not quite sure what my intent was, it certainly wasn't anything formal. I played, I sort of bent with the breeze, in a few minutes I got to where I did, and was pleased. I had no idea of what the result would have been. If I used other lenses, no suitable subject, different light, then maybe no images to present. It could quite easily not have produced anything, and I would have left it, done something else. I think the majority of the result was luck, one that anyone can achieve, and many already have. Eric describes a similar frame of mind I guess, but maybe he had a more defined end point, but I do not think I will investigate old camera lenses, it would probably become too technical ;-).

I have to do things for tomorrow, but I may get chance to get some larger magnifying glasses, and if I can get another set of these, make a more permanent/professional Mk 2, using black tape instead of transparent ;-)

Concerning 'the arc of intent', there is a shorter arc, far more common for me - 'the arc of discontent' (subject -concept-photo-view-rubbish)

Best wishes,

Ray

Hi,

I overspent on buying glass - all of £8.00, but that included a 5 inch lens at £3.99. Made up the new 'black tape' lens, made more images, this time out side, learnt more. If anyone is interested, I'll post more.

Best wishes,

Ray

If anyone is interested, I'll post more.

Click to expand...

Hi Ray,

Yes please. Quite fascinating! At first I thought you might have perfected your pin-hole lens, but you fooled me.

BTW, if you've got any spare time (about two 'phone calls worth should do it) I'd like an affordable 500mm prime.

Regards,

Stuart

I've gone back and forth over this thread and have mixed views.

To be candid, I praise Ray's ingenuity and creativity, but the imagery does little for me, apart from prove that one can get an image into a digital camera using raw (no pun intended) elements.

Ok, there a few shillings worth of glass, but there's a 20D that sits on the other end of it, hardly retro in context.

I wholeheartedly agree with the eye, heart and mind behind the lens philosophy, but i'm strugglling with the example's intent.

If one looks through the ages at photographers such as Lartigue, Kertesz, Kahn, Man Ray etc, most employed equipment / techniques deemed either state of the art or at least modern at that time, to bring us images we now consider nostalgic or basic. In 100 years we will look back at the images taken today with the same level of nostalgic interest.

The digital medium provides us with a new way to paint with light and opens up many avenues for exploration, however the evolutionary train rolls on and one can choose which station to get on or off at.