General C&C Please - Experimental

I'm looking for general feedback on these. They were quick experimental test shots I took this afternoon using a very odd lens. PP was only LR5 'Auto', some boost in vibrance/clarity, and some noise reduction. No sharpening or blur applied. Just want to see if these have an appeal to them.

as they are...just okay, but I think you could make an abstract painting in post......

I think they're too soft. When you start to see halos around the subject (in this case the flowers) I think you've gone too far. Take some test shots with varying degrees of softness and see which one looks best. Kind of like with portraits...you can make it too soft and it loses detail, too sharp and you see more detail than you'd like. I don't think you can go wrong with sharper flowers...it's the detail that makes them interesting.

That's the thing - I didn't create the softness, nor did any post work, it's created by the lens. These were taken with an x-ray lens, Rodenstock 95mm f1/6.

I like the last two. I think this is different and intriguing, maybe something that could be put on the wall in an artsy place. Maybe I'm just saying this because I put a lot of painting on my walls and it reminds me of that. I think that's neat that it wasn't done in post, as soon as I saw them I imagined they were over processed.

Thanks Naraly. #3 is my favorite, with #2 as runner up. Getting a print of #3, and it's going on the wall (I think).

They don't appeal to me. Just chiming in.

I like the composition of #2, but would prefer the flowers sharp with creamy background.

chubbyone wrote in post #16229137
They don't appeal to me. Just chiming in.

I like the composition of #2, but would prefer the flowers sharp with creamy background.

Thanks. I'm trying to get a feel for the general opinion of the result using this (these, I have 7 of them) lens. While I really like 3 & 2, I'm not 100% sure about the whole thing.

I shot all of these by holding the lens unmounted in front of the camera. They were also done in a few minutes after I got home from picking up the lenses. I think with practice, there is potential for these lenses, if I have the patience.

I really like the soft 1960's feel, but you need more DoF.

StaticMedia wrote in post #16234971
I really like the soft 1960's feel, but you need more DoF.

At a focus distance of 2.5", on a 95mm at f/1.3, this is all the dof you can get.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16227581
That's the thing - I didn't create the softness, nor did any post work, it's created by the lens. These were taken with an x-ray lens, Rodenstock 95mm f1/6.

I worked in the x-ray field for over twenty years so I think the lens is mis-labled. X-rays aren't focused by an optical lens. Typically, the x-ray beam is directed out of the electron tube by the electron beam striking a spinning tungston target set at a 45° angle. The x-rays that get deflected from the target pass through a collumator with lead 'shutters' that can be adjusted to control the size opening that will allow the x-rays to pass through.

X-rays can't be focused onto film or sensor to produce an image like a camera because the x-rays aren't reflected off the object. The film or sensor has to be placed behind the object being struck by the x-rays. The x-ray film is exposed by being struck by x-rays passing through an object rather than being reflected from an object. The image seen on x-ray film is caused by the amount of x-ray able to pass through an object because of its density. The denser the object, the less radiation strikes the film to expose it. It's density that gives an x-ray image the tonal gradation to make it viewable.

Hmm. It's a Rodenstock Heligon-XR 95mm f/1.3. The guy I got it from builds x-ray machines like those used at airports. There is (was) a massive flange on it, and from what he was saying (and I wasn't paying full attention), this lens directed the image into a right-angle viewer thing, that then would make it show up on the monitor/TV.

I'll post a pic of the lens later tonight, but basically, this is the lens: (not my image)

http://m1.i.pbase.com …haf.95mmXRHelig​on2635.jpg

I like where you're trying to go with it, but it just feels like something you would see on Instagram.

I wasn't really trying to go anywhere with it. I literally had just gotten home with the lenses, and wanted to see what they produced. These were the most appealing. I hope to experiment with them some more. I may actually weld an adapter to the back of one. These were all done holding the lens in front of the body about 1/2 - 1" away. "Focus" (and I use the term lightly) is achieved by moving the whole lens forward and back, as there is no focus ring. I may try and build some type of adjustable adapter.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16236230
I wasn't really trying to go anywhere with it. I literally had just gotten home with the lenses, and wanted to see what they produced. These were the most appealing. I hope to experiment with them some more. I may actually weld an adapter to the back of one. These were all done holding the lens in front of the body about 1/2 - 1" away. "Focus" (and I use the term lightly) is achieved by moving the whole lens forward and back, as there is no focus ring. I may try and build some type of adjustable adapter.

This is the sharpest focus you could achieve? I feel like that lens would frustrate the poo out of me. Even if I was using it just for fun.