Fuzzy Macro for flower

They are the photos made by a homemade lens called NZ-B = It’s a very peculiar lens, = utterly fuzzy though in the certain condition, strangely it shows quite sharp image.

This one may seemed to be taken by any ordinary macro lens though, with a much of amazement, even an annoyance, it was done by the same NZ-B lens on Nikon Z7, AV mode.

In certain extent, this lens would work just like a fuzzy 40 mm F2 lens.

Still, under close look, the image has quite a detail.

Don’t aske me why I didn’t come here a week ago. —– It’s happened as it happened. (That is what the life is.)

When it was far fore-focused, the image became like this = I like this. I think, no other lens ever made the image like this bokeh. And the bokeh image like this only exists photographically = never in the real world.

Hind-focused (photo left) = lens was sunk beyond the infinity position / Focused (middle) / Fore-focused (photo right) = lens helicoid was fully extended = like for a close-up shot.

(Only one exception, the photo above left was taken by the Pentax 110 Auto 24 mm lens)

Quite exotic flower — I have no idea who she is.

Very impressive though, I never seen her anywhere else. — (Is it a kind of Thunbergia ?)

But this one is very common, yet I love this painting like image. (It seemed that the loss of tonal dynamic range was not caused by the softness of the lens but by the brightness adjustment of Picasa and a very bright color = red.)

Still, the same lens can produce prosaically clean photography-like image as well.

The photographer is believing that they are the user of “Photography” though, in reality, the provider of the Photography (= camera maker, photo journalism etc) is using photographer to keep and run the industry and the idea. So that, “Photographer” was made to believe a type of photography which was provided and such stereotypical style “IS” only the photography.

= The belief IS “Photography is to make a faithful copy of the subject” while blindly believing that his own eyes is seeing the true face of the subject. —– In reality, no such certainty ever existed.

And rather fragile looking Scabious —– the lens showed peculiar DOF and the size of back bokeh is gorgeous.

(But have you ever seen such bokeh image in nature ? —– they exists only in the photographic image = they are not real neither your eyes are telling the truth —– So, how can you tell that the photography IS the faithful copy of the real, without knowing your own eyes could not tell what is real.) 😀

(For example, we are not seeing square building, since we got fisheye vision as our eyes are round ball, so that, our brain is reconstructing the image following the stereotype that the building is straight = therefore, the picture of the building has to be square ! —– You see what I mean.)

——- ! ? ? ?

Here a kind of anemone ? —– anyway, the matter is the image. (If you can make a soft image like this using PS I would like to see it !)

I’m not familiar with this flower —– pretty impressive, and it looks even cannivorous. I wouldn’t be surprised if I see the dead bodies of insects laying inside, half digested. (Do you know what IS the truth.)

And suddenly here rather humble looking flower = the color of blue jeans, Indigo came from this plant. (or larger sister of her)

(If I could stop down, the image could have deeper depth of field though this lens has no iris = always fully open F2. But considering the condition as it was fully open F2, the quality of close focused image was amazingly high !)

Then, funny looking chap = the nuts of ceder tree, not a Pokemon still, he looks very very happy today !

The world seems to be pretty peaceful.

.