>>3230410Sorry, I'm the OP from this old archived thread:
https://archived.moe/p/thread/3210596/I'm using the cobbled together "Dream Lens" you see in,
https://archived.moe/p/redirect/1514399390406.jpg for all except
>>3230200 which uses the "Super Dream Lens" in this image with 136mm worth of macro extension tubes. Of the Dream Lens photos, only the OP photos goes without 56mm of extension tubes. Keep in mind that the Dream Lens has a 12mm extension tube on it because it won't work properly without it. So, technically it has 68mm of extension tubes attached.
Specs for the Dream Lens,
Lens Diameter: 62mm
Focal Length at Infinity: 127.5875mm (Either 127mm or 128mm)
F-Stop: f/2.5
Cost to make: $8.05 ($8.05 for reverse ring to use as a mount (JB Welded to lens barrel) + the 12mm section from a $23.95 set of all-metal Vivatar extension tube set.)
Specs for the Super Dream Lens,
Lens Diameter: 90mm
Focal Length at Infinity: 250mm/9.84252"
F-Stop: not calculated yet
Cost to make: $24.76 ($19.77 since lens from magnifying glass was free)
Note: Has 55mm filter threads on rear to attach filters and uses a reverse ring to mount to camera.
Software I used was Photoshop CC 2017. Some images like
>>3230215 and
>>3230194 are HDRs made via the HDR Efex Pro 2 plugin. This one
>>3230194 was a mistake when I selected 2 extra images not part of the original subject. I prefer to leave things alone, but sometimes the subject is just too boring unto itself. Check the exif for lack of Exposure Time data to know which are HDR.
>>3230430It is actually in the board rules:
http://www.4chan.org/rules#p>3. Even though EXIF data is made available when encoded, please post as much relevant technical information as possible, such as: camera, kit, lens, etc.>4. Include a short description with your photograph, such as when and where it was photographed and under what circumstances.>5. As with the art critique board, only constructive criticism will be tolerated. 
