Frankenlens: A Polaroid Fused with a Micro Four Thirds Camera

Here’s an interesting project that photographer Gabriel Verdugo Soto put together this last weekend by slapping together an old polaroid lens/aperture mechanism and a micro four thirds camera. In order to keep the lens in focus, he measured the distance from the lens to the polaroid paper in the orignal camera and used macro tubes to ensure the same distance was maintained between the lens and the sensor. The whole thing was then attached to a 52mm ring, and held together using that white epoxy clay you see in the pictures.

Here are some samples taken using the aptly named frankenlens:

Another cool aspects of the frankenlens is the ability to create a “ghosting effect.” The 52mm ring mentioned before has a small hole above the diaphragm; leaving this hole uncovered lets a small amount light in and creates an interesting effect, which you can see in the samples below. Cover the hole, and the ghosting effect disappears.

If you wanna learn more about the frankenlens — or maybe put your own together — be sure to head over to the original article on Mr. Verdugo Soto’s website. There are more pictures and details there that are well worth checking out.

(via DIYPhotography)

Image credits: Photographs by Gabriel Verdugo Soto and used with permission

  • Kozmo Nauta

    please dont!!!!

  • Joey Duncan

    Maybe I don’t know what the other lens does, but I see no significance in the photos other than poor pictures that look like they were taken through a window after a storm.

  • Dave

    That’s a lot of work for crappy photos.

  • MikeAlgar42

    I’d like to see more photos that aren’t so generic to see if it was worth it. There is an interesting ghosting effect from it though.

  • Joey Duncan

    Not sure “interesting” is the right word, it appears to be a reflection, or light leak….. Honestly, if you want a old picture, go buy an old camera at a swap meet and use that, then you being true to what you want…. not trying to “fake” it.

  • wickerprints

    A more accurate term for the stray light entering through a hole in the side of the lens is flare, not ghosting.  Ghosting refers to a doubling of some part or feature of the image, usually due to spurious reflection within the optical system.  Flare, as we see in this instance, is caused by non-image forming light.

    Terminology aside, while I appreciate the inventiveness that it took to assemble such a device, I have to say that such endeavors are much more successful when one actually understands the optical principles underlying the design of photographic lenses.  I’m not saying that the measure of success is creating an aberration-free lens–but rather, that the results one gets in this naive fashion is purely accidental; whereas, if one studies photographic optics, at least the result can be controlled to some extent.

  • cybervanig

    I generally don’t comment on too many articles, but in this case I cant help myself. This is one of the more pointless photography projects I have seen in a while.

  • Darren Ward

    get a life dude?

  • Because

    It might be ‘interesting’ to him. It’s all semantics. Maybe he meant intriguing, but that really implies some sort of interest.

  • belo

    jajjaja funny to read these comments XD, it wasn´t that much work, just a couple of hours, the shape of the franken is so weird because it uses the old diaphragm mechanism of the polaroid, the lens is crappy by itself, it is made of plastic, has a lot of chromatic aberrations, and the resolution ain´t really good (after all it was created for instant printed photor), but, in creative therms if i want the effect of an old plastic camera on digital i can have it, …i did the franken just to see how the image would look like, just for fun, the ghosting/flare hole i did, i did it just because i want it, i believe that perhaps with a little more experimentation the sidekick hole can be useful for artistic work

  • big foot

    ruined the DSLR  lens to do this eyesore, epoxy putty few tubes of buy to waste in a waste of time!

  • SheppardJewell73

    my classmate’s mom made $ 18460 l ast week. s he is ge tting p aid o n the l aptop a nd mo ved in a $ 571 600 house. A ll sh e did w as g et lu cky an d fo llow the t ips ma de cl ear o n th is si te 

    ⇛⇛⇛⇛► (Click At My Name For Link)

  • Adam

    As usual, hacking a lens and putting it on a digital body = utter waste of time rubbish. The crop factor? Garbage. Colors? Garbage. Anybody who does something like is basically outing him or herself as not understand a damned thing about what makes a good photo.

  • Daniel Goodale-Porter

    Wow, a lot of hate here.  I personally applaud the creativity and curiosity.  I’m sure this lot would say the same things when they saw the first digital photo 

  • Dave

     I don’t think you could have missed the point more completely.

    The first ever digital image could be considered revolutionary. What Gabriel did, bless his heart, is take a Lamborghini, remove the front wheels, and attach a horse to tow it around at 5mph. To explain, a modern micro four thirds camera would be like a Lamborghini compared to a Polaroid camera.

    Whatever. It’s his hobby. But this should explain why the majority of comments are people scratching their heads. What probably took him all afternoon, I could have done in five minutes with Photoshop: Drop the contrast, drop the saturation, drop the sharpness and shift the color channels around until the whole thing looks refracted all to hell.