2013-02-27 // 20:14:31
Migorn
Yep, funny that the "petzval effect" does not affect the pole. Completely acceptable after a little thinking and some hypothesis about the 'natural' position of the trees, but still intriguing. But what's even more and just crossed my mind is what you were "seeing" when doing this one...

^ The "Petzval effect" does not always show up as "swirls." I have a few shots of my wife posted here taken with Petzval lenses that do not swirl at all. There need to be contrasting light and dark areas in the background for the out of focus parts to show this effect. As for what I was seeing when I shot this, I knew when going out into the yard that the distant trees would help exaggerate this effect, but even after seeing it on the ground glass I was still surprised by the print. This is what I love about analog photography: the surprises. Even if this effect were possible digitally, I would have known what it looked like the moment I shot it. Where's the fun in that? (Plus, if it were digital I would have shot 20 or 30 images to get it right instead of only one!)

2013-02-27 // 19:27:13
noidmeister
the swirl is good

^ Thanks. Sometimes it is good, other times it is a distraction. The tricky part is knowing which is which!

2013-02-27 // 17:19:32
BastianK
What lens do you use?
Aero Ektar?
What makes this "swirl" thing? Wow!
And it got some sepia tones i think...

^ Thanks, Bastian. The lens is a Bausch & Lomb Cinephor projection lens. They are quite common, affordable and fun to use. They have no aperture or shutter, so you need to use either very slow film that allows for hand-operated exposure times of one second or more, or a camera with a built-in shutter like a Graflex Speed Graphic. I do both. The Petzval is one of the oldest lens designs, going back to the 1840s. When you use one beyond the format it was originally intended, the "swirls" show up on the edges of the image circle. Here is a beautiful example from Flickr (not mine): »link