Sima Soft Focus Lens with Waterhouse Stops and Box
Photo Courtesy of Samuel Tang - Thanks for Sharing!
Related Local Links:
Filters FAQ (and Homebrew tips)
Bokeh pages (out of focus highlights factors)
Pinhole Pages (lens-less soft effect
photos)
Zone Plate Pages (Pinhole ring..)
Diffraction Pages
Lens Elements - A Few Go a Long Way!
With all the concern about lens resolution and sharpness, who needs a soft
focus lens? The answer could be you, if you do much portraiture with
subjects who would prefer that every wrinkle and facial defect not be
highlighted on their portraits. A soft focus effect will produce portraits
that sell well by showing your clients as they would like to be
seen.
You may also like soft focus filter effects when you want to blur out the
background, while directing attention to a central subject. A typical
wedding photography example is a bride and groom shot with the background
around them blurred out. You can create this effect with a bit of vaseline
smeared on a clear filter, as one example (see our Homebrew Filters FAQ section for more tips
and examples).
As a result, some of us search for the perfect "bad" lens. Such a lens
should be dirt cheap, considering its poor optical qualities, or so we
will happily argue with the seller. A fast lens with lots of spherical
aberration might be just what we need for that unique soft rendition that
contrasts with today's ultra-sharp camera optics. If you want to get old
style photographic results, you have to use the right old style optics.
In short, sometimes a "bad" lens is what you need!
These soft focus lenses were low cost T-mount lenses, enabling them to be mounted
on nearly any camera with the right T-mount adapter ($10-25 US and up).
Unlike more expensive lenses, these lenses lacked variable aperture rings
and mechanics, using Waterhouse stops instead. A Waterhouse stop is
simply a disk fitting inside the lens barrel (at the right point) which
has a fixed size hole in it to let light through. If you want to change
the aperture from f/4 to f/8, you have to open up the lens, pop out the
f/4 aperture disk, and put in the disk with the f/8 sized hole. Now you
see why I put it on my weird lenses pages!
The typical 52mm filter size +10 diopter lens makes a nice 100mm focal
length lens (viz., 1000mm divided by +10 diopter yields 100mm focal
length). We pick this value as 100mm is the typical short telephoto lens
often recommended for portraiture on 35mm SLRs. A 50mm in diameter element
spaced 100mm from the focal plane will result in an 100mm f/2 equivalent
lens. You can use Waterhouse stops, which are simply holes drilled
centrally in a flat black wafer (cardboard, metal, plastic..) which fits
inside the focusing tube.
Using different sized holes will vary the f/stop of this homebrew lens.
Recall that a 2 inch or 50mm diameter closeup lens without holes is an f/2
(at 100mm focal length or +10 diopters at infinity). So a 25mm diameter
hole would be f/4 (100mm/25mm = 4), and so on. Make sense?
Commercial lenses using this principle get even fancier, using a central
hole plus a ring of smaller holes to provide additional light and
softening effects. You can do likewise, simply by adding a ring of
holes around the main central hole. Experiment!
You will probably find that the cheaper single element diopter lenses make
better "bad" lenses for soft focus effects than the more costly two
element achromatic diopter lenses. You can also try stacking lenses, with
the higher diopter one closer to the film plane being recommended, to get
higher power and more distortion and soft focusing effects. The cost is
low, assuming you already have a closeup lens kit ($10 and up on EBAY) and
a T-mount for your camera, plus some cardboard tubes.
For longwave ultraviolet light, regular glass lenses of older vintages may
(if you are lucky) work to provide ultraviolet longwave photographs. Here
again, you can achieve some unique effects (including false colors) using
low cost older lenses and a UV-only passing filter (e.g., Hoya U-360 at
360 nanometers in longwave UV, cost $65 from Edmund Scientific for 2"
square filter). Oddly, tungsten films (e.g., Fuji) work surprisingly well
with ultraviolet light, to which most films have some degree of
sensitivity (as do digital camera sensors, hint).
Our Ultraviolet Photography Pages describe this
process in greater detail. Some experimentation is needed with both
exposures and films, as well as with flash light sources.
A related effort uses low cost quartz elements (again, from Edmund
Scientific) to build a low cost 100mm portrait lens which will work in the
shortwave ultraviolet range too. Given the multi-kilobuck cost of
commercial quartz optics, the option to try a low cost ($75 US for an f/4
100mm setup) quartz lens of simple design may provide some shortwave UV
capabilities too.
That's the good news. The bad news is that diffraction rules at f/40, meaning that at
this f/stop, the best optics can deliver only about 40 lpmm
resolution. And this cheapy lens is not "the best optics", so you get a
lot less than that! Still, this is a unique weird lens. You can't quite duplicate the
effect with wider angle lenses having such hyperfocal distances without
getting wide angle distortion effects which this 50mm focal length avoids.
But the real soft focus effect requires us to disassemble the lens and use
it without the internal black spacer with the tiny f/40 hole in the
center. Yes, the lens is designed to be easily unscrewed into two
elements, so you can remove or change out the Waterhouse stop with
ones of your own making as desired. Go in one direction, and you end up
with a pinhole which has a lens around it,
resulting in a bit sharper photographic effects (and less depth of field).
Remove the stop entirely, and you have a "bad" lens with significant soft
focus effects.
What is nice about the pictrol is that these settings are repeatable. You
can take notes, and find what settings seem to work best on each lens. You
can modify the Pictrol to mount in front of a regular camera lens (or use
the enlarger lens wide open on a bellows). In a sense, it is a variable
softening filter of white plastic wedges.
Since we are dealing with wedges, you have a different effect from the
circular Waterhouse stop based variants described here. The wedge results
in a triangular shaped filtering effect, with some image forming light
from the edges of the lens (where distortions may be high) while most of
the light comes from the lens center. It helps to have a camera with a
meter or autoexposure to handle such variable lighting. The white
plastic of the Pictrol's wedges also lets some light through, so you may
need to compensate a bit or bracket your exposures.
Notes:
From Modern Photography of November 1982, p. 94 Is Your Lens Too Darned Sharp?
by Lester Lefkowitz, you can achieve "instant impressionism" by using stacked low contrast
filters, a piece of clear semi-antique glass from a glass supplier in the Yellow Pages,
a 12" piece of window screen, or a piece of cellophane crumpled in front of your lens.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: heavysteam@aol.comzapcrap (Heavysteam)
Date: Tue Nov 14 2000
[1] Re: Mamiya RB Vs RZ
Mainly for portrait, group portrait, product and interior shot.
plan to get soft focus and Shift lens
The 180 SF for the RZ is probably the coolest soft focus lens in the
business.
A real money-maker, the ladies over 40 love it. I looked very closely at
the shift lens last year but I urge you to rent and try it first. I
bought a whole Horseman 985 field camera system for the price of the shift
lens (after Mamiya rebates). That gives me 6X7, 6X9, 75mm lens, 105mm
lens, 150mm lens, polaroid back, and all the tilt, shift and swing I could
want. The lenses are outstanding. I use it all the time for
architectural stuff, and use the RZ for portrait and closeup work, or
anything that requires movements. When I look back on what I've done with
the Horseman, a large percentage of the shots could not have been done
with the shift lens or the tilt/shift adapter.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: Malcolm Turner malcolmt@scientist.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Weird lenses
Do you know anything about the Itorex Pan-focus lens (f/40)?
I got one from Porter's Camera a number of years ago; they no
longer stock it. It may have been supplied by Nissei Commerce,
Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan. I wonder if they are still available. I saw
your critique of some other small-aperture lenses, but I am
interested in this particular inexpensive lens.
Malcolm Turner
malcolmt@scientist.com
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Soft Foucs
Nelson Parker nelson@together.net wrote:
>Hi all, > >I would like to try some soft focus "effects" with my 5x7 Tech IV (the >love of my life). My budget will not allow of a swank classic soft foucs >lens at this time. Any ideas on a top quality filter I might try with my >210 Rondenstock Siron? > >Thanks >Nelson
Is that what you are using, a 5x7 Technika? Poor baby. Perhaps you
could give it to me and get something good.
There are a number of ways of getting soft focus effects. A classic
method is to use a mash of some sort in front of the lens. The
diffusion will vary with the weave of the material and its distance
from the lens. You can also cut a hole in the middle which will
produce an overlying sharp image. The material can be black, gray, or
white, each with a different effect. More than one layer can be used.
This was a favorite with old time motion picture cameramen.
You can also use plastic in front of the lens with diffusing
material on it. Try the old Penthouse favorite of smearing Vaselene on
a filter or plastic sheet in front of the lens (Guccioni used to smear
it directly on the lens, but I don't recommend that).
You can also try the rear element of the Sironar alone. While it is
not a convertible lens officially, all Plasmats can be used as
convertibles, espeicially where you want some image softness. The rear
element will become quite sharp at around f/45. You will have to
calculate the stops and the focal length.
I've posted instructions in the past for doing this but if you can't
find them I will post them again. Not difficult to do.
If you have a Tessar type lens the rear element will make a blurry
but usable image.
Soft focus lenses are typically simple menicus lenses, corrected for
color buy not for spherical aberration. The spherical results in a
sort of halo around highlights, which is varied by adjusting the stop.
The smaller the hole the sharper the image. Since most lenses are
corrected to remove as much spherical as possible they won't duplicate
this effect. Using diffusion screens gets close but again does not
quite duplicate the effect of a true soft focus lens.
Experiment around and you will find a large variety of effects
possible from diffusers and masks in front of the lens.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Soft Focus
Michael K. Stenstrom wrote:
> I've been reading about Imagons. They are expensive. They use a > diffusers > with a hole in the center, and a series of holes on the outer part of > optical path. The size of the holes can be changed.
The "hole in the center, and a series of holes on the outer part of
optical path" is no more than the lens' aperture. Not a diffusor, the
imagon does not use (or need) a diffusor to obtain soft focus. Imagons are
lenses poorly corrected for spherical aberrations, and this uncorrected
spherical aberration is what shows up as the desired soft focus. When
stopping down such a lens using a normal central diaphragm, light from the
outer zones would be obstructed. But since these outer zones show the most
aberration (the central part of the lens shows practically no aberration),
this is unwanted. So they have deviced a 'sieve'-diaphragm, restricting
the central opening, while keeping several openings in the outer zone of
the lens.
This can also help you control the amount of soft focus effect you get by
balancing the areas of central and outer apertures, balancing the sharp
image from the central part of the lens, with the soft image from the
outer parts.
> What sort of soft effects does this lens create, as compared to other > techniques, such as a soft filter of softar?
A Softar filter is a plane filter, having a certain number of tiny lenses
on its surface. The spherical aberration introduced by these lenses is
what causes the soft focus effect. The different strengths Softars have
different numbers of lenses on the filter. Dutto-filters work in a similar
way, but instead of having a large number of small lenses, there are a
large number of concentric "ridges" on the filter (actually more like
concentric 'Schlieren' in the glass). Because the elements on these
filters only cover a part of the filter, the result will be a sharp image,
overlaid by the softer image. Just like the Imagon.
The effect of these two types filters is the same as that of special,
expensive, soft focus lenses. So it would be better to invest in a good,
sharp, lens, and use a Softar if and when you feel the need for a softer
focus. You can use the Softar on all lenses. And its effect is not
affected by aperture.
A soft focus lens, like the Imagon, can only be used as a soft focus lens.
Other types of soft filters often are no more than diffusors. Though the
effect looks soft, it is not the same quality as you get with Softars or
lenses like the Imagon. They do not give the combination of a sharp and
soft image as the Softars and Imagons do.
From: philtobias@aol.com (Phil Tobias)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 28 Nov 2000 02:26:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Soft Focus
A Softar filter is a plane filter, having a certain number of tiny
lenses on its surface. ... Dutto-filters work in a similar way, but
instead of having a large number of small lenses, there are a large number
of concentric "ridges"
BTW, there is a huge price difference between these two styles of
filters.
For comparison, here are NY mailorder prices for 67mm B+W filters:
Zeiss Softar 1 or 2 -- $184.50
Soft Focus 1 or 2 (Duto style) -- $37.50
I've sold countless 35mm and 645 portraits done with a B+W Soft Focus 1.
This gives a pleasantly soft look, which can still be enlarged to 16x20 or
larger, depending on format and settings. I don't recall if I've used one
of these on my 4x5s, but for the price it's worth trying.
Hope that helps. ...pt
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Soft Focus
From: "Tom Thackrey" tomnr@creative-light.com
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
Nelson Parker nelson@together.net wrote:
> I would like to try some soft focus "effects" with my 5x7 Tech IV (the > love of my life). My budget will not allow of a swank classic soft foucs > lens at this time. Any ideas on a top quality filter I might try with my > 210 Rondenstock Siron?
The cheapest "soft focus" filter is a bit of nylon stocking (aka
pantyhose) stretched over the lens. The next cheapest is to take an old UV
filter and put a bit of grease on it. It doesn't take much grease.
--
Tom Thackrey
tom at creative-light.com
www.creative-light.com
From: Dick Weld rpweld@weldcommunications.com
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Soft Focus
Go to your friendly local fabric store and buy a 1/2 yard of black tulle.
You'll usually find a selection of grades.
Dick Weld
...
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
From: Alexander Selzer selzer@gmx.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Soft Focus
Hi Nelson!
Nelson Parker nelson@together.net wrote:
> I would like to try some soft focus "effects" with my 5x7 Tech IV (the > love of my life). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yessss! :-))) We have the same love. *<:-D
> Any ideas on a top quality filter I might try with my > 210 Rondenstock Siron?
1. Use a UV filter and put a ring of vaseline on it.
2. I have an old folder about the Rodenstock Sironar with the following:
Remove the rear element. Then you have a lens (front element with
shutter)
with about 3 times the focal length of the complete lens. With full
open aperture they recommend it as a substitude for the Rodenstock
Imagon. Open aperture would be 1/3 of the normal lens.
The text describes the effect in a really nice way, that I cannot
translate :-)
Alex
--
Alexander Selzer --- http://selzer.home.pages.de
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
From: "Rupunzel_B" wnstor@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Soft Focus
....
Use clear finger nail polish instead. This is far less messy and will stay
put.
I usually apply the clear nail polish around the outside of the UV filter
leaving a small clear section in the center.
You can experiment and build up a collection of these filters that meets
what you want for image softness.
Bernice
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Soft Focus
...
The soft focus effect of soft focus lenses comes mostly from
uncorected spherical aberration. Some lenses have a fair amount of it
when wide open, the Dagor being an example. Spherical varies with the
stop, so stopping down sharpens up a soft lens.
Spherical does not cancel in a symmetrical or semi-symmetrical
lens, like the Symmar or Sironar, so the individual sections, when
used alone, do nor perform any worse this way than the whole lens.
However, they do pick up some other aberrations, which can give a
soft-focus effect. The main thing is that the focal length gets
longer.
For semi-symmetrical lenses like the Symmar and Sirronar the rear
section will have around 1.5X the focal length of the entire lens, and
the front section about 1.8 times, it will vary with the lens design.
Symmetrical lenses, like the Dagor, have about 1.8X the focal
length. The single section should be used behind the stop, if
possible.
The individual sections of a Sironar or Symmar are pretty well
corrected for coma, an unpleasant directional bluring effect which
becomes more exagerated as one moves away from the center of the
image. So is the Convertible Protar corrected for coma. Dagors are not
and are not truely convertible, because the image quality of single
cells is pretty awful unless stopped down to a pinhole.
Despite this a single section of a Sironar or Symmar may be soft
enough at larger openings to be just a little more flattering than
they are as complete lenses, when they are extremely sharp.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Soft Focus
Assuming you're willing to part with about $50-75, I'd suggest buying a
top quality soft focus filter, either the Nikon (which I use and like) or
the Hasselblad. I've also used a Tiffen or Hoya soft focus filter on my
Pentax 87 camera and didn't care for it because its effect is dependent on
the aperture used - the wider the aperture, the greater the effect but of
course you don't always photograph at a wide aperture and at the smaller
apertures it produces little or no effect. The Nikon is much better.
The trick with soft focus filters and the like is to get the soft effect
but without just making the photograph look blurry. The better soft focus
filters will do this - the image is clearly in focus but it also has the
soft effect. Also, instead of using the filter on your camera, where the
effect is somewhat unknown, unpredictable, and irreversible, you can put
them under your enlarger lens and vary the degree of softness by exposing
for part of the total time with no filter and part with the filter to
achieve different degrees of softness.
When used under the enlarger lens the effect isn't exactly the same as
when using it on the camera - on camera the filter causes the highlights
to bleed into the shadows and vice versa when used with an enlarger (or
maybe it's the other way around, I can never remember but it doesn't
matter, to me at least). Either way, it can be a very attractive look
with the right subject matter. I use my Nikon filter all the time, usually
under the enlarger.
...
From: vilntfluid@aol.com (VILNTFLUID)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 28 Nov 2000
Subject: Re: Soft Focus
>Thanks every one for the soft focus tips. Gives me plenty to chose from.
I think it might have been mentioned but a zone plate is a very
inexpensive way to get unique soft focus type images. However, it is
difficult to vary the effect and the zone plate generally requires
exposures into the seconds (although not always depending on the focal
length etc).
Keith
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000
From: "Fradley" merlin.fradley@talk21.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: good portrait de-focus filter?? (soften)
UG wrote in message ...
>I don't even know the name for them, but I know that some prof'l portrait >photographers use filters that slightly "blur" the image enough to hide >small facial lines, etc. I sometimes see an ad for some company offering >these filters in the Photo magazines. But here's my thoughts: > >1) The ad I often see shows the before and after BUT I think the after shot >looks too blury. I love crisp pictures, my vision is great up close and so >I notice every time something is not in focus. That company's product >makes the final output look just plain out of focus to me. It seems I >really want something that softens the image but still leaving it look >in-focus. > >2) I had a prof'l photographer take pictures of my family a while back and I >looked 10 years younger. I believe he used of these types of filters. And >my wife thinks her skin complexion looks great in that picture. Now I >think the filter he used is terrific but I can't reach him to find out what >it was. > >Could someone guide me to a brand / model of filter that does what I'm >looking for with portrait photography, but still keeps the images looking >in-focus?
Most comercial sf filters simply defuse the entire immage evenly. not
something I like.
Soft focus lenses were once avaliable using a metal sheet with a large
aperture in the centre for a sharp immage and smaller apertures round the
edge to provide a soft focus *halo*.
I don't know of any still made, but I believe Cockin make a filter with a
like effect. called the *dream* filter or somesuch.
The same effect can be achieved on still-life by taking one exposure in
focus and one out, on the same frame and remembering to compensate for the
two exposures. Experiment to find your ideal out-of-focus\exposure ratio
settings.
best of luck
Merlin
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000
From: "Mac Breck" macbreck@access995.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: good portrait de-focus filter?? (soften)
"Fradley" merlin.fradley@talk21.com wrote
> Most comercial sf filters simply defuse the entire immage evenly. not > something I like.
Prior to getting my Nikon Soft 1 and Soft 2, the filters I used for soft
focus/diffusion achieved the effect by having the front surface of the
filter having a irregular surface. The problem is this introduced the
prism effect (bleeding of colors). The Nikon Soft 1 and Soft 2 filters'
front and rear glass surfaces are flat, and a thin layer of silver is
vacuum deposited on the front surface. Hence, the bleeding of colors is
now a thing of the past for me. I find the Soft 1 to be a good filter,
but the Soft 2 is just too much softening. It makes me wish they'd make a
Soft 0.5 filter.
Mac
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000
From: ajacobs2 ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 72mm headache
If you find a source for 72mm and you need soft focus, go to my website at
www.aljacobs.com and make your own in about a minute....
PBurian wrote:
> 72mm is not that common. Probably 90% of filters sold are smaller. > > Lots of on-line camera stores that will deliver so why not just order one? > Popular Photography and Shutterbug have lots of mail order ads -- showing web > sites -- if you don't know where to find such stores. > > Peter Burian
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Makro lens : Confusing
Sure, this can be done. But you won't have diaphragm or meter linkage,
which would be prohibitively expensive to modify.
I've used a lot of different lenses with the AX via adapters. I was
very surprised to find that it can even autofocus my Spiratone 100mm
f/4 soft focus lens!!
Bob
FRom Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] The "airiness" of an image
There are filters designed to add haze, usually called fog filters or
some similar name. They use them a lot in the movie business and Tiffen
makes several varieties for still camera use.
The cheapest fog filter is just to exhale on the front of the lens and
take a photo before the haze evaporates.
Bob
...
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Soft Focus Recommendations?
you wrote:
>I have been shooting lots of portraits of women in their thirties and >forties, using a 105 f/2.5 ai-s and AF 85mm f/1.4D. I need to soften >these--the lenses are just SOOOO sharp! The problem is that I only want a >subtle effect--most soft focus pictures I've seen seem too cheesy or too >obviously altered. Any suggestions?
My preference is for the Sailwind ProSoft #1. I use it for wedding work,
usually for all the pre-church bride's-house stuff. No one looks soft
focus, but my proofs glow like my competitor's finished prints and the
mother of the bride ALWAYS loves it, 'cause she looks 10 years younger
with what seems to be no intervention on my part.
- -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000
[1] Re: Soft Focus
Don't ignore the (more or less) equivelent Fujinon Sof Focus lenses
eitehr. They work on the same basic pricniples as the Imagons with a
slight design difference. In the cas of the Fujinon you drop the
diffusion disc into the shutter behind the front element of the lens. I
actually like this arrangemetn better than that of the Imagon. As for
image quality, I have used both and currently own a modern Fujinon 180mm
SF; I can;t do apples to apples because the Imagont hat I used in the past
was a 250 but interms of raw image quality I would say they are equal.
Both, btw, are a far better solution than anything else in terms of being
able to control areas of sharpness and softness and varying the degree of
softness. Both are typical supurb modern lenses in their own right when
used without difussion. The Fuji, BTW, only has two as opposed to the
Imagon's three difussion discs.
Ted
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: soft focus filters
> Many thanks for your good reply. I assume I have the optical type filter. > Just one more thing: I can't see any effect just looking through my > viewfinder. I assume from your answer that I don't have to worry about > that, i.e. that the effect will show up on the print even though I can't see > it just looking through my camera. Am I right ?
One thing to keep in mind is that the soft effects vary with your
lighting (seems to be more effective with contrastier lighting, specular
light loves soft focus) but also varies a lot with your f/stop, (tend to
be more pronounced at wider opennings) so WYSmaynotbeWYG.
You view the photos off your ground glass or microprism viewfinder, so
it's a rendition and it can be hard to perceive the effects, especially
if you can't quickly put it in place, remove etc. (a fabulous advantage
of using a bellows shade and drop in filters is that you can slide it in
and out) which reminds me of this which I should have mentioned
earlier... You really really need a lens shade when using softners,
don't forget they work with spreading light, and if stray light can
lower contrast in a straight shot, it can really haze out an image if
you catch any light from a softbox or hair light)
but to get back to previewing the effects, you should be able to see a
slight softening of the contrast in the view finder, look at the texture
of the subject's lips, look at specular reflections in the eyes, (well I
guess specular reflections is what reveils the texture on the lips
too) I would say that if you really notice significant softening in
your viewfinder then you are probably over doing it.
I used to play with shooting through sandwich bags, large prisms,
cokin's 'dream' filters doing photos of a girlfriend long ago, she
wondered if I was trying "kirilian' photos. (does anybody know what
that is?) Back when boudior photography was the hot topic on all the
Evening Magazine shows, the photog's used to take filters and schmear
them with gobs of vaseline, lens cleaning fluid, and layers of celophane
tape. I remember a friend of mine having a drawn out argument with the
lab staff about the color of her wall print, a boudior image of a chunky
lady where there was sooooo much diffusion that it seemed to me to be an
image of some raccoon eyes (lots of heavy makeup was part of the boudior
experience) floating in a pink cloud, the argument was over the color
shift of the haze, literally and I couldn't figure out how anyone could
tell, it was literally a hazy cloud.
You know, using softeners is something you need to have experience with,
something a friend uses may not work the same with you as you use
different lights, expose differently. He uses f/8 and I prefer f/5.6
or wider. I use very soft lights, she uses silver brollies.
[Ed. note: a useful reminder about papers and lab impacts from David
G.!]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
From: nimages@capecod.net (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: soft focus filters
Werner Cohn wernerco@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>I took a b&w picture of my adult daughter's head and shoulder & had an 11X14 >print made. She did not like it -- too much unflattering detail. So I'd >like to try some sort of soft-focus technique. I bought a Tiffen s.f. #1 >filter, but, looking at things only through my SLR viewfinder, I can see no >difference between an image with and without this filter. Is there such a >difference that would show up on the film ? Also, should I try a >higher-numbered filter ? Finally, Tiffen sells all kinds of other filters >meant to flatter. Does anyone have experience with those ? Any replied >will be very much appreciated.
I think you will find the Tiffen FX 1 to work to your satisfaction. A
couple of things to keep in mind over and above what others have said
about lighting and fstop. Certainly try the lower settings of fstops,
maybe F4 or 5.6 but also consider a lab that will print to lower
contrast papers. A combination of lower contrast paper and lower
contrast lighting will do more for your portraits than the filter
alone can do. Also consider the film used and the lab treatment of
that film.
You might want to pick up a book or two on people shooting as well,
there are several good ones out there, one that kind of stands out is
The Portrait, which is a Kodak publication, a bit dated but it will
get you going in good shape.
David Grabowski
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: "soft" lenses and other general ramblings.
J Z wrote:
> Just curious about this. I hear a lot of people in here saying that a lens > is "soft" when complaining about it. Maybe I havn't viewed enough pics and > compared good lenses with poor ones but what exactly does this mean? And > don't pro's pay a lot of money for a "soft focus" lens for portraits?
"Soft" is good... when you want it. "Soft" is a royal pain if it is all
you can get.
So "pro's" with sense spend their money on good lenses, and a relatively
cheap filter (they're surprisingly expensive pieces of plastic!) to make
them "go soft", whenever they want to.
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: soft focus filters
Werner Cohn wrote:
> I took a b&w picture of my adult daughter's head and shoulder & had an 11X14 > print made. She did not like it -- too much unflattering detail. So I'd > like to try some sort of soft-focus technique. I bought a Tiffen s.f. #1 > filter, but, looking at things only through my SLR viewfinder, I can see no > difference between an image with and without this filter. Is there such a > difference that would show up on the film ? Also, should I try a > higher-numbered filter ? Finally, Tiffen sells all kinds of other filters > meant to flatter. Does anyone have experience with those ? Any replied > will be very much appreciated.
The overall effect of soft filters depend on their working method, your
lighting, and your exposure.
most softeners work by spreading light, (most optical diffusers)
removing light (black netting) or blurring (the cheaper plastic things)
spreading the light makes the highlights soften, why, cause there is so
much more of it, remember as density builds, it's doubling each
increment, so a highlight has hundreds of times more light than the
darker areas.
black netting removes light, but at each edge there is a light
refracting effect so that light spreads too.
Either will smooth out the highlights on the texture while leaving the
midtones and shadows alone. wrinkles and bumps are most obvious on the
print as darker areas because they are lightest on the neg and transmit
more light to the paper, retouching can take care of shadowed part fo
the lines and bumps, assuming there is enough room on the neg to put a
brush. over exposure can increase contrast (of course digital
retouching has other rules)
softer lighting lessens the problems as there is less contrast to place
intense highlights on each bump and ridge of lines, and their
accompanying shadows.
From: choupick@aol.com (Choupick)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: 12 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: soft focus filters
I did almost the same thing with my girlfriend. I took a head and
shoulder shot with my Mamiya C-33. Needless to say she did not like the
detail the lens picked up. I went out and bought a cheep diffusion filter
(no number on it, thats how cheap) It works just fine at f-5.6 to f-16.
the prints are now a lot more flattering. Also with this filter the
effect is hard to see through the finder, but its there. since then I've
also used an old black stocking cut up, and clear nail polish on a sky
filter. all of them had different effects that were neet to play with.
but I'm just a playful amature.
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Sailwind Soft Diffusion Filters
you wrote:
>What is the difference between the "Professional" and the "HI" models? I >cannot discern this from the website.
In practice very little. Their literature says that the ProSoft models are
for use with diffuse illumination and the HiSoft for more direct
illumination like parabolic reflectors or silver umbrellas.. The dimple
pattern varies slightly.
- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
[Ed. note: Mr. Meyers is the author of many photography related resources
including articles in Modern Photography...]
From ROllei Mailing LIst:
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
From: Edward Meyers aghalide@panix.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] coke classic glass
About single-element lenses. Norman Roshschild used a
+10 dioptor single element as a soft focus lens. He put
it into a bellow for focusing. It turned out to be a
100mm f/2 (about) lens. Spiratone later "stole his idea"
and introduced the Portragon 100mm f/4 soft focus lens.
Then others followed. I shot many jobs with one (original
+10 dioptor in a bellow).
Norman also spearheaded the use of shooting thru wierd glass
sheets which he picked up in his travels thru out the world.
I did it both with shooting and duping. His work appeared
in Popular Photography for about 30 years from 1960 on.
Ed
[Ed. note: long sold, but for info on large format soft focus portrait
lenses and pricing...]
rec.photo.marketplace
From: "ka@onramp.net" ka@onramp.net
[1] FS:Kodak soft focus lens for LF 305mm
Date: Sun Jan 28 2001
Kodak portrait lens 305 mm f/4.8 in #5 universal synchro shutter diffusion
varies with f stop. Add romance to your pictures, effect can not be
duplicated with diffusion filter, great for landscapes and portraits.
$ 450.00+shipping
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] MM vs AE lens
> From: muchan muchan@promikra.si > Organization: ProMikra d.o.o., Ljubljana > Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to > Date: Fri, 02 Feb 200 > To: contax@photo.cis.to > Subject: Re: [CONTAX] MM vs AE lens > > What spherical aberation (aberration?) affects to the properly focused > part of image? (when lenses are not fully corrected, for the sake of less > harsh bokeh.)
Probably the best example is Rodenstock's Imagon and the knockoffs of it
done by Fuji and Mamiya. These are famous "soft focus" types of lenses
which have a dreamy look in the images. They use a combination of
uncorrected spherical aberration and a stop plate with multiple holes
to produce soft focus images. Take out the plate and shoot wide open
and you are getting pure spherical aberration.
Fuji used to make an 80 or 85 in M-42 mount using this design for their
35mm SLR cameras back in the 70s. If you could find one today and use
with an adapter you would have a great soft focus lens for Contax.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] MM vs AE lens
> From: "Austin Franklin" austin@darkroom.com > Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to > Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 > Subject: RE: [CONTAX] MM vs AE lens > > I was never a fan of those lenses...though one of our photographers loved > them. I always did whatever in the darkroom...
There are two schools of thought on this. When you shoot through a soft
focus lens or soft focus filter the lighter areas tend to spread into the
darker areas.
In the darkroom, unless you are printing onto reversal paper, similar
filters do just the opposite, spreading the shadows into the lighter
areas.
Both effects can be nice depending on the image, but they are very
different.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List;
Softars have little raised "dimples" on their front surface. These act
like little lenses, forming secondary images which are superimposed on the
main image formed by the lens. Since the dimples combined with the lens
change the focal length, the secondary images are out of focus. This
works a lot like the "sink strainer' plate in soft focus lenses.
No other filter I know of works the same way as a Softar, so their effect
is still unique.
You can use them in the darkroom, too, on the enlarger, but as I explained
in my earlier post it produces a different look.
Bob
[Ed. note: a lens with 2 diaphragms? ;-)...]
Yes, that's the Smooth Trans Focus lens I mentioned earlier. It has two
diaphragms!! So far I've found it very difficult to figure out since it
comes with no instructions at all.
Bob
[Ed. note: long sold, but for price info only - these do show up now and
again!]
rodenstock imagon 300mm 5.8 lens with all disks ...ex shape 695.00 plus
shipping
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
jess4203@aol.com (Jess4203) wrote:
Soft focus lenses have uncorrected spherical aberration. The results
are both a slight haze over the entire image and a sort of halo around
bright objects, highlights, etc. There is a core sharp image. Its an
effect hard to get with external diffusers or other attachments.
You are correct about the moving element. Most of these lenses are
triplets rather than Tessar types. The correction for spherical
aberration depends on the spacing of the elements. A provision of made
to move (usually) the center element varying the lens from well
corrected and sharp to quite soft.
The stop also varies the softness but being able to vary it with a
moving element gives some control other than stop and has a somewhat
different effect. Wollensak made a number of lenses of this type.
Most simple soft focus lenses are single componenent, usually two
cemented elements, corrected for color but not spherical. The Kodak
soft focus lens is of this type, as are very many others. Here, the
control over the degree of softness is the f/stop. The more the lens
is stopped down the sharper it is.
These lenses are correctd for coma. Coma is a sort of directional
spherical aberration. It becomes more severe as you move away from the
center of the image. The blur spots are "comet" or tear drop shaped,
hence the name coma. It is a particularly disturbing kind of
aberration, quite ugly. You can get a good idea of what coma looks
like by taking the front cell off of a Tessar type lens or by using a
single element of a Dagor, both have plenty of it.
Coma is reduced by stopping down just as is spherical but is not a
very attractive sort of effect where some spherical simply looks a
little blurry, like the world before morning coffee.
---
[Ed.note: long ago sold, but info presented here on the item and
construction...]
For sale, in 62mm Kenko Softon II filter; in kenko jewel case and box
(which has the price tage of 3300Yen on it!). Filter glass and screw
threads (both front and rear) in mint condition; box is a little worn, and
jewel case is a little cracked, but perfectly functional.
The design of the filter mimic the B+W soft image filters. You see little
circles randomly on the surface. These little circles cause the soft tone
in images.
$11 shipped via USPS First Class for US address.
From Minolta Mailing List:
Most of these type of questions can be answered by checking the MUG
pages and reading the FAQ pages. http://www.cs.kun.nl/~jwhub/mug/ In
the case of this lens there is an external link to a page which
pictures and describes this lens. http://cameraquest.com/minsoft.htm
To quote from said page..." [it] has infinitely adjustable spherical
aberration set on its 0 to 3 softness dial. 0 is sharp, 3 is maximum
softness. The photog sees a definite visual change as softness dial
is rotated. The effect, however, varies with the f/stop -- as in all
soft focus lenses." I have a small example posted at
http://www.Minoltians.ws/pets.html
eric
From Minolta Mailing List:
I have always had a fascination for the soft focus lenses since early on
in photography. the minolta varisoft 85 is by far the best I have tried
with the mamiya 145 soft a close second.
I have worked and owned the following at one time or another
1) minolta vari soft 85 (still own used with an adapter on 9)
the effects of the fantasy cards are very different than these lenses. the
fantasy cards, take two picture (mutli expose) and different focal length
to create the soft focus but it is not good.
the 85 varisoft is very rare to find these days, if you find one buy it
and you wont' be diappointed. I paid about 850 usd for min 14 years ago. I
remember my credit card hit the limit and I had no money for a while.
-------------------------------------------
From Minolta Mailing List:
Hi! As I know, Minolta Varisoft introduces a percent of a spherical
aberration into the picture so it is a unity of two "virtual" elements:
the first one - fully sharp, the second one - with spherical aberration,
the result is the soft image.
Very interesting way of obtaining a soft image
was used by Zeiss in its early Planar 85/1,4 portrait lens.
An aperture in the lens is of triangle shape,
so a picture consist of "fluently overlaping"
images - less sharp from triangle corners (an edge
of the lens element) and more sharp from the centre
of the triangle.
Any other comments?
Regards, Zbigniew
From: jess4203@aol.com (Jess4203)
Mike:
At $800 used, this is an expensive way to produce a degraded image. I
can't find my Rodenstock brochure, but, as I remember, this lens is merely
a single element (two, tops) with some diaphragms which look like a
kitchen drain sieve with a large aperture drilled in the middle. In other
words, there is a large main aperture and about twenty smaller, off-axis
apertures. There are various forms of this disk for various amounts of
diffusion and depth of field.
I would try instead: softars (a soft focus filter), the old vaseline on
the filter trick, diffusion under the enlarger with a diffusion screen or
an old nylon stocking, window screen or tulle cloth in front of the lens,
a hand magnifier for a lens or maybe two of them mounted in a barrel (that
is, a Sherlock Holmes magnifying lens from the dollar store), one of your
usual lenses with the cells screwed apart a little (this is how soft focus
tessars are designed), using a single cell from one of your lenses wide
open or close to it. I would also try some of the Imagon type diaphragms
with some of the above lenses.
You should be able to get one of the above for $20 tops, and my guess is
that you can produce very artistic images that satisfy you completely and
save the $800.
OTOH, the Imagon evidently works well or they wouldn't still be making it.
If you are doing high end product stuff and can afford the price and need
the snob appeal, go for it.
HTH,
From: Peter Wright pwright@cyberus.ca
I had a 250mm Imagon and was rather ambivalent about it. I used it for
portraits and found that when the focus was on the softness was lovely.
However, more frequently than not the subject shifted a bit and was simply
out of focus. I did some side by side testing with my 240 G-Claron using
Tiffen SoftFX #1 and #3 filters. Both my model and I consistently picked
the images using the SoftFX #3 as the preferable images. They had the same
smoothness as the Imagon but were supported by a sharp image. I've heard
good things about the Softars as well, but they are hideously expensive. I
sold the Imagon for $600US and now use the SoftFX filters exclusively. The
Imagon might be better suited to a Hasselblad or RZ as you can check the
focus more easily than with a 4x5.
Cheers,
mkuszek wrote:
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
It is in a category almost all by itself. I say almost because Fuji alsoo
make soft focus lenses witha very similr approach. I own a Fuji 180.
The major difference i can see is the placement of the difussion discs and
the fact tht the Fuji's hvae two discs as opposed to three for the
Imagon's. The prices are about the same.
Ted Harris
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
you wrote:
Most movie & TV production companies I know of use Tiffen
products (for which Tiffen has won both Oscars & Emmys). Tiffen courts
this market agressively and produces filters in the very large sizes
necessary.
For the professional portrait photographer this is often not an
option. When the mother of the bride wants a tight head shot who am I to
deny her (and deny myself the chance to sell a 16x20?
Personally I use the Sailwind ProSoft #1 for almost every
portrait I shoot, including elementary school children. My proofs look
like everyone else's finished stuff, retouching bills are way down, I sell
more proof sets, and since the proof look so good, people think the
finished stuff will be even better and orders are up.
The effect of using a soft focus filter under an enlarger lens
gives, IMHO, a subtly different effect than when the same filter is used
in from of the camera lens. Not better or worse, but different,
particularly with highlights. Like every photographic technique, when it
produces the desired results, it's indispensable. When overused by a tyro,
it's a cliche.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
There is no stated filter factor. B+W, the US supplier of Softars,
suggests +1/2 stop when using B&W; stating that normal exposure on B&W;
using soft focus looks dull.
Jim
Simon Lamb wrote:
From Nikon Mailing List;
you wrote:
Certainly. There are all sorts of soft focus filters available. Nikon has
a couple, but they use silver flakes embedded in the glass and I
personally don't like the effect. My favorite is the now hard-to-find
SailWind Pro Soft #1. Other popular options include the famous (and
costly) Zeiss Softar (available from B+W and Heliopan), Tiffen's line of
Hollywood Effects filters, and others.
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001
I went to a fabric store and purchased the sheerest black materials I
could find. I ran tests on them by shooting my friend with each piece over
the front of the lense. I found a really nice one and put it in a frame of
cardboard using staples and masking tape. I use it on old ladies and
brides and they love it. The whole thing cost me about a dollar.
sun622@prodigy.net(DAVID)
billnette@aol.com (Billnette) wrote:
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
Anton Elron wrote:
I have been playing around with a simple and very cheap magnifying glass,
made in China. It has a measured focal length of 110 mm, and is a wopping
60 mm in diameter, making it f/1.8. The fastest medium format lens i know
of ;-)
I put some black plastic, folded/rolled into a tube, crinkling the ends to
make them fit the diameter of the rim of the glass, leaving the handle
free, at one end, and attached the other end around a short extension
tube, making sure there is plenty of length and width of plastic between
the lens and camera (like a balloon bellows). Focussing is done by
handholding the magnifying glass at the appropriate distance, exposure is
made using the body's focal plane shutter.
Of course you get lots of shift, tilt, swing, rise, and any other movement
you would like. And all the excellent (;-))"bokeh" of a simple, completely
uncorrected, double convex lens. Great fun!
From Minolta Mailing List;
Speaking of bellows lenses, here's an idea that will give you a great
soft-focus lens -- for free, if you have a bellows and a set of close-
up lenses. Basically, you use the close-up lens on the bellows
without a regular bellows lens and you end up with a soft-focus
lens. The focal length of the lens is the focal length of the close-
up lens, so if you use a #4 (#2 Minolta) close-up lens with a focal
length of 250mm, you have a 250mm tele lens.
How do you attach a close-up lens to a bellows without a regular lens
on the bellows? It's easier than you think. First, find a Minolta
body cap that you don't need. Use a jig-saw, a knife heated over a
flame, or whatever you can devise to remove the center section of the
body cap. You'll end up with a doughnut that still has the camera
lens mount on it. This will screw into the front of the bellows.
Next take any 55mm filter and knock out the glass. On many filters
you can unscrew the glass, but if you have to take a hammer to it,
that's fine. You can usually find a trashed out 55m filter for under
a buck at a used camera shop. Then glue the filter ring to the front
of the body cap doughnut. Epoxy works great, but silicone or other
glues will work as well. An alternative is to use a Minolta reverse
ring, but you have to put the close-up filters on backwards.
To use, just screw-on close-up lenses onto the your adapter and pop
it onto your bellows. Focus as usual, on your groundglass, until the
center of the image is in focus. The image will be soft, especially
on the edges but that's what you want. This is great for many
portraits or for creating a romatic mood. And don't forget that you
can add flters to the front, such as a polarizer, lens hood, etc.
You can vary the focal length by changing or combining the close-up
lenses. Two #4 lenses will give you a 125mm optic -- great for
portraits. Make sure you have enough extension on the bellows to
match the close-up lens. With a #2 lens, for example, you'll need
500mm of bellows extension, something most of us do not have. I've
had the best luck with Minolta close-up lenses since these are better
controlled for spherical aberrations, especially when stacked. You
get even fuzzier results with cheaper close-up lenses, and some color
shifting with color films.
Exposure control depends on your camera. For auto exposure, the
camera will select the correct shutter speed. With manual cameras,
match the needles by selecting a shutter speed. You really need a
TTL meter with these lenses since you never really know what the f-
stop is. But the f-stop is usually very low, in the realm of f1.0.
Sure, that means the depth-of-field is very narrow, but that works
great for these lenses. Some of you might remember the old Sima soft-
focus lens. It's an f2.0 as I recall. It's exactly the same as this
setup, but sold new for almost $100. If the f1.0 is too fast, you
can switch to a slower film of slap on some neutral density filters
of a polarizer.
Hi xkaes,
If you have two identical close-up supplimentary lenses, you can make
something a bit like as a lens by Puyo & Pulligny called "Symmetrical
Anachromatic" which came out in 1903. This lens is basically two
identical positive menisci (such as two close-up supplimentary lenses)
arranged around a central f/stop with convex sides outwards, the distance
between them is at least one-sixth of their common focal length, and when
adjusted properly it can cover 30-degrees and a maximum aperture of f/6.5,
but of course it name "Anachromatic" means that it is not at all
corrected for colour, and it works well as a soft-focus lens enough to
make any female subject swoon with pleasure...
Best,
Sam.
P.S. If you decide to make one, show us the results!
From Minolta Mailing List;
samueltang@eisa.net.au writes:
If you have two identical close-up supplimentary lenses, you can make
something a bit like as a lens by Puyo & Pulligny called "Symmetrical
Anachromatic" which came out in 1903.
I'll have to try this. I have made a homemade adapter which consists of
two 55mm filters with the glass rmoved. They are epoxied together
back-to-back so I can put a close-up lens on each end. I guess I'll have
to work on getting the distance correct between the lenses though. But
thanks for the tip. I can put the Minolta reverse ring on the bellows and
then add a close-up lens in the reversed position. Then I can add my
adapter and the second close-up lens.
From Minolta Mailing List;
Hi xkaes,
Do let us know what the results are like!
By the way, if you use a single meniscus, it is better to have it mounted
convex side towards the camera, with a diaphragm arrangement in front of
the concave side. This generally affords better correction, and also
allows for changing the aperture relatively easily.
Best,
Sam.
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
I got a good deal on a 150mm Soft Focus lens for the Mamiya RB67 on eBay
recently and have shot some B&W; test shots with it. The lens comes with
three diffusion disks that clip on to the back of the front element of the
lens. They provide a pattern of tiny holes surrounding a central
aperture.
Open wide at f/4, with no diffusion disk attached, the lens exhibits
spherical abberation, and produces pictures with the greatest degree of
softness. Stop down to f/8 or smaller and the spherical abberation
disappears and you get nice sharp pictures. The diffusion disks produce
pictures with intermediate softness from slightly soft to about half as
soft as no disk at f/4. Since you can produce these intermediate degrees
of softness without the disks by setting the aperture between f/4 and f/8,
here's my question: What function do these disks provide? If they have
any purpose at all, I suppose it must have to do with the quality of the
softness they produce, but I wasn't able to see this on the 8x10 test
prints I made.
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001
Grandpaparazzo wrote:
These disks are not intended to give lesser degrees of softness, but to
restrict the speed of the lens while maintaining (maximum) softness.
Softness (speherical aberration) is supplied mainly by the outer zones of
the lens. These are excluded by stopping down using the normal, central
diaphragm. So stopping down to control exposure also controls softness. To
be able to maintain softness while controlling exposure, the sieve
diaphragm provided by the disks must be used. While they too restrict the
amount of light passing through, they do allow light from the outer zones
to participate in image formation.
So use the normal diaphragm to control softness, and the disks to control
exposure.
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001
....
I also got a good deal on a Mamiya 150mm SF lens which I use on my RZ.
The small holes in the disks function as pinholes and provide multiple
slightly-out-of-register images made up of light from the softer outer
regions of the lens. When you use one of the disks, you get a core
*sharp* image created by the large, central opening, plus multiple,
weaker, out-of-register images which soften the overall effect. The three
disks differ in the sharpness of the core image and the
pinhole-to-core-image ratio. For black and white work, I've come to
prefer the f/6.3 (No. 3) with the lens set at about f/5.6 or smaller. I
find quite a bit of difference between images made with and without disks.
There is a paper by John Woodward on the use of this lens posted at the
Mamiya site which I think you will find very helpful.
http:/www.mamiya.com/
See: User Forum, RB, letter titled "150 SF "C" Lens (last one right now).
Focusing this lens can be extremely difficult. I find I need to use a
6X loupe directly on the ground glass to get reliable results.
James Meckley
Date: Sat Aug 11 18:42:15 CDT 2001
Try stretching a bit of saran wrap over a good lens.
dan smi
From Minolta Mailing List: From Minolta Mailing List: From Minolta Mailing List: From Minolta Mailing List: Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [Nikon] Re: Soft Focus Lens, and soft focus effects
you wrote:
>I remember my photo teacher in High School telling me about "soft focus"
>lenses available for older MF cameras (this was back in 1988-89).
The only soft focus lens I can think of for any current 35mm system is the
Minolta 100/2.8 for their Maxxum/Dynax auto-focus system.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: DZakem@aol.com
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
Subject: [Nikon] Soft Focus Lens, and soft focus effects
I remember my photo teacher in High School telling me about "soft focus"
lenses available for older MF cameras (this was back in 1988-89).
I would guess that looking at a good used shop or photo swap meet might
produce one of these lenses. ( I am not sure they were Nikon, or even Nikon
mount)
Other things that produce soft focus are:
Plastic wrap, used with a rubberband
Vaseline, I would suggest smearing it on a cheap UV or Skylight filter.
Cellophane (from a pack of cigarettes), and a rubberband.
Soft focus filter sets (already mentioned)
Use Photoshop and soften at will
Use any of the above techniques in the darkroom to soften the prints, either
modify the enlarging lens (not directly) by placing something in front of it,
or burn and dodge with a soft filter.
Have fun experimenting,
David
From Nikon Mailing List:
From: "John Owlett" owl@postmaster.co.uk
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002
Subject: [Nikon] Soft Focus Filters (was: soft LENS)
Suzan Cooke wrote:
> I personally prefer using add on filters. Tiffin or Hoya makes a
> set of 3 which I am very fond of which are like the Hasselblad ones
> with the little circles, sort of bubbly. I'd also love to find
> ones like the Rolli softars which have the concentric circles which
> don't so much soften the subject as halo the hair lights and soften
> the edges around the subject when you shoot wide open. I only ever
> had those on a TLR Rolli of ancient vintage.
Hi Suzy,
I'm afraid I can't answer Mark Moody's original question about
specific soft-focus lenses, but I think I can tell you more about
the concentric-circle filters you'd like to find.
IIRC, the Rollei soft-focus filters with the concentric circles were
called "Duto" filters and were made with glass from Schott. I've
just had a look in the latest Heliopan brochure and Duto filters are
still available in strengths "0" and "1":
http://www.heliopan.de/prod12.html
(Unfortunately, the catalogue on the Web seems to be only in German.)
Heliopan also sells Softar filters: these are the original plastic,
sort of bubbly, filters. The Softar brand belongs to Carl Zeiss and
both Heliopan and B+W buy their Softar blanks from Zeiss. As you've
discovered, Hoya and Tiffen make similar filters, though under the
Softar brand name.
Hoya also makes "Duto effect" filters. Presumably these are made
with their own glass, rather than Schott glass.
B+W, like Heliopan, buys its glass from Schott, so I suspect that
the B+W "Soft Focus" filters, "based on concentric rings in the
glass", may actually be made with Duto glass. I'm a bit surprised,
though, that anyone would use Duto glass without mentioning it.
Later,
Dr Owl
--------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK
From Nikon Mailing List:
From: "David Freedman" dpfreedman@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Soft Focus Lens, and soft focus effects
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002
If you're serious about this, it would be worth trying to track down the
late, lamented Tamron 70-150mm SP soft focus lens (MF, Adaptall mount).
Unfortunately, they're rare as unicorn horns. They do show up *very*
occasionally on eBay and never go cheap. Just a thought.
Dave F.
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002
From: Feliciano di Giorgio feli@d2.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Softar
Feliciano di Giorgio wrote:
>
> Hello-
>
> Does anyone have an example shot showing the effect of a Softar II,
> they could point me to?
Actually I just found a good example. Look here:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/9E75D9B13153559CC1256A1D00562A35
cheers,
feli
from leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002
From: "dante@umich.edu" dante@umich.edu
Subject: Re: [Leica] Soft filter for 90 Elmarit...
Derek:
I have a Vemar coated(!) 46mm Softon (it was actually under my computer
monitor) that you (or whoever) can have for $15 and postage. Cheaper than
an adapter and a hell of a lot cheaper than a real Softar. It has the
same blotchy effect as the Hoya.
Dante
...
From: Bob Salomon bob@hpmarketingcorp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie Questions- Soft focus and Center Filter
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002
p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan) wrote:
>
> Rodenstock does it with diffusion disks
No they don't.
The lens has the effect of a sharp central portion overlayed with
diffusion from the edges of the lens.
The disks control how much of the center and the edge are used.
Each disk has progressively larger center koles. The smallest center
hole produces the sharpest image.
Each disk can control how much edge illumination is present as the
openings around the center hole can be made open or closed or anywhere
in between.
With the edge holes fully closed and the smallest central hole the lens
delivers the sharpest image.
With no disk the lens is the softest yet still has a feeling of
sharpness. With the disk with the largest center hole and all
surrounding holes open the aperture is exactly the same as with no disk
but the image appears sharper as less periphery is used.
These are not diffusion disks. They are actually the apertures.
--
HP Marketing Corp. www.hpmarketingcorp.com Ansmann, Braun, Combina,
DF, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof,
Novoflex, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal ink Jet and cloths,
VR Frames, Vue-All archival products, Wista, ZTS
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie Questions- Soft focus and Center Filter
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002
keithmitchell@usit.net wrote:
>First what is a soft focus lens?
>Second, what is a center filter and why do they cost so much?
>
>Thanks,
>Keith Mitchell
>keithmitchell@usit.net
Actually, you can make any lens into a soft focus lens with the aid
of a diffuser of some sort. The simplest is to mount a secttion of
loose weave cloth in front of the lens. The amount and character of
the diffusion will depend on the weave and the distance from the lens.
If you cut or tear a hole in the center of the diffuser you will get
a combination of a diffused and a sharp image.
All sorts of things can be mounted in front of the lens to get an
effect.
True soft focus lenses are made with delibrately uncorrected or under
corrected aberrations. Most frequently spherical aberration. The
effect is to produce a soft halo around highlights and a general
softness to the image while maintaining some core of sharpness.
Spherical aberration is a fundamental property of lenses made with
spherical surfaces. An ordinary magnifying glass has one or two
spherical surfaces and shows lots of spherical (along with other
aberrations). It comes from the fact that different parts of the lens
focus at different distances. If you devide the lens up into annular
sections, or zones, starting at the center, you will find that as you
move away from the center the distance at which the lens focuses is
moves increasingly away from the back of the lens. As the diameter of
the lens is made smaller, by stopping down for instance, the image
becomes sharper because the variation in the angle the light takes
leaving the lens is reduced.
Practical camera lenses use combinations of positive and negative
curvatures to correct for spherical. A perfectly corrected lens would
have none, but, in practice, all lenses have a little.
Lenses sold as soft focus lenses are generally simple, corrected
only for color and leaving the spherical alone. Stopping down the lens
makes it sharper, until, at very small stops, it can become quite
sharp.
There are other principles used. Some soft focus lenses use three
elements with variable spacing of the center lens. This throws off the
correction a variable amount and allows varying the softness to some
degree independantly of the stop.
The Rodenstock Imagon uses a combination of a center stop and
peripheral stops (small holes around the circumference of a special
stop) to both vary the relative amount of light going through the
center of the lens (sharp image) and that going though its edges (soft
image). In addition, the small holes produce multiple images by a sort
of pin-hole effect, yielding a soft focus effect not duplicated by
other lenses.
These lenses are expensive mainly because they are made in small
numbers.
Many simple lenses, like the desk magnifier mentioned above, can be
used as soft focus lenses. In some cases a part of a well corrected
lens can produce a soft focus effect. For instance, the rear element
of a Tessar, used alone has a very soft focus effect. In the case of
the Tessar nearly all the correction is in the front cell.
Its quite possible to get very satisfactory soft focus effects
without having to use an expensive special lens.
...(center filter)...
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cooke Soft Focus Lens
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002
Steve Hamley wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I am also a paying subscriber to View Camera and don't object to
> content appearing on the web. I agree with Tom Duffy's comments about
> the lens. It's just too little for too much, although the concept and
> effort is certainly commendable. If it were $1,500 I'd consider one.
>
> Why can't a screw-in attachment lens, like a diopter, be made to
> "uncorrect" a lens for portraiture?
Ever think about getting an old lens and removing some elements to get this
effect? In my medformat camera I bought an old zeiss biometar and removed
all but the front element and moved it back close to the diaphram and it
makes interesting images with a short ext tube to get it to sorta focus :-)
--
Stacey
From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cooke Soft Focus Lens
Date: 28 Jul 2002
Stacey,
Yep, I've even thought about removing elements from new(er) lenses
like convertible Symmars. Haven't done it yet, but ideally one would
like to avoid that flat, blue look (I do mostly color) that older
lenses intended for black and white sometimes give. That's supposedly
a nice thing about the Cooke, but not $3,500 nice.
BTW, the July/August issue of View Camera has an article on building
view camera lenses out of diopters. These are all "soft focus" as you
might imagine. Now all I have to do is find that green bean can....
Thanks!
Steve
From: reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Lens Cells
Date: 14 Aug 2002
Collin Brendemuehl
From: onepercentf@aol.com (Onepercentf)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 25 Aug 2002
Subject: Soft focus trick
I have discovered a trick for soft focus portraits. I don't know if it is
original, so all those of you who already know this one please forgive me.
Shoot your model's reflection in a mirror, using bounced flash.
I found this produced very even, soft focus. The image looks sharp, in the
mirror and also through the viewfinder, but the results were sharp but soft, if
you know what I mean. I would be interested to read if others have used this
technique.
regards, David
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Alan Justice" me@privacy.net
[1] Re: Soft focus trick
Date: Sun Aug 25 2002
The sharper the angle, the "softer" the image. You actually get two images,
one from the rear reflecting surface and one from the glass. At sharper
angles, these would be farther apart from each other.
--
- Alan Justice
[Ed. note: thanks to Kelvin for sharing these project ideas and tips...]
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002
From: Kelvin kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: magnifying glass lens
hi bob
was reading your page
http://medfmt.8k.com/third/wierd.html
Some time back I stumbled across a page about how to build your
own lens (potrait lens?) with a handheld magnifying glass. Since then,
I've lost the URL. You won't happen to know it, would you....
in any case, the idea is simple. After experimenting with a 75mm
diameter magnifyer giving about 4x magnification, I realised that it
would give about 200mm equiv. in 35mm and an f-stop about
f2.6 (based on focal length/75mm). Since then, I've bought a
60mm, 2x magnifying glass which gives about 85-100mm equivalent
in 35mm (about f1.4 for 85/60?) . With a spare K-88/nikon adaptor
which I am planning to have the K88 mount removed, I will be
sticking a tube to the magnifying glass and using the handle to rack
the focus in and out with the adaptor on my Nikon FM.
The photos I saw at the URL which I've since lost were interesting.
I'll let you know how it goes!
[Ed. note: it is also easy to make a set of sliding tubes into a mount, with a t-mount
at one end and the lens with lens hood at the other and drop in waterhouse stops, similar
to the regular commercial versions. But you could also take a trashed short telephoto lens
that is long enough (e.g., for a 100mm lens) and use that for the mount and focusing mechanics.
In my case, I was interested in both soft focus ultraviolet photography
and stopped down short wave UV photography using a single quartz element lens from Edmund Optics.]
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Re: soft filters
rmonagha@post.smu.edu writes:
nail polish (less messy than vaseline..) etc.
The thing I like about vaseline is that you can add it -- as needed. You can
smear a lot on or just a little. You can place it on certain sections, but
not others. And if you put too much on, it's easy to get off with a tissue.
Any spare 1A or UV filer can serve as a palette. It's easy to bring along
one of those tiny "lip balm" dispensers of Vaseline. I almost always have
one anyway from chapped lips. And I always have a tissue for a runny ose, so
I have a soft-focus "kit" with me all the time!
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Re: soft focus filters
mlwsgw@adelphia.net writes:
Does anyone have an opinion on soft focus filters or low-end soft focus
lenses (like the Spiratone 100mm)? I'm very much an amateur and shoot
mostly B&W.; Any opinions would be appreciated.
Cheap soft-focus filters are fine. Try some Saran Wrap over the lens or
smear a little Vasoline on a 1A filter as an alternative.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002
From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.smu.edu
Subject: soft filters
agreed, but I find vaseline is messy in the field, and tends to migrate
in handling filters etc. The advantage of nail polish or airplane glue on
filters is they are NOT messy, the effects are easily controled (and cleaned)
and you can build up stuff like center spot clear and so on filters easily.
Once dried, nail polish is pretty mess free, and very repeatable...
you can also use colors mixed in both (polish and vaseline) if you want
some interesting and colorful smears ;-) Very '70s hippy photo scene ;-)
grins bobm
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT: Holgas
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
>O.k., i will get one!
>Anybody know where to get them in Europe?
Just smear a little Vaseline on a UV filter (the ONLY use for a UV filter)
in front of your Hasselblad lens and you can emulate a Holga without having
to buy one.
Jim
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002
From: rstein rstein@bigpond.net.au
Subject: Re: [HUG] Softar vs. Imagon? (slightly OT)
Dear Nephew Bob,
Your opportunity to get the Imagon lens is one that should not be
passed by. Goodness, that sounds like bad grammar - but buy the lens
regardless.
I use an Imagon 240mm on my 4 x 5 Linhof in the studio. It is mounted
on a compound shutter with air-pot damping to regulate the slow speeds. It
is synched, however, and has a standard cable release socket. The diaphragm
control has no markings for aperture at all, though it will go down to about
f.32.
No matter - the lens came with the 3 adjustable aperture discs that fit
in front of the frnt ring as well as a 2x geeen filter and a lenshood.
The aperture discs give the variable diffusion, as you know, but I found
some initial confusion with their markings. What is an "H" stop for? Finally
figured it out to mean hohle - or something similar. and went on from there.
The lens really does do what it claims to - the highlights can be
softened all the way from a slight fuzz to complete fantasy. The routine of
opening it on the T setting for focusing, closing to M for exposure sets off
the studio flash but I turn off the radio connection to save the hassle. My
best images so far are B/W for blond girls dressed in light coloured
garments with plenty of jewellery to sparkle up - the aperture disc for f.11
was the best result.
As an experiment I took the lens out on a field camera with the
aperture scale marked by small sticky labels - I measured the opening with a
caliper and did my calculations. It really does perform creditably as a
general landscape lens once the softening discs are removed - but it is
still primarily a portrait lens.
Uncle Dick
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002
From: Bob Miano bmiano@technisonic.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Softer vs. Imagon vs. PHOTOSHOP?????
Folks, I have a comment/question about the use of filtration and soft
lenses. My primary occupation is as a Television/Film Director. There was
a time when I used filtration and "in-camera" effects, but today there are
so many ways to effect and filter images in the editing process that I find
starting with a "clean" image gives me much more flexibility. I can decide
how much or little softness or other effects to add in post production.
This gives me the added benefit of not having something that can't be
changed if the client doesn't like the "look"!
With so many filters available for PhotoShop, I wonder why this same logic
doesn't apply to capturing STILL images. I find myself often hesitating to
use my Softar, thinking "Why not just photograph it clean and add as much or
little filtration as I want (softness, de-focus, glow, b&w;, sepia, hand
tinting, whatever) in Photoshop?" I've seen PhotoShop Plug-Ins that can
duplicate virtually any filter or lens effect and do much, much more than I
could ever create in-camera.
Not wanting to start any heated HUG debates...just curious!
Bob Miano
bmiano@technisonic.com
WWW.MIANO.TV
www.technisonic.com
From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are you contemplating going digital?
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002
Douglas A. at fordprefect80@hotmail.com wrote
> [...]
> They're all just tools John boy. Sometimes you need sharp, sometimes
> you need soft. Its a lot easier to make a sharp lens soft, than a soft
> lens sharp.
Shame, Douglas, for taking the bait. :) Types of softness is worthy of a
separate thread. I've some antique lenses built with controls for graduated
'softness' (intentional spherical aberation), and a filter that is a
precursor to the Softar... interesting stuff. Maybe when they make an 8x10
digital back for a 200 year old lens I'll go digital. I rather like the
'contrast' of the idea.
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002
From: Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Off Topic- instructions for Imagon lens
The manual is a waste of time.....
Rules...
#1 The Copal shutter is used only for time.. use the lens WIDE OPEN
#2 The Iris in the lens is selected for the degree of diffusion you want...
a) the wider the lens is open, the more diffusion you will get.
b) there are 2 numbers on each disk... they represent the 2 F Stops you
may have with each disk
c) If you want diffusion, you MUST use the disks supplied
Ask questions, we will help you figure it out......
Did you get the lens in Hassy mount? Does the mount have a focus helix?
What Hasselblad will you use it on?
Frank Filippone
red735i@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: Softer vs. Imagon vs. PHOTOSHOP?????
you wrote:
>With so many filters available for PhotoShop, I wonder why this same logic
>doesn't apply to capturing STILL images. I find myself often hesitating to
>use my Softar, thinking "Why not just photograph it clean and add as much or
>little filtration as I want (softness, de-focus, glow, b&w;, sepia, hand
>tinting, whatever) in Photoshop?"
When I shoot weddings (not often anymore these days, Thank G-d) I ALWAYS
pop in a SailWind ProSoft #1 for every shot at the bride's house before the
ceremony and add another when I'm doing the bride's mom or grandparents. I
send the film out to be souped and have proofs made. Those proofs, edited
for blinks and shots of my shoes, are delivered to the bride or her mom
otherwise unmodified. Photoshop would mean scanning, manipulating and
reprinting. My proofs look GREAT because the filter's so subtly lovely (in
spite of my mediocre talents) and I get two results -- bigger orders
because people think, "If the proofs look THAT good the final stuff HAS TO
look even better," and I sell more proof sets.
Photoshop would mean more of my time (which I cannot replace), more expense
on my end, but not another nickle in my pocket. Long before Photoshop a
teacher of mine pointed out that fixing stuff in front of the camera is
ALWAYS cheaper than fixing it afterwards. While commercial shooters'
mileage may vary, for me it's still true.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003
From: "Paul Brecht pariht@pacbell.net
Subject: Someone was asking about the 85mm Varisoft....
Here's a reference I stumbled upon..
http://www.cameraquest.com/minsoft.htm
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003
From: Henry Posner henryp@bhphotovideo.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: Scratched rear element doesn't matter!!
you wrote:
>In my recent lens comparison I compared a 150 C with a scratch in the rear
>element vs a 150 CF. As you may recall, I found that the scratch didn't
>affect the performance of the lens
In her autobiography Margaret Bourke White (who, among other
accomplishments had the cover of the very first weekly Life magazine),
wrote about the first camera she ever owned while at Cornell. It was a TLR
with what she described as a decent size chunk banged off the front of the
taking lens. She said it provided a unique soft edge to her images which
she found very useful at the time.
-- -
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 11:20:36 -0700
From: Mark Bohrer
From: "zeitgeist" blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice on mamiya RB lens choice please
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002
> I need to buy a short telephoto lens (new) for the RB67. I have the 150mm
> and the 140macro on my shortlist. I mostly take portraits. Is the 140
> performance that much better to be worth the extra money and slower maximum
> aperture? At a later stage, I would buy a long lens say, 250 for tight
> portrait crops.
>
> Does anyone have any experience of both lenses?
> --
arguably the most wonderful lens for portraits is the 150 soft focus lens
with the 6.3 disk inserted. I'd guess that more than half the PPA loan
collection and Kodak's Epcot gallery images were taken with the RB and 150
soft lens.
From camera maker mailing list:
From: JohnSiskin@aol.com
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Cemented achromat as portrait lens
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
I did an article in the July/August issue of View Camera Magazine on building
soft focus lenses. I have wonderful results using meniscus lenses (close-up
lenses usually). What you really want is a variable iris and a shutter. If
you can't find a copy of the article let me know, I have a PDF file.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002
From: "parlin44" parlin44@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: screw mount/M42/Russian lenses
How about PC Arsat 35/2.8 for architecture? Better still PC/tilt
Arsat, but pretty expensive (still much, much cheaper than OEM
though). There's also PC/tilt mid-tele Arsat 80/2.8.
I second Jupiter-9 (Carl Zeiss Sonnar copy), get the MC version.
Nice lens, often gives you that surreal, pastelish, oil painting like
bokeh.
Wonderful (mildly) soft focus lens is that chunk-of-glass Helios-40-2
85/1.5, soft for upto
From: JohnSiskin@aol.com
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re: making lens?
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
I don't believe that there is a copy of the article available on line. I have
a pdf file the magazine sent me before publication. If anyone wants a copy
please send me an e-mail address, I'll send it along. I think it does a good
job of providing the necessary info to go ahead with a project. But then I
would.
Good luck, John
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003
From: Philip willarney pwillarney@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] lens design reading?
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
I read that article -- in brief, the author took a
couple of off-the-shelf screw-on closeup lense, put
them in a tube (back to back, "front" of each lens
facing out of the tube), and experimented with
different spacing, and adding pieces of card with
holes in them to act as waterhouse stops. Wound up
with a couple of different usable camera lenses,
mostly of the "soft focus" flavor.
-- pw
--- JohnSiskin@aol.com wrote:
> There was an article in ViewCamera Magazine,
> July/August issue, on making
> your own lenses. Would that help? John
From: "Gear=id + Laoi, Garry Lee" begonefoulspam_glee@iol.ie
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: RB67 Portrait Lenses
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003
I recently got a 150sf and I'm stunned by how good it is. It really gives an
amazing effect. Following advice on an internet article I use it with the
no.3 filter in place.
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: when only bad lenses are good enough?
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> yes, the usual aperture priority or TTL metering (stopped down etc.)
> should work fine, as it is measuring total light etc.
>
> yes, you can put these cutouts in front of the lens; I have a gizmo called
> a pictrol which screws onto the lens front with 3 screws, as you turn it,
> a series of white plastic wedges extend from half-dozen directions towards
> the center of the lens. this front of the lens adapter gives a variety of
> softening effects, unlike a simple filter, which can be dialed to suit the
> subject (e.g., more wrinkles, more softening ;-)
Any example images? Since I am exploring surrealism lately, perhaps I can
work this into some images.
> most soft focus lenses (as opposed to filters) work by having a large
> degree of uncorrected spherical aberration, esp. in the outer margins
> (rings) of the lens. The sieve designs let you mix light from this zone
> with the smaller central zone (f/8-ish in my experience) to produce the
> degree of softening you want. The central zone alone produces a relatively
> sharp image, the outer rings smear light about in a softening and
> hopefully pleasant manner, and the combo produces a sharp central image
> with a bit of blur. Most softening filters simply produce a blur, without
> a variable degree of central sharpness image effect. So you get a
> different image with these lenses than with the low cost softening
> filters or mesh stocking tricks etc....
You know, this brings it back to your search for cheap lenses. Using a
telephoto, and a low power, and low cost, diopter on the front of the lens,
there is a slight softening of the corners. While this is only good to use at
close distances, and more for head shots, the effect can be flattering.
> re: f/8 What I would like is a poor man's defocus control lens, using
> older optics with considerable uncorrected spherical aberration to provide
> an attractive bokeh by mixing this "3-d" light from the periphery with the
> sharp central image.
>
> With a defocus control lens, you can vary the amount of spherical
> aberration (and type, for front or back of plane of focus effects), and
> still control the bokeh at relatively small f/stops due to the lens
> design.
I checked out the Nikon 105 mm defocus lens for 35 mm SLRs. I find it
disappointing, mostly due to the price, but also because the regular 105 mm
f2.5 gives such great defocus anyway. The other issue is that the more
controls on a lens, the more you slow down. Too much fiddling, and your
subject/client/art director could get bored or frustrated with you.
Older gear is the poor man's journey into great lenses. There is a wealth of
great choices for the budget conscious photographer, though obviously with
some reservations in usage.
> Unfortunately, if you need to do this to get good DOF with nice bokeh in a
> subject with a soft focus lens, you can't, because the small opening
> needed at f/5.6-f/16 range is too small to let you mix in much light from
> the outer ring and still be at f/11 or f/8. So you are limited to getting
> nice bokeh only with soft lens effects wide open. It would be nice to get
> nice bokeh at all stops, or be able to vary the bokeh effects at various
> stops, as with a defocus control lens, simply by switching out sieve
> patterns.
I don't have a problem shooting wide open. When there is too much light,
adding an ND works quite well, and is easy to do.
...
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: when only bad lenses are good enough?
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003
> Thanks Lourens. I only remembered seeing it in reference to Rollei, though I
> have
> never seen one in use.
an Imagon also exists for Mamiya RB, if I'm correct. (and also for 4x5"
of course)
The few times I have used soft focus I have applied it in the darkroom
btw, which gives a negative effect with the black going slightly into
the light areas. It's also easier to maintain contrast. Looks nicer
i.m.o.... I don't like high-key very much.
;-)
Lourens
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: f-stops versus h-stops?
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004
wwagner@limbo.ymb.net (Will Wagner) wrote:
> Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >wwagner@limbo.ymb.net (Will Wagner) wrote
> >> I recently got hold of a Rodenstock Imagon 300mm/5.8, and of course
> >> the kit came with everything except the booklet. I've seen a few
> >> posts in various fora which have forcefully stated that h-stops are
> >> NOT the same as f-stops, and from some experimentation with polaroids,
> >> I just can't tell; it seems close-ish, but I'm not sure if it's quite
> >> right. [ snip ]
> >
> > The Imagon is a soft focus lens. The amount of softness is
> >controlled by varying the ratio of light coming through the margins of
> >the lens versus the center. Because of this it doesn't have definite
> >f/stops. Rather, the masks are calibrated in the equivalent amount of
> >light an f/stop would give. So the "stops" for an Imagon are used the
> >same way as those of a standard lens as far as calculating the amount
> >of exposure.
>
> Thanks for the info, Richard. So for exposure purposes, an f-stop is
> basically equal to an h-stop, which is what I had initially guessed.
> Any ideas what the "h" stands for? At any rate, you've given me a
> little more confidence with this lens. Some of my tests so far have
> come out pretty cool.
>
> I'm still trying to wrap my head around the spherical-aberration-
> caused focus shift that I've seen discussed; I think the light has
> come on for me as far as the physics behind it goes, but I haven't
> really *seen* any evidence of it. Refining focus after opening the
> diffusion grille doesn't seem to make any change in the positions of
> the standards.
>
> Will
The Imagon expects a very strong lighting ratio like 5:1 rather the 3:1
in order for the halation to work properly. That means no umbrellas, no
open shade. You need a strong key light with parabolic type reflectors
to get the Imagon effect.
--
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: f-stops versus h-stops?
Date: 24 Jan 2004
...
The Imagon is a soft focus lens. The amount of softness is
controlled by varying the ratio of light coming through the margins of
the lens versus the center. Because of this it doesn't have definite
f/stops. Rather, the masks are calibrated in the equivalent amount of
light an f/stop would give. So the "stops" for an Imagon are used the
same way as those of a standard lens as far as calculating the amount
of exposure.
As is true of other soft focus lenses which depend on uncorrected
spherical aberration for the effect the f/stop can not be changed
independantly of the amount of softness. Spherical aberration varies
with the f/stop, becoming less as the lens is stopped down. The Imagon
adds to this some diffusion from the special obstructive diaphragm, so
it has an image character which is a little different from other soft
focus lenses.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tominon 127mm Doesn't Match Shutter?
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> Since I suspect that spherical aberration is the source of much good
> bokeh, the fact that triplets and lens cells would have more uncorrected
> aberrations than a four element (tessar..) and fully corrected main lens
> would not be surprising. This may be one of those cases where older and
> cheaper (fewer elements..) may be better? ;=)
And with most of these lenses, when used at the small f-stops most LF
users use, these "defects" are corrected by stopping down.
I made a "soft focus" lens for my K-60 by taking a dead 80mm biometar and
removing all the glass except for the front element. I was shocked how good
it is at f16-f22 for 1 piece of glass.
--
Stacey
From: "Ed E." EdEllks@NetZero.MyPants.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Softning Filters
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004
I've used both screw-in Tiffen filters and Cokin "P" series filters. I
prefer the Cokin ones because they're much easier and faster to swap in and
out to get the desired effect. But one word of caution, avoid bright
highlights in your pictures - they make this glow, for lack of a better
word. In some cases, it's nice - like a tree with white petals on it on a
sunny day will look much more exaggerated than without a softening filter.
If you have PhotoShop, you can soften the image more but can't really
sharpen it much without adverse effects.
From: "JIM" Firewagon1@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Softning Filters
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004
"Bill Tuthill" ca_creekin@yahoo.com wrote
....{cut}....
> I have never seen a convincing website comparing Zeiss Softar results
> with those from any other softening filter. It's very possible that
> a Softar is worth the money, but you have to buy one to know for sure.
> Seems to me if a Softar really *is* so much better, results would be
> here on the web for all to see.
Neither have I Bill. You can view the effect of the Softars compared to and
added to each other on their website -
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/?Open - clik on "Product Info" and then
"Softar Attachments" - still doesn't get you a side-by-side comparison with
something like the Tiffen Soft/Warming.
As with much of the viewing process, the 'perfect' effect resides in the eye
of the beholder;) I have not tried the Tiffen combo filter; however, I have
their plain Jane softeners but have not used them since acquiring the Zeiss
thingy.
Shoot'em up, filtered or not, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest will love
you for it!!
Jim
From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: when only bad lenses are good enough?
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> Nearly all of the soft lenses,
> even the dang +10 diopter single element lens SIMA-Soft gizmo, will yield
> surprisingly sharp photos stopped to f/8 or so, it is quite horrifying ;-)
>
Yep I "made" a soft focus lens out of a junk 80mm biometar using only the
front element stuck back into the lens housing just in front of the
diaphram and at f8 and smaller is amazing how sharp just one lens element is!
--
Stacey
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: when only bad lenses are good enough?
Date: 21 Nov 2003
Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net wrote
> snip
>
> Interesting. I remember either a Schneider or Rollei lens system with
> strainer aperture disks, but I do not think it is sold anymore. Could be an
> easy addition. It would seem that a front mounted disk could have the same
> effect of soft focus.
Rodenstock Imagon
> snip
>
> What confuses me about your statement is why you need f8? Is your lighting
> gear too strong, and you are not able to open up more than that?
>
> To really have an effective soft focus, it would help to have background
> elements out of focus. If you use f8, it sounds like you are trying to get
> more in focus, which completely defeats the reason for using soft focus
> lenses.
Try a Busch Nicola Perscheid objektiv.
> huge snip
Cheers,
Dan
From: nospam@nospam.xxx (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: when only bad lenses are good enough?
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003
"Soft focus" lenses are not just lenses with crummy resolution and no
coating, nor a lens simply shot wide open or slighly defocused. And some
add-on softeners do not really do the same thing the old intentionally
soft lenses did, however a lot of people are happy with the Zeiss Softars
(three grades of them), but in that case you start out with a spendy lens,
add a spendy filter to get a lousy lens. Half-kidding, really. The Softar
filters are rather sophisticated with a hundred or so tiny, shallow
lenses, or refractors, whatever.
I have three soft-focus lenses for LF and in each case the degree of
soft-focus can be dialed in after focusing and stopping down. For
production work, you just use preset combinations determined by
experimentation. It's hard to see soft-focus with a stopped-down lens.
From: "Bob Hickey" Hickster711@nyc.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Replacing soft filter with technique?
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004
In a darkroom, print for about 50% longer. Then print half of the time while
moving a trnsparent piece of plastic under the lens. A Baggie works well. W/
digital, there's prolly a $1,000 program to replace the Baggie. Bob Hickey
"KBob" KBob@donteventry.net wrote...
> "ravenhil" ravenhil@excite.com wrote:
>
> >I thought of an idea, which I doubt would be original, to replace the soft
> >effects of the same name filter. The beauty of softened photos is in its
> >dreamy effect. The lines and borders are spot on where they should be,
> >co-exisiting with a slight overlapping of colours and details.
> >
> >A badly focused picture is just that. Just blurry.
> >
> >BUT...
> >
> >if I take a multiple exposure (2) shot of a still subject, one tightly in
> >focus, and the other slight off focus, will I be able to get that effect?
> >
> >And that brings to mind yet another question. If I take a shot of a subject
> >which would normally require T: 1/250 F:4.0, would i have to compensate by
> >one stop down to T:1/125 F:4.0 for a two-shot multiple exposure?
> >
> >Hope these things dun sound too crazy. Have mercy for I am new.
> >
> This is all very easy with digital postprocessing. Simply create a
> new layer and apply the desired blur to it, then blend it with the
> original sharp layer to any desired degree.
From: "Ed E." EdEllks@NetZero.MyPants.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Softning Filters
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004
I've used both screw-in Tiffen filters and Cokin "P" series filters. I
prefer the Cokin ones because they're much easier and faster to swap in and
out to get the desired effect. But one word of caution, avoid bright
highlights in your pictures - they make this glow, for lack of a better
word. In some cases, it's nice - like a tree with white petals on it on a
sunny day will look much more exaggerated than without a softening filter.
If you have PhotoShop, you can soften the image more but can't really
sharpen it much without adverse effects.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Replacing soft filter with technique?
From: Al Denelsbeck news@wadingin.net
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004
"ravenhil" ravenhil@excite.com wrote
> I thought of an idea, which I doubt would be original, to replace the
> soft effects of the same name filter. The beauty of softened photos is
> in its dreamy effect. The lines and borders are spot on where they
> should be, co-exisiting with a slight overlapping of colours and
> details.
>
> A badly focused picture is just that. Just blurry.
>
> BUT...
>
> if I take a multiple exposure (2) shot of a still subject, one tightly
> in focus, and the other slight off focus, will I be able to get that
> effect?
>
> And that brings to mind yet another question. If I take a shot of a
> subject which would normally require T: 1/250 F:4.0, would i have to
> compensate by one stop down to T:1/125 F:4.0 for a two-shot multiple
> exposure?
>
> Hope these things dun sound too crazy. Have mercy for I am new.
It's funny, someone was just demonstrating this technique over at
alt.binaries.photo.original, even had a name for it, and I'll be dipped if
I can remember what it was.
But yes, it works, and there's a variety of ways to do it. Check out
http://www.apogeephoto.com/march2002/altengarten22002.shtml for a few of
them.
The technique discussed on the other newsgroup involved over-exposing
the out-of-focus exposure by two stops over the correct exposure for the
sharp image. Seems a lot, but you have to consider what happens. With a mix
of light and dark areas in the frame, the areas overlap when out of focus,
and essentially mix. Most times you'll have more dark areas than light, and
this will reduce the overall level of the color/light/whatever. Part two is
that throwing anything out of focus, including a light beam (and anything
in a photo is simply reflected light), diffuses it and reduces the strength
- the opposite of using a magnifying glass to start fires.
Also, soft focus filters work by slightly scattering the light that
strikes them - the lighter the subject, the more cloud/haze/fuzz you get,
and this has the effect of lightening the overall frame. It's a lot like
indistinct lens flares or ghosts. So having the OOF exposure much lighter
will come closer to emulating this. I would also go for more than just
slightly out-of-focus, since you need the softness to extend outwards for a
noticeable perimeter.
I have also heard that for double exposures, both should be 1.5 stops
reduced, not just one. You would add another half stop (each) for every
additional exposure. Season to taste, and consider the subject too, but I
would lean that way for this case. You will most likely achieve the best
results with a contrasty subject, because the darker areas will show off
the softness much better.
There are other ways to mess around too. The old "petroleum jelly
around the edges of a clear filter" trick is effective, and allows you to
shape the area of haze, but messy. Stretching a nylon stocking over the
lens can work, though I have heard in certain lighting conditions this can
introduce a faint pattern (which might be useful). I always wanted to try a
ten-second exposure, breathing on the lens right before tripping the
shutter and letting it clear while the shutter is open. I would test this
first to make sure a siginificant portion of the exposure time takes place
after the lens has cleared. Try it also with moving lights like cars. And
moderately well-lit mist or smoke between camera and subject, well of out
focus, can produce neat effects, but again for a longer exposure, and don't
get the light too bright.
Have fun, and show us the results, ;-)
- Al.
From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Replacing soft filter with technique?
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004
If you are reading 1/250th for a single exposure then you would want
1/500th for the two exposures to come out the same.
Your technique is in fact one of the well known ways of softening. I've
not done it myself but suspect, from the pictures I've seen that it is most
effective against a very dark background. I also suspect that the exposure
is not divvied up equally - perhaps 2/3rds going to the sharp and the rest
to the blurry.
If you can do a long exposure you could also de-focus the lens during the
exposure.
From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 03 Dec 2003
Subject: Re: Magazine comparisons
Equipment reviews that aren't afraid of pissing off the manufacturers
- if there's a fault, your articles should be able to say this, very
clearly and directly. If you have a readership that trusts you, it expands,
and so does the ad revenue
View Camera may have been the only magazine to point out the flaw in the Cooke
Soft Focus lens last year - it was only soft focus down to about f8.5 and then
became sharp. We stated that at these wide apertures it was difficult to tell
the differnece between soft focus and simply out of the dof area. Other
magazines simply wrote glowing reviews and never mentioned this characteristic.
CameraArts does cover equipment but is not equipment intensive. Our focus is
The Art and craft of Photography.
Try us.
steve simmons
www.cameraarts.com
From contax mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004
Subject: Re: [Contax] Re: Filters
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Paul van Walree wrote:
> which probably, but not necessarily, means that Heliopan makes only
> one quality of acrylic sheets.
Softars are flat with little raised "dimples" which act as secondary
lenses. I don't know if they are injection molded or made by pressing
sheet plastic between two heated dies. Whether molded or pressed, the
quality would come from the quality of the mold or dies, and I am sure
there is only one quality of those.
Bob
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 10:14:21 -0500
From: Bob Shell
> From: "Austin Franklin" austin@darkroom.com
> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001
> Subject: RE: [CONTAX] MM vs AE lens
>
> What about 'softars'? Again, I've never used them. Personally, I prefer
> pantyhose or cheese cloth ;-)
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] MM vs AE lens
> From: "Pat Perez" patrickperez@relaypoint.net
> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] MM vs AE lens
>
> I think Minolta has something like this in their lineup now. My memory is
> murmuring that it is something in the 135mm length, with a separate aperture
> adjustment that changes the out of focus characteristics the more you turn
> it.
rec.photo.marketplace
From: rehjr rehjr@erols.com
[1] FS-IMAGON 300mm lens
Date: Sun Feb 11 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Brass Barell Lens Recommendations
>Ben:
>
>As others have posted, flare and comma are difficult to get in any corrected
>lens. If what you are looking for is a portrait lens, Spiratone used to make
>one with lots of softness. Also, I believe one of the ways the old soft focus
>lenses were made was to make the front cell of a Tessar type lens move in and
>out. As it gets further from the proper design distance, more softness is
>introduced. You might try this if you have a Tessar sitting around. As you
>move the front cell, the focal length will change and you will have to refocus.
>
>HTH,
>Roy
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
From: "Albert Ma" ma@bu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: FS: Kenko 62mm Softon II
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001
From: Eric Steinberg esteinbe@columbus.rr.com
Subject: Re: 85mm varisoft???
>one more question about the minolta 85mm lens. what is an 85mm varisoft
>lens? how does it differ from a "standard" 85mm md lens?
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001
From: "Mehrdad Sadat" m.sadat@verizon.net
Subject: RE: Re: 85mm varisoft???
2) minolta 100 soft
3) mamiya 645 145 soft
4) canon 135 soft
5) pentax 6x7 120 soft.
Thanks, Mehrdad
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001
From: "Globtroter" zbturon@POLBOX.COM
Subject: 85mm varisoft???
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 20 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Help understanding Imagon soft focus lens
Roy
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Help understanding Imagon soft focus lens
Peter
> Hi,I may purchace an Rodenstock Imagon soft focus large format lens .It
> has several disks for variable softness.Has anyone used this type of
> lens and what were your thoughts.I plan to do product/people/food with
> this to add a new twist to my bag of tricks.Are there any other lenses
> that are comparable and what price range is good? Thanks in
> advance,Mike
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2001
[1] Re: Help understanding Imagon soft focus lens
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: Softars
>I saw a film lately and the softness in a scene was so satisfying i
>wondered if
>they got the Zeiss.
>Myself I'd not use one.
>If a face had too many wrinkles id not do a close-up of it, but pull
>back... use
>softer lighting, over expose slightly or print lighter.
>But I'd certainly would never diffuse an image coming out of the enlarger.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: Re: Got the Softar - next question
> I will be using the Softars for some studio flash shots but, having never
> used one and not having any documentation with them, can anyone tell me if I
> need any exposure compensation when using them? If so, how much?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: AF105/2,8D
>could one use some kind a filter to "soften" the effect for portrait use?
- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: "David D" sun622@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Soft focus filters.
>Was curious what you out there use as far as soft focus filters. What strength
>and what brand. Do you have more than one or do you find that one type and
>strength is good enough? I am looking to purchase a GOOD filter or filter set
>and was wondering if anyone can give some advice.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Building a rollfilm Frankenstein
> I don't do portraiture but a friend and I had a discussion the other
> night. I have long maintained that the pop bottle lens out of a
> Polaroid-not the "good" ones, the 800s and 95s and suchlike-is a
> fantastic portrait optic. (Many people out there will say "you don't
> play the game, you don't make the rules",but I'm just asking.) The
> camera itself is useless. How hard would it be to glomp the polaroid
> front std and bellows on an existing rollfilm body-perhaps one with
> bad bellows or shuttter?
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Home-made soft-focus lenses
From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001
From: Samuel Tang samueltang@eisa.net.au
Subject: Re: Home-made soft-focus lenses
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Re: Home-made soft-focus lenses
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001
From: Samuel Tang samueltang@eisa.net.au
Subject: Re: Home-made soft-focus lenses
From: "Grandpaparazzo" chris@kcicorp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Soft Focus Lens Question
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Soft Focus Lens Question
> Open wide at f/4, with no diffusion disk attached, the lens exhibits
> spherical abberation, and produces pictures with the greatest degree of
> softness. Stop down to f/8 or smaller and the spherical abberation
> disappears and you get nice sharp pictures. The diffusion disks produce
> pictures with intermediate softness from slightly soft to about half as soft
> as no disk at f/4. Since you can produce these intermediate degrees of
> softness without the disks by setting the aperture between f/4 and f/8,
> here's my question: What function do these disks provide? If they have any
> purpose at all, I suppose it must have to do with the quality of the
> softness they produce, but I wasn't able to see this on the 8x10 test prints
> I made.
From: James Meckley jmeckley@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Soft Focus Lens Question
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Dan Smith, Photographer" shooter@brigham.net
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
[1] Re: Finding a bad lens for a good camera
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Re: Home-made soft-focus lenses
durocshark@hotmail.com writes:
<< Thank you for the great idea!!! Don >>
Well here are the results. I think they are great. Please take a look.
There must be lots of other ways of improving on this idea, like adding an
aperture, etc. LEt's talk about it.
Shots of a couple of possible setups and results can be seen at:
http://members.aol.com/manualminolta/soft.htm
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Re: Home-made soft-focus lenses
wjkean@hotmail.com writes:
<< As you say, presumably the use of a diaphram will allow adjustment of the
effect. Is there a business opportunity here for you? >>
A diaphragm would decrease the effect, so it's not something I'll be
investigating too much. Plus that's not too cheap. The setup I have now
just cost me a few bucks. In terms of business opportunities, I won't
investigate that either. Not only can you put this together cheaply -- if
you already have a bellows -- but there are already alternatives. This is
almost exactly what SIMA did several years ago with their soft-focus lens.
It's a 100mm optic as I recall and uses one tube inside another to focus --
push-pull style. If you use close-up lenses you have more versatility as you
can change focal length which you can't do with the SIMA (except with a tele
converter).
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001
From: Josh Snitkoff <snitkoja@alfred.edu>
Subject: Re: Home-made soft-focus lenses
I have one of the sima lenses you are referring to, it is a single
plastic lens in a barrel as you describe. I believe its a 100 mm 2.8,
wide open it can actually be too soft, I have a roll of negatives that
are so soft it is nearly impossible to get print from them!
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Re: Home-made soft-focus lenses
snitkoja@alfred.edu writes:
<< I believe its a 100 mm 2.8,
wide open it can actually be too soft, I have a roll of negatives that
are so soft it is nearly impossible to get print from them! >>
I've tried using other close-up lenses, like Vivitar, which are single
element lenses, and the results are noticeably softer than the Minolta.
That's OK for some situations, but as you can see from the Minolta results,
they are soft enough. I've also tried some color film and the Minolta
results shine here as well. The Minolta lenses are two element to control
for chromatic aberration, and with the cheaper lenses you get color fringing.
Not with the Minolta's -- just great results. I assume the SIMA gives color
fringing as well. Perhaps the SIMA setup can be modified to accept close-up filters. That might be very convenient and cheaper than a bellows.
One problem with the home-made lenses is the fact that you need a bellows or
flexible extension of some sort. A regular bellows is rather unwieldy, but
the Minolta compact bellows (the newer version) is perfect. The other is
that it's hard to get a normal or wide-angle lens with the close-up lenses.
I'm going to try a couple of +10 diopers which should give me about a 50mm
lens, but I have to figure out a way to get the lenses close enough to the
film. This is a problem with a bellows and the space needed for the adapters.
Josh
From: <jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Rollei TLR use in my work
>From: Eric Goldstein
>Dale Dickerson wrote:
>
> > I also keep a Rolleicord II (late 1940s version) in good working
> > condition for the Triotar lens. Not because it is a great lens, but
> > between f3.5-f4 it will be respectably sharp in the center with very
> > soft edges. The effect can be very nice in some portraits. No filter
> > gives the look. So sometimes I use the camera for the effect.
>
>I think it is a great lens, Dale, for just the purpose you state.
>Wide-open, these lenses can produce wonderful, emotional,
>romantic qualities which more modern lenses cannot.
I agree! I have a couple of Rolleicords with the Triotar lens, the I, I
(type 2), 1a, II, II type 2, and a II type 4. They are all great cameras,
and I feel that the 3,8 Triotar is the softest lens of all my Rollei
cameras. The 3,5 Triotar is very sharp stopped down to 8-11.
For a couple of years I tried to get sharper and sharper results, but now
I'm looking for more romantic, dreamy effects. A pre-war Rolleicord with a
duto soft filter is a nice combination for this purpose. :-)
/Patric
From: "Bob Miano" bmiano@technisonic.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: [HUG] RE: Soft focus filters
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001
I have several filters that each offer similar but unique soft effects.
My fav is still the Zeiss Softar III. The "softness" is just perfect to my
eyes and no one has ever said my photos look out of focus. If you're not
familiar with Softars, the filter physically has spherical dots of various
size on it. I have heard that some folks have made their own Softars by
placing dabs of clear nail polish on a clear filter...sounds interesting but
I've never tried it myself.
Second is the Sailwind Pro-Soft 1. The effect with this filter is more
subtle than the Softar. I bought it because someone else in the HUG said
they shoot everything with it. The filter physically has hash marks on it
similar to a cross star filter...and, as might be expected, gives catch
lights a "starry" look.
Lastly, I sometimes use a Tiffen Soft FX2. This has a similar look to the
Softar but adds warmth. Very good for skin that needs "warming".
I believe I bought all of these filters from B&H; Photo...always in stock,
never any problems.
BTW, other than my Softar and Sailwind, ALL of my filters are Tiffen. I
work for a large film and video production company and our Directors of
Photographer use nothing but Tiffen filters on big film shoots. If it's
good enough for them it's good enough for me!
Good luck!
Bob
bmiano@technisonic.com
WWW.MIANO.TV
www.technisonic.com
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: no zeiss soft lens? Re: Hasselblad - 120mm vs. 150mm vs. 180mm
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> which raises an interesting question; since mamiya and others have soft
> focus lenses (180 SF for RZ67..), fuji, rodenstock's imagon, etc., why has
> there not been a competing soft lens from zeiss instead of the softars,
> which are very nice, but a somewhat different effect? GIven the number of
> hassy and rollei users doing portraits, this would seem to have made good
> marketing sense?
>
> why aren't there any defocus control lenses like the 35mm nikkor SLR ones
> in medium format too?
Isn't it obvious? People love the Softars. They buy them in heaps. And they
leave nothing to be desired.
Using Softar lenses you can get all degrees of softness you want, without
adding any unwanted lens deterioration (which is how "special" soft lenses
work). Allthough it is a matter of taste in the end, they thus give the most
pleasing soft effect. And the effect is the same at all apertures (a thing
a "special" soft lens cannot do without a lot of hassel (sieve diaphragms
etc.)). Softars can be used on all lenses, so you're not restricted to one
focal length.
And do you mean when saying "good marketing sense" that selling "special"
soft lenses is a ploy to get people to pay more than they should? Yes, i can
agree with that.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: no zeiss soft lens? Re: Hasselblad - 120mm vs. 150mm vs. 180mm
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> yes, you are right in a sense re: softar construction, they are not
> prismatic filters in the sense of the 5 element style large scale prism
> filters. But the tiny softar "lenses" of varying sizes and widths (on
> different softar "strengths") or the similar Duto filters (which use a
> series of concentric ridges rather like some fresnel screens) - these have
> an effect on light which can be modeled in optics programs as prismatic
> wedges (cf fresnel ridges). This style of filter (also used by Hoya, IIRC)
> is different from the various styles of diffusion soft filters, and
> produce different effects than diffusers. But I didn't mean to imply that
> they were prismatic filters like the clunky 5 prism special effect lenses,
> but rather like the fresnel style prismatic designs versus the diffusion
> filter series, but it could be confusing as you have noted.
Now... You could also say that all positive lenses can be modelled by a
simple fresnel bi-prism. And in a very coarse approximate way that would be
true. Just like doing that with the tiny lenses on a Softar would be. But
why? What good would that do? ;-)
> But the effects of softars are also different from soft focus lenses, at
> least to my eyes, depending on the lenses, in the examples and comparisons
> I've seen. I assume this is also true of other soft focus lens buyers, who
> would otherwise just use the cheaper softars or even cheaper duto or hoya
> variants? The range of variation is also greater when you can create your
> own sieve disks, so the lens has more potential variability and range...
Indeed, there are many different "soft" looks attainable in many ways
(haven't we been over that already?).
But let me highlight one thing you mention hear: you must (!!!) use sieve
diaphragms on special soft focus lenses to have any controll at all! It is
not an added way of gaining more variation, it is a way of retaining the
soft effect, which would be lost almost completely when a regular central
diaphragm was used.
> although spherical aberration is one of the major factors in soft focus
> lenses, and often cited in lenses with nice "bokeh", there are other
> factors like field curvature and other aberrations in various lenses which
> yield a slightly different "look", at least at the wider apertures.
Curvature of field does not provide an even soft effect. It is restricted to
zones in the image. Not a good soft effect in my book.
What other aberration "provides" a soft effect?
> Flare is another factor which can be useful in portraiture to reduce contrast,
> although some diffusers act similarly by spreading light into darker
> areas.
Yep, that's another interpretation of softness, general loss of contrast.
That is what most diffusers do too. A lot of people like that, i don't (not
that that matters). But this one too can be achieved using regular lenses.
No special lens required.
> Scratched lenses can also be different; there are postings about a
> hassy lens that was steel wool scratched to produce a unique effect for a
> fashion shooter.
Did he really... ??? And there was noone around to tell him he didn't need
to scratch his lens to get the same effect? LOL!
(Scratching your lens would give the same effects as putting some white
gauze in front of it. You can crumple and fold the gauze any way you want
and cut holes in it wherever you like if you don't want an even effect.)
> So even with some soft focus lenses in hand, I still look
> for "bad" older lenses which have an interesting look or effect - if the
> price is right! ;-) ;-)
It's an option. There are others ;-)
> Now you may be right that this market for soft focus lenses is not "many"
> users, but I suspect it is more than the number who have bought hasselblad
> to use the quartz lenses, yes? ;-)
Well of course! Many, many more.
> I'm glad there is a quartz lens option,
> and wish I could find an affordable one (hah!) but these lens lines are
> different in ways that seem odd to me still ;-) Surely lots more soft
> focus lenses are sold by Rodenstock and Mamiya and Fuji and the others?
More than UV-lenses? To regular photographers? I would expect so too.
And Superachromats? Again, yes, i would expect so.
But what would be interesting is to see numbers of soft focus lenses sold
compared to the numbers of all kinds of soft focus attachments sold. Or the
number of soft focus lenses sold compared to the number of photographers
that do in any form and by any means use soft focus, and are happy with the
way they have chosen.
I think i have a fair idea of the outcome. Don't you? ;-)
> see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/available.html on lens lines and
> differences in lenses available in each line. Some are startlingly
> different (e.g., GS-1 vs RB/RZ). These lens lineup differences could push
> someone into one line versus another (e.g, P67 for longer telephotos).
>
> I don't think this matters much for 85% of the medium format SLR owners
> who only have 3 lenses (in hassy, rolleiflex etc. lines anyway - the kiev
> types may have a higher average due to lower costs? ;-) Many of these
> specialty lenses only sold in modest numbers. But if you need or want a
> shift lens wide angle on an SLR, your choices are not many lenses to pick
> from, yes? ;-) Ditto ultrawides, long telephotos etc.
Yes. By the way, does anybody here know if the Mamiya 645 shift lens is any
good?
> On the other hand, that 1,000mm rolleiflex SLR lens was only produced in
> very low digits numbers (at what $10K plus?) and was mostly just rented
> (e.g., shuttle launches, reviews by bob shell etc ;-). In 35mm, many
> lenses are prestige lenses, hand-made at high prices in small numbers,
> mainly for "bragging rights", yes? For most users it wouldn't make a
> difference. But the worry that it might must motivate advertisers and
> mfgers to play on this theme ;-)
I don't know if i can agree with you about the expensive 35 mm stuff. Most
of these things are fast telephoto lenses, and i see very many of them being
used by lots of (mostly) press and fashion photographers. And
cinematographers too. I do have the impression they are real working lenses.
Tools, not toys.
> Compared to 35mm medium format is "lens poor", both in numbers of lenses
> per owner and in lenses available. But even with med fmt SLRs of 6x6 new
> and used, there are interesting differences in the lenses available, which
> might make a difference to different folks. If I were doing portraiture
> seriously, it would make a difference to me (as with Roger Hicks), if I
> were doing architecture and needed an SLR in med fmt, it would make a
> difference, and a specialty lens (like the 38mm biogon SWC/M) could be
> enough to make one stay or expand one med fmt kit over another...
Sure. I think you are right about the one item being able to have a
photographer commit him or herself to a particular brand. But not
exclusively.
When we're leaving the realm of 35 mm quick-photography, and are entering
the world of the medium and large formats, not only equipment grows, but
ways of approaching photography too do change. (If only because in many
cases 35 mm is being used, it's precisely because it would be very
impractical to use any other, larger, format.)
While a 35 mm photographer (i know, i am indulging in sweeping
generalizations here...) might select a lens to "get" a particular shot, a
medium and large format photographer would go about things the other way
round and "create" a shot, using the equipment he has. That is, he or she is
not depending that much on the availability of a particular lens, or other
item. (But granted, times are changing (have been for a long time) and while
our ancestors produced the most beautiful nature and wildlife shots using
their field cameras with very limited choice of focal lengths, it now seems
impossible to even comtemplate doing the same without the aid of the latest
image stabilized super long ultra fast lenses and Landcruisers.)
Next, i don't believe medium and large format photographers are really that
"bound" to one brand. For instance, if you need a 38 mm Biogon for one
particular branch of photography you might well get a Hasselblad SWC
(architecture? Interiors, yes, but architecture... wouldn't be my first
choice). But if you like a Mamiya RZ to do portraits, having a SWC will not
prevent you getting a RZ, will it? Ditto the other way round.
And if someone donated his or her Schneider 55 mm PCS lens to me
(anyone...?), i would gladly buy a camera body to match, even if it is an
Exakta 66. No worries! Not having such a lens, i now simply put away my 6x6
SLR and pick up a viewcamera with Schneider Super-Angulon XL and 6x9 back.
The point i am trying to make is that i think we do not "need" an SLR "if"
we are doing architecture (like in the above "if you need..." and "if i were
doing..."). I think in medium and large format we work the other way round:
we do architecture, and use the equipment available to us that is most
suited for the job. And if that happens not to be an SLR, it happens not to
be an SLR. Even if it happens to be another brand. It doesn't matter.
Or to put it yet another way, i have never ever been tempted to buy a
Hasselblad Arcbody just because i already have other Hasselblad equipment. I
think it was silly for Hasselblad to believe that people would do just that.
And people apparently didn't, hence the swift demise of the Arcbody. But
that is not an indication that people using Hasselblad for some types of
photography don't need a shift and tilt camera, is it? So the what's missing
in one brand's line up can very well (perhaps even better) be filled with
what's on offer from another brand.
The real trouble only begins as soon as we need to pack for doing different
types of photography. Back breaking! Yes, then i too would like a (compact!)
PC lens for my medium format SLR. And it is why i still use my tiny and
lightweight 1970s/1980s (?) 35 mm camera gear. But sooner than having, say,
more lens options, i would not have to do that at all. And without that
pressure, i can honestly say that i never missed having more lenses.
Subject: Re: no Zeiss soft lens? Re: Hasselblad - 120mm vs. 150mm vs 180mm
From: Bob bobsalomon@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001
Q.G. de Bakker at qnu@worldonline.nl wrote
> Softars do provide the best way of
> getting soft focus. You should not care about whether they are made by
> Zeiss, Heliopan, Tiffen or whoever. I know i don't.
No.
Softars are a Zeiss product made by Carl Zeiss and sold by Hasselblad,
Rollei, Heliopan, B+W, Yashica and, possibly, Arriflex.
Tiffen, Hoya and others may have copies that don't work the same way but
they do not have Softars.
Rodenstock has discontinued the sale of all medium format focus mounts and
adapters for the Imagon and they have not sold them for several years.
Zoerk may still make an adapter system and focus tube for the Imagon but
Rodenstock does not.
Additionally the Imagon system sold by Schamteberg is also gone for the
discontinued 120 and 15omm Imagons although there could still be a couple
available.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com
From: "jriegle" jriegle@att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: An old trick for the newbies
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001
In a sense, you made a single element camera lens. No correction as the with
the multi element lenses. YOU MUST BE MAD!!! ; )
Neat photo! I never thought to try this!
John
Bob Fowler saxman@superlink.net> wrote...
> With all of the talk of "Bokeh," softar filters, and defocus controls...
>
> Here's an old trick that works like a charm for getting a nice warm and
> glowing soft focus image. Just use a +10 close up lens on a bellows. Here's
> an example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=484602
>
> How to do it? Simple. I use Nikons, but the technique works for any SLR.
>
> The first thing you need (obviously) is a bellows to fit your camera.
> Here's the good news, it doesn't have to be expensive as you're not going to
> have to worry about coupling to a lens diaphragm. In fact, my bellows is an
> old screw mount unit that I adapted to fit the Nikon body.
>
> Second, you'll need a +10 close up lens, the type that screws onto the front
> of a "real" lens to allow closer focusing.
>
> Third, you'll need a way to attach the close up lens to the bellows. I made
> mine by gluing the empty ring of an old scratched up filter to the front of
> a T mount adapter with epoxy, I'm sure you can find a more elegant method if
> this doesn't fit your style. I used an old filter ring for a reason, you can
> use close up lenses in combinations to get a variety of focal lengths. It
> should be noted that the lens speed is different with each combination, so
> using an aperture priority camera makes this easier unless you want to do
> some (minor) math each time you change your set up.
>
> If you've got a standard +10 lens and +1, +2, and +4 set, you have a pretty
> flexible "soft focus" arsenal. In addition to what combination of lenses
> you're using, lens speed will also be influenced by the diameter of your
> close up lenses and the available diameter of the bellows opening. This
> makes a little experimentation in order. Here's a table of some common
> combinations and focal lengths that I use:
>
> +10 = 100mm
> +10, +1 = 90mm
> +10, +2 = 83mm (may not work with all bellows units at infinity)
> +1, +2, +4 = 142mm
> +2, +6 = 166mm (may not work with all bellows units at infinity)
>
> To find the focal length of your combination, divide 1000 by the total
> diopters of your lens combo (i.e. 1000/7 = 142(ish)).
>
> Another thing to try with your new toy... Take a sheet of heavy black paper
> and cut out several circles to fit into your filter size. Cut holes of
> various sizes to be waterhouse stops so you can adjust the aperture of your
> combo (stopping down will most likely decrease the soft focus effect). You
> can hold the cut out in front of your lens (or behind it) with a UV or
> Skylight filter. Like I said, shooting in aperture priority makes this
> easier. Need more extension? There's no law saying you can't use extension
> tubes AND your bellows.
>
> Have fun and go make some pictures!
>
> Bob Fowler
> saxman@superlink.net
From: "Stein" stein@bekkers.com.au>
To: sylvia.brickwood@worldnet.att.net>, hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Lens diffusion for portraits
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001
Dear Malcolm,
I used a diffuser - actually the Tiffen filter that I bolt onto the
front of the Hasselblad lenses when I am confronting some serious pock
marks - and kept it in constant motion during the exposure. It did soften
the complexions but at the expense of smearing dark into the highlights
rather than the other way around. Interesting for gothick portraits but
strange otherwise. On balance I have decided to leave diffusion to the
taking process rather than the printing.
And on that thread - there was a question some time ago about resin
filters. Cokin filters got a caning and everyone said to get different ones.
I have a large number of Cokins that diffuse, smear, fog out, etc and if
this is what you are looking for, they are ideal.
The No.1 diffusion is very delicate in front of the Planar lenses - just
enough breakdown to ease off the complexion for people of
...errr...well...oh, damnit - alright - people of my age. I have tried it on
me and it makes me look better. The No.2 makes me look even better than that
and when I combine the two with the bottom of a Captain Morgan rum bottle I
end up looking positively handsome.
Moral? Don't write off the Cokin company yet.
Note - some people don't need diffusion. They are actually fuzzy around
their own edges. Just open up a stop or two and light 'em from behind. I
make this joke to all the belly dancers that come in the studio and the
ratio of crying to laughing is now 3:2.
Uncle Dick
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001
From: Mark Rabiner mark@markrabiner.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Lens diffusion for portraits
>{Snip}
> Note - some people don't need diffusion. They are actually fuzzy around
> their own edges. Just open up a stop or two and light 'em from behind. I
> make this joke to all the belly dancers that come in the studio and the
> ratio of crying to laughing is now 3:2.
>
> Uncle Dick
>
There is not a single shot I ever made since the 70's in which i used
diffusion on that i don't regret doing so.
All the unsharp mask in the world does not save these shots. They look hokey.
Sure i had good excuses at the time to play with that stuff. But i don't
agree with any of it now.
I find 99.99% of anything i used diffusion on to be unusable in a modern
portfolio or show of my work.
Which of our favorite photographers used diffusion in the last 30 years?
Uncle Dick I'd make your new years resolution to get more resolution out
of your Zeiss glass for a whole year.
I promise you your photosubjects won't kill you and you wont otherwise die.
Look at Edward Westons stuff. He swore it off and was better off for it.
If they're ugly just move back "say to Cleveland?!" wrinkly people don't
need tight head shots.
Or over expose or print them a tad, washing out some bad texture.
The fuzzy wuzzies have had their day.
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.markrabiner.com
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com>
Subject: [Nikon] Re: Soft Focus Lens, and soft focus effects
you wrote:
>I remember my photo teacher in High School telling me about "soft focus"
>lenses available for older MF cameras (this was back in 1988-89).
The only soft focus lens I can think of for any current 35mm system is the
Minolta 100/2.8 for their Maxxum/Dynax auto-focus system.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
from minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001
From: "markgroep" mark.groep@ramasset.co.uk
Subject: Re: Soft focus objective for portrait?
Minolta made the 85mm f/2.8 Varisoft lens (MC function only). I have
one myself and can say it is a very good performer. It has a nice
Bokeh at f/2.8, with no vignetting whatsoever. It is one of the few
minolta manual lenses with 8 aperture blades and the aperture opening
stays circular in shape to quite small openings (about f/8).
Softness can be continuously set between 0 (very sharp!) and 3 (very
soft) by introducing a controlled degree of spherical abberation.
Focussing has to be done at softness setting 0. Personally I would
stay clear of setting 3 unless 1970's glamour shots are your thing.
Settings 1 and 2 at F/2.8 to f/4 give very pleasing results.
They are rather rare and hence expensive. They are fully metal (and
glass of course) and built like a tank. However, be aware that a lot
of used samples have sticky and/or oily apertures. You can clean it
yourself, but that is not a job for the faint-hearted as it requires
almost complete disassembly!
Try the following link for some more info and images of the lens.
http://www.cameraquest.com/minsoft.htm
Regards,
Mark
> Hi all
>
> Are there any soft focusing objectives for Minolta MD you can
recommend?
>
> Greetz
> Przemek Szymanski
From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001
From: Thomas Wicklund wicklund@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Home-made soft-focus lenses
The equivalent to a diaphram should be fairly simple. A mask over the
front of the lens cutting the aperture should do the trick.
You can get cardboard tubes which slide together -- if one can "screw"
into a T adapter and another hold a filter adapter you could dispense
with the bellows and have a way to focus by moving the front tube in
and out. I made a $10 telephoto many years ago with tubes and an
acromat.
xkaes@aol.com writes:
> A diaphragm would decrease the effect, so it's not something I'll be
> investigating too much. Plus that's not too cheap.
From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001
From: Nikon Cameras NikonCameras@asean-mail.com
Subject: Soft Focus Lens
The lens you are describing was also sold under the Spiratone name. Some
reviewer in Modern Photography (if I remember correctly) reviewed this lens and
told how you can make your own identical lens. The lens is just a simple
single element lens (a +6 close-up lens if I remember correctly). I made my
own equivalent of this lens by mounting the close-up filter in a T-mount and
attaching it to the front of a Novoflex bellows (could have used my PB-4, but
the Novoflex is a lot lighter for portrait use). Focusing is by racking the
lens in and out. While this gives a soft image, it is a different type of
softness than the Fuji lens. (For what it's worth, after I mounted it in the
T-mount, I decided to gain my 15 minutes of fame by engraving in front of the
T-mount "Murrayon [my first name is Murray] 100mm f/4 Portrait Lens Short
Barrel U.S.A.). If you ever see this lens at a swap meet, it is "unique" and
had a production run of only one.
>> Fuji came out
>> with a unique lens, the 85mm f/4 soft-focus Fujinon,
>> which was designed to deliver a soft focus.
>
>If you can find the T-mount all-plastic Sima 100 f2(?) soft focus
>portrait lens, that's a keeper, too.
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001
From: Nikon Aholic nikon_aholic@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Lens conversion
The adapter that Nikon made was intended to allow
EL-Nikkors (enlarging lenses) to be mounted to the F
mount. This is for close-up shooting. There are
adapters made by independent manufacturers that allow
non-Nikon lenses to be mounted also. Fuji came out
with a unique lens, the 85mm f/4 soft-focus Fujinon,
which was designed to deliver a soft focus. It has
something that looks like a strainer (metal disc with
various sized holes cut in it). When you stopped
down, only the center part of the lens is used for the
image and this increases the sharpness. Wide open, it
allows the light to come in through all the holes,
delivering a soft image. I mounted the lens to a
Fuji-Nikon adapter. Of course, I lose all diaphragm
use, but I use the lens wide open anyways. And
focusing is now by moving the lens back and forth
toward the subject. But this lens delivers a real soft
image and was worth the effort. It is attached with
epoxy.
> Depends on which screw-mount lenses and
> bayonet-bodies you mean.
>
> Nikon made a adapter to allow M39 (leica SM) lenses
> to mount on the
> Nikon SLR's. However this was meant for close-ups
> and you couldn't focus
> lens to infinity (unless lens was a short-mount used
> on a bellows).
>
> The Nikon SLR bodies are too deep to allow other SLR
> lenses to be
> mounted and still focus to infinity.
>
> Canon FD cameras could use adapters that allowed
> mounting Nikon SLR and
> M42 (Pentax) lenses and allowing infinity focus.
> There were no diaphragm
> connections and no diaphragm automation.
>
> The adapters mentioned above are strictly mechanical
> adapters - no
> correcting lens elements are used. There are
> adapters that contain
> correcting lens elements that may allow other type
> lenses to mount on a
> Nikon SLR.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001
From: "Joe B." joe-b@clara.co.uk
Subject: Home-made soft-focus lenses- more options
Another way of making a home-made soft focus lens is to use a low
quality 3X teleconverter with a fast 50mm lens. Used wide open this
can make a very nice soft focus effect. In fact I did this some time
ago and I found the results with portraits vastly preferable to those
from the real soft-focus lenses I subsequently tried (Tamron
75-150/2.8 SF zoom and the Canon EF 135 SF lens). That is, until I got
the Minolta Varisoft, which I thin is the best purpose-built soft
focus lens I have used. The good thing about the 3X teleconverter +
50mm combination is that it is easy to focus and you can change
aperture if you want.
Yet another option is to cannibalise the lens from an old folder that
used a meniscus lens (this would mean VERY old) and mount it on
bellows as already described, or some other focusing mount. Here is a
web page that demonstrates this and that gives a couple of example
images shot using such a lens on a 35mm SLR;
http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/vestan_e.htm
I really like the effect in these pictures.
BTW the rest of this site is very interesting also.
Joe B.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Re: Home-made soft-focus lenses- more options
joe-b@clara.co.uk writes:
Another way of making a home-made soft focus lens is to use a low
quality 3X teleconverter with a fast 50mm lens. >>
Yes, I've used a cheap 2X converter with my 58mm 1.2 and get fabulous
results. This gives a 116mm lens, great for portraits. It seems the cheaper
the converter and the wider the lens f-stop, the softer the results. And you
can control the degree of softness by stopping down. By f5.6 it's gone
completely.
http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/vestan_e.htm
This site is great and the results are super as well. I'll have to keep my
eyes open for old junker cameras. I've got an old piece-of-junk, plastic
lens from a Polaroid Pronto that I think is around 120mm. I'll have to adapt
it to my Minolta bellows and see what I get.
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002
To: Contax Mailing List:
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [Contax] Re: Softar - Worth the Price?
you wrote:
>Is it worth spending the extra money to get a Softar - or will less
>expensive soft filters deliver the same effects at a lower price? Does it
>matter which "brand" of Softar I get - or are they all the same just
>packaged by the various filter brands.
All Zeiss Softars, no matter which brand, are the same materiel. BTW,
Ziess Softars are not glass and great care must be taken in handling and
cleaning. IMHO soft focus, both the type and quantity are a matter of
personal preference. What you may consider just right another may consider
far too much. Personally, I'm not wild about the Softars and really
dislike the Nikon soft focus filters (which use embedded silver flake
instead of sculpted lens divots, concentric rings, or other regular
striations). My personal favorite is the SailWind ProSoft, which is darned
hard to locate these days. I use the #1 and the effect is very subtle.
It's not a soft focus look -- rather my proofs look like the next fellow's
retouched finished work. I see more proofs and since the proofs look so
good, customers presume the finished stuff will be that much better.
Many people really seem to like the Tiffen models too.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001
From: "markgroep" mark.groep@ramasset.co.uk
Subject: Re: Soft focus objective for portrait?
Minolta made the 85mm f/2.8 Varisoft lens (MC function only). I have
one myself and can say it is a very good performer. It has a nice
Bokeh at f/2.8, with no vignetting whatsoever. It is one of the few
minolta manual lenses with 8 aperture blades and the aperture opening
stays circular in shape to quite small openings (about f/8).
Softness can be continuously set between 0 (very sharp!) and 3 (very
soft) by introducing a controlled degree of spherical abberation.
Focussing has to be done at softness setting 0. Personally I would
stay clear of setting 3 unless 1970's glamour shots are your thing.
Settings 1 and 2 at F/2.8 to f/4 give very pleasing results.
They are rather rare and hence expensive. They are fully metal (and
glass of course) and built like a tank. However, be aware that a lot
of used samples have sticky and/or oily apertures. You can clean it
yourself, but that is not a job for the faint-hearted as it requires
almost complete disassembly!
Try the following link for some more info and images of the lens.
http://www.cameraquest.com/minsoft.htm
Regards,
Mark
> Hi all
>
> Are there any soft focusing objectives for Minolta MD you can
recommend?
>
> Greetz
> Przemek Szymanski