Diffusion and softening of the pictures

[anthonylg]

Hi everyone,

I'll soon make some test with my rb67, but I'm wondering... I come from cinematography and in our field with often use diffusion in front or behind the lens. With filters like the Tiffen black pro-mist or sometimes with nets behind the lens. I find it less common in the photography field and was wondering why. Is sharpness more important in photography while the moving pictures need more softness?

For example, I love the colors of Provia (and sometimes Velvia in low contrast situations), but find it sometimes too sharp around the edges and want to find a way to counter that and also add a little bit of diffusion. Do you have any tip or idea ? Or even examples of pictures and photographers who did that? Bill Henson's anti-portraits of ballerinas is a reference, but not sure how he did it (https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/8060/bill-hensons-bewitching-anti-portraits-of-ballerinas).

Thanks

 

[AgX]

I think it is just because still and moving pictures in the past have been made by different people. Both being educated only within their own field, down to seperate textbooks. Out of this different attitudes, penchants evolved.

 

[miha]

Just put some vaseline over the UV filter and voila!

 

[BrianShaw]

As you probably know, there are many different softening filters available. And a few soft focus lenses too. All offer a bit of difference and one option might not fit all situations.

While some still photographers are sharpness fiends, there are some who recognize the utility of softness... and it really depends more on subject matter and artistic intent than labels imposed on individual photographers. Although sometimes a label can accurately characterize a individual’s general approach.

 

[BrianShaw]

For the situation you cite, I’d opt for a duto.

Or a wide open aperture.

Or a triplet lens.

 

[AgX]

I think it is just because still and moving pictures in the past have been made by different people. Both being educated only within their own field, down to seperate textbooks. Out of this different attitudes, penchants evolved.

A example a bit different: In the past one hardly ever saw a professional cine camera without a lens shade, rectangular, with apt aspect ratio, made in form of a bellows on rods and with grooves for filters. Whereas such practically never was seen at a still camera. One manufacturer tried to offer such for still cameras. In vain.

 

[BrianShaw]

A example a bit different: In the past one hardly ever saw a professional cine camera without a lens shade, rectangular, with apt aspect ratio, made in form of a bellows on rods and with grooves for filters. Whereas such practically never was seen at a still camera. One manufacturer tried to offer such for still cameras. In vain.

Several offered, if I’m not mistaken... some in fixed, dedicated design for specific focal length lenses... and mostly in vain. But in a couple of cases it was use the one offered or a users choice to not use lens hood.

 

[macfred]

A example a bit different: In the past one hardly ever saw a professional cine camera without a lens shade, rectangular, with apt aspect ratio, made in form of a bellows on rods and with grooves for filters. Whereas such practically never was seen at a still camera. One manufacturer tried to offer such for still cameras. In vain.

I have one for my Bronica ETRSi ! It's called Bronica ETR Compendium.

 

[AgX]

But you must admit such is rare. (Though there is no real technical reason not to use such.) What I see as proof of my idea of different "schools".

 

[macfred]

But you must admit such is rare ...

Yes, I do.

 

[macfred]

I have a Rolleisoft I bay II for my Rolleiflex but I rarely used it so far.
Sometimes ago I got a Tiffen Gold Diffusion FX Filter*1 (Light Loss: 1/3f:stop) for cheap - tried it a few times and I like it (it does a little warming and diffusion on the Fuji Pro400H).

FUJI GA645 - EBC Fujinon f/4 60mm - FUJI Pro 400H with Tiffen Gold Diffusion FX Filter*1

 

[reddesert]

Cine filmmaking and still photography are carried out in very different environments. For example, on a movie set, there will often be huge lights and reflectors just outside the frame, even if it is outdoors with some natural light. That's probably one reason you see more vigorous attention to lens shading. Also, even a small movie crew will likely have more than one person dedicated to operating the camera and its accessories. Compendium shades for still cameras exist (esp for large format) and are a pretty common studio item, I think. But they're bulky and complex and you are unlikely to see a still photographer casually walking around with them.

Cinematography often moves from distance shots to closeups and I'd imagine the closeups are where diffusion gets used more (I am not a cinematographer).

There are plenty of examples of diffusion in Hollywood still photos of movie stars from the 30s, George Hurrell is probably the best known still photographer of classic Hollywood style. After that, the breakup of the studio system, etc, a more documentary and naturalistic style came into favor. For some of the forces at work, see http://www.classicmoviehub.com/blog...-exclusive-guest-post-by-author-mary-mallory/ Much of still photography has a documentary heritage where overall acuity conveys a presentation of reality. That's not to say that diffusion is wrong; it's an effect and has its place as an effect. But the stylistic heritage of the movies and stills are different.

 

[jimgalli]

Don't forget that diffusion can be added at the enlarging stage. It can be slightly macabre as the black glows instead of the white. Love the ballerina images.

 

[macfred]

Don't forget that diffusion can be added at the enlarging stage. It can be slightly macabre as the black glows instead of the white. Love the ballerina images.

Yes, agreed - those Bewitching 'Anti-Portraits' of Ballerinas are beautiful !

 

[miha]

A "Weichzeichnen" filter was a must of every portrait / studio photographer some decades ago.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have softar filters which I have never chosen to use. Also there are various soft lenses available.

 

[javieref]

Hi everyone,

I'll soon make some test with my rb67, but I'm wondering... I come from cinematography and in our field with often use diffusion in front or behind the lens. With filters like the Tiffen black pro-mist or sometimes with nets behind the lens. I find it less common in the photography field and was wondering why. Is sharpness more important in photography while the moving pictures need more softness?

For example, I love the colors of Provia (and sometimes Velvia in low contrast situations), but find it sometimes too sharp around the edges and want to find a way to counter that and also add a little bit of diffusion. Do you have any tip or idea ? Or even examples of pictures and photographers who did that? Bill Henson's anti-portraits of ballerinas is a reference, but not sure how he did it (https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/8060/bill-hensons-bewitching-anti-portraits-of-ballerinas).

Thanks

Bill Henson is a great Australian photographer *polarising for some.
Much of his work is solitary, no assistants.

During my BFA (Photography - Major, Film - Minor), we studied Henson, his work, technique, etc amongst others.

If you look closely at your examples one can speculate what he has used.
1. Highlights are uniform *my best guess overcast day through large window light. As you would be aware the closer to get the the windows/wall the more it will wrap around the subject - broad light source. The further away it becomes a point light source.
2. Film emulsion. Higher the ASA/ISO = larger grain.
3. Softness of the images. Best guess. A softar, soft focus filter. As this work was produced 74-76 I would go with the Cokin Diffuser P-series.

 

[ic-racer]

This is an example of what Jimgalli wrote above in post #13. I used a diffusion filter during the printing stage.

 

[Willyekerslike]

Mamiya made a 150mm SF (soft focus) lens for the RB67. It has a special set of filters that fit inside the lens. I find it very effective for some portraits and flower shots but it does take some experimenting to get just the look you are after when you start to use it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Mamiya made a 150mm SF (soft focus) lens for the RB67. It has a special set of filters that fit inside the lens. I find it very effective for some portraits and flower shots but it does take some experimenting to get just the look you are after when you start to use it.

Wedding photographers used them. Brides didn't want to see their zits. Plus everyone looks better a little blurry.
Regarding movies, the fact that the movie is moving eliminates the problem if the picture ins;t as sharp. You can;t get away with that in a still.
Also, and correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a movie maker, but can't you adjust the shutter rate of each frame. A shorter shutter length smoothes out the flow while higher shutter rates makes the flow more staccato like the battle scenes in the film Saving Private Ryan.

 

[GLS]

I have various Softar filters that came with some of my Hasselblad lenses, but I have never once used them. I use a hybrid workflow via digitising my film, and creating soft effects is very easily done (and with much more control) at that stage, should one wish to. I assume a similar effect can also be achieved in an enlarger.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi everyone,

I'll soon make some test with my rb67, but I'm wondering... I come from cinematography and in our field with often use diffusion in front or behind the lens. With filters like the Tiffen black pro-mist or sometimes with nets behind the lens. I find it less common in the photography field and was wondering why. Is sharpness more important in photography while the moving pictures need more softness?

For example, I love the colors of Provia (and sometimes Velvia in low contrast situations), but find it sometimes too sharp around the edges and want to find a way to counter that and also add a little bit of diffusion. Do you have any tip or idea ? Or even examples of pictures and photographers who did that? Bill Henson's anti-portraits of ballerinas is a reference, but not sure how he did it (https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/8060/bill-hensons-bewitching-anti-portraits-of-ballerinas).

Thanks

I think, moving picture can tolerate more softness because, our brain fills in the missing det from the other moving picture.While with stills, you only get what you see in one image.Therefore, detail and sharpness is more important.

 

[JPD]

Duto filters are good. Clear glass with thin concentric rings that give an unsharp overlay over the sharp image. The Rolleisoft filters work this way. They work best at large apertures and don't steal any light. Duto filters have been around for almost 90 years and can both be found new and used.

 

[AgX]

I think, moving picture can tolerate more softness because, our brain fills in the missing det from the other moving picture.While with stills, you only get what you see in one image.Therefore, detail and sharpness is more important.

I think here you mix up graininess with softness.

 

[BrianShaw]

Mamiya made a 150mm SF (soft focus) lens for the RB67. It has a special set of filters that fit inside the lens. I find it very effective for some portraits and flower shots but it does take some experimenting to get just the look you are after when you start to use it.

That’s the Fujinon system that uses “sink strainers”. I have the LF version (250mm) and really like it. That lens always has me tempted to buy one more MF camera!