Diffusion and softening of the pictures

[Dennis-B]

Soft focusing originally came from spherical aberration in the lens. If you look carefully, you'll see that the technique was used well into the 1960's. You can also tell that it was mostly actresses who wanted the soft focus to "enhance" their beauty, and hide minor wrinkles.

Today, all soft focusing requires filtration of some type. Unless you can find an original Dagor, Taylor Hobson, and others, which are primarily for large format, it's going to be difficult to get true soft focus.

 

[Toasty]

What you're looking for is Tiffen Black Promist. If you want some examples there's a ton on YouTube, and a few film YouTubers have been using it on their medium format cameras.

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/55644-REG/Tiffen_77BPM14_77mm_Black_Pro_Mist_1_4.html

 

[Arklatexian]

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

Sirius, which lenses are your "Softars" for? Do you have any for an f4 50mm Distagon? If so are they "drop-in" or "screw-in". I have smaller "Softers" but they don't fit the 50mm Distagon........Also why in Hades does my "spell-checker" keep spelling "softars", sifters? Have they never heard of "photography" or Spanish, or German, etc? And they are certainly not familiar with many words used in the Deep South and I am not talking about South America!........Regards!

 

[AgX]

Sirius, which lenses are your "Softars" for?

There are no Softars made for special lenses. Instead they vary in diameter (filter size) and in the number and size of the moulded lenses. (Maybe the FL of those tiny lenses varies too, I do not have a full set).

 

[John51]

If a stills photographer wants both sharp and soft focus shots, they aren't tied to using just one camera. Owning a Hassy and a Kodak Brownie gives both ends of the sharp/soft scale.

If a movie maker wants sharp and soft in the same scene, I'd guess it needs to be one camera and one lens or the final scene will look disjointed.

 

[Dennis-B]

If a stills photographer wants both sharp and soft focus shots, they aren't tied to using just one camera. Owning a Hassy and a Kodak Brownie gives both ends of the sharp/soft scale.

If a movie maker wants sharp and soft in the same scene, I'd guess it needs to be one camera and one lens or the final scene will look disjointed.

The soft-focus lenses tended to put cinematographers in a slight bind. Male actors didn't mind the aging as much, since it gave them that "ruggedly handsome" look. I've seen older movie scenes done both ways, and I believe that whomever was the bigger star got their way when it came to the lenses.

Another thing is, that depending on how close the take was, the cinematographer could use a "normal", non-soft lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius, which lenses are your "Softars" for? Do you have any for an f4 50mm Distagon? If so are they "drop-in" or "screw-in". I have smaller "Softers" but they don't fit the 50mm Distagon........Also why in Hades does my "spell-checker" keep spelling "softars", sifters? Have they never heard of "photography" or Spanish, or German, etc? And they are certainly not familiar with many words used in the Deep South and I am not talking about South America!........Regards!

They are neither. They are B-60 which has a bayonet mount.

 

[anthonylg]

Hi everyone,

I was away for a couple of days and just saw your answer, thanks! I'll try to answer everything...

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).

Thanks for the picture, its softness looks very nice! Never used this filter but I'll have a look on ebay...

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.

Just saw that you're in Melbourne, no surprise you studied Henson! You must have seen prints of his work, I'm kind of jealous ahah, must look gorgeous. The blacks are weak, I think the grain might come from underexposure and then printing up a bit. The soft focus filter is really possible, or maybe also a low contrast filter. There's some kind of halation on the large pictures and it could come from that too, maybe.

This is an example of what Jimgalli wrote above in post #13. I used a diffusion filter during the printing stage.
View attachment 232190

It looks really nice! I didn't know that the black were glowing instead of the whites (even if that's totally logical!), looks interesting. But I think for most part I'll scan my negatives and positives and work on them digitally.

Thanks everyone for mentioning the softar and duto, I'll look into that.

Also, I don't think sharpness is more important in photography than moving pictures. I've seen soft or blurry pictures from Henson or Sally Mann that look better than 99% of the pictures I know. I think it's purely an artistic decision. In film as well. Some cinematographers love very sharp pictures, some love diffusion. Khondji, one of the greatest, sometimes use 3 types of diffusions at the same time, on the light, in front of the lens, and at the back of the lens too. Not necessarly for close-ups, for large shots as well.

 

[anthonylg]

What you're looking for is Tiffen Black Promist. If you want some examples there's a ton on YouTube, and a few film YouTubers have been using it on their medium format cameras.

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/55644-REG/Tiffen_77BPM14_77mm_Black_Pro_Mist_1_4.html

And yes, i'm talking about these filters in my very first message I use them very often for my cinemetagraphy work and I'm making some test on B&W 35mm with the 1/4 these days.

 

[AgX]

I already mentioned "schools". There also is something as "trend". There was a time in still photopgraphy when diffusion was a big issue and various respective lenses emerged. Then there was a period when there mainly was the Imagon and some refractive filters. Then again a period with various lenses that incorporated a variable diffusion feature.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There are numerous grades. How do you know which one to use? Does anyone have links on FLickr to see the results?

 

[BrianShaw]

There are numerous grades. How do you know which one to use? Does anyone have links on FLickr to see the results?

1 is the lowest amount of soft; 3 is the most. 2 is in the middle.

In Softar and the like... I like 1 for most “older women” and sometimes older men. 3 is just too much for me. 2 and 3 give “dreamlike David Hamilton “ feel.

A very good representation of the difference is seen in the B+W catalog. The Tiffen catalogue had good representation of their products but I haven’t looked at that in a while.

If you google around I’m sure you can find Imagon and Fujinon SF examples... as well as the older SF lenses.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Thanks Brian. I check the Tiffen site. Here''s the link.
https://tiffen.com/products/black-pro-mist-filter

 

[BrianShaw]

Also check the soft fx. That’s Tiffen version of the Softar. Together with an 812 warming it’s a sweet combo.

https://tiffen.com/products/soft-fx-screw-in-filter

 

[John Wiegerink]

Also check the soft fx. That’s Tiffen version of the Softar. Together with an 812 warming it’s a sweet combo.

https://tiffen.com/products/soft-fx-screw-in-filter

I'll second the Tiffen #812 filter and used it a ton for certain wedding shots and family/individual portraits. The Tiffen soft focus filters are very good also, but I always used my Zeiss #1 and #2 softars much, much more and haven't really ever found anything better. If there is anything better? JW

 

[BrianShaw]

I'll second the Tiffen #812 filter and used it a ton for certain wedding shots and family/individual portraits. The Tiffen soft focus filters are very good also, but I always used my Zeiss #1 and #2 softars much, much more and haven't really ever found anything better. If there is anything better? JW

I’ve used both. They are functionally equivalents in my experience. The difference between Zeiss and Tiffen is that Tiffen has a wider range, 1 to 5 with the softness advertised as “doubled” for each number.

 

[DAVID GEORGE WATSON]

I have a set of 1x Carl Zeiss Softar No.1, and also the No. 2, which i use on the 150mm, or 250mm Sonnars with my Rolleiflex 6008 Integral. I must say I don't always use them, depends very much on the portrait subject. However, I do think that part of the reason for the demise of use of the softening technique, is, due to a degree , to the over enthusiastic use of 'sharpening' by digital photographers.

 

[wiltw]

In the distant past, there were offered a wider spectrum of 'soft focus' devices for use while taking the photo, and a few for using in the darkroom. There were a few soft focus lenses offered, rather than relying upon aftermarket add ons. Various net densities, net colors, and soft filters using tiny lenses on the surface, and the reknown Softar filters
Nowadays, post processing allows the application of software filters after the photo is taken, affording greater flexibility in the degree of softness as well as differing effects, compared to filters which forced selection before shooting any given shot (unless the photographer chose to do it in the darkroom during enlarging (but the results were noticeable different from before-the-lens filters applied during shooting.