Enlarging lenses - is always sharpness preferable?

Jerevan · Jan 24, 2008

When making photographs, there is a lot of discussions about using and experimenting with different optics and characteristics of certain camera lenses. When talking about enlarging lenses it seems like the questions mostly relate to sharpness and coverage and if one optic actually works on a specific enlarger.

A long time ago, I used an older Leitz (pre-Valoy) and the results where very different to what I had seen before, no doubt because it was a condenser and it had an uncoated lens. Even using my Canon AE-1 with "modern" optics it looked like 1933 had come back again.

I was thinking, do we all strive for maximum clarity and sharpness when printing or does someone experiment with older enlarging lenses, uncoated or not?

Ole · Jan 24, 2008

I still haven't got around to mounting the Voigtländer W.Z. on the enlarger. As far as I know, that is the only intentionally soft-focus enlarger lens ever made...

Ed Sukach · Jan 24, 2008

Jerevan said:
I was thinking, do we all strive for maximum clarity and sharpness when printing or does someone experiment with older enlarging lenses, uncoated or not?

Aesthetics are all-important - do you WANT to show each and every detail? One major application of "softness" is in portraiture. I have two Softening filters I use extensively over the enlarging lens - "blemish removers".

Softening is a tool - and can be used very effectively in establish mood, atmosphere ...

Pinholemaster · Jan 24, 2008

Good question. I tend to control the image in the camera, not the enlarger (other than dodging and burning). Thus, no matter how 'soft' the images is from the lens on the camera, I want an optically sharp translating of the softness from the enlarger lens.

But further interpretation with the enlarger's optics is a valid method if you have an enlarger lens that has characteristics you can understand with consistent, repeatable results. Good luck with your exploration. Sounds like your question can lead you somewhere fun.

BobNewYork · Jan 24, 2008

It's all about the best tool for the job; and the job is to best convey your artistic expression to the viewer. I've always worked on the basis that I'll use the sharpest lenses I can afford and then, if the image needs it, I'll use diffusion of some sort at the taking or printing stage. (In-camera and in-darkroom diffusion have very different looks to them.)

Most lenses have different "feels". For example, for portraits in 35mm I far prefer my old Nikkor 105mm f2.5 to either my 105mm f2.8 AF Micro or the AIS f1.8. I've tried verbalizing the differences between them - but I can't. Also, I just acquired an old Koni-Omega with three lenses and my first impressions are that these lenses are very different and very interesting. They won't work for everything - but they're another weapon in my arsenal.

The final image is crucial factor - the equipment is merely a means of attaining it.

matti · Jan 24, 2008

Since light=dark in the enlarger. A soft lens there must give a different look than in the camera. The "glow" will be around the darkness instead of specular highlights. What would it look like?

Glowing darkness? Sounds scary.

/matti

Ole · Jan 24, 2008

Matti, look up Robert Mapplethorpe's portraits. His printer was very fond of enlargement softing.

You might prefer not to look up RM while at work, though...

matti · Jan 24, 2008

Hi Ole,
No worries about my workplace. I'm the prude one compared to the other people here.
But I have never seen what you are describing as soft printing in Mapplethorpe's work. Looks pretty sharp to me.

/matti

srs5694 · Jan 24, 2008

matti said:
Since light=dark in the enlarger. A soft lens there must give a different look than in the camera. The "glow" will be around the darkness instead of specular highlights. What would it look like?

Glowing darkness? Sounds scary.

I've been noticing that effect in some old (WWII-era, mostly) documentary films lately -- dark areas tend to "glow dark," as it were. My supposition is that the footage I've seen has been copied from prints made from negative movie films, with the prints having halation or some other issues. To be sure, I've not seen this effect on all films from this era, just a few.

Lee Shively · Jan 24, 2008

I used to print photos of young ladies through a section of white nylon stocking material. The shadows would take on the mentioned "glow" as the lighter areas would be softened. Softness could be controlled by bunching up the material or changing the number of layers of material. The effect was pretty nice but a lot of it had to do with the subject matter--pretty girls always look pretty nice.

I'm not too terribly technical-minded but I remember reading of the differences in the characteristics of the light that different enlargers produce. I'm a condenser guy--I've always preferred the apparent sharpness condenser enlargers produce. But some condenser enlargers have a more diffuse effect than others. I've used different models of Leitz enlargers that have a semi-diffusion effect due to using a large heavily-frosted bulb and the light chamber being fairly large, rounded and reflective. My current enlarger is an LPL with a small bulb and a mirror system that concentrates the light and the results are much "harder". I've also used a diffusion enlarger with color head that was decidely more "soft" than the Leitz or the LPL. It may be that these characteristics of the light have more of an effect on the final print than the design of the enlarging lens. As for the enlarging lens, I lean toward sharpness.

Ole · Jan 24, 2008

matti said:
Hi Ole,
No worries about my workplace. I'm the prude one compared to the other people here.
But I have never seen what you are describing as soft printing in Mapplethorpe's work. Looks pretty sharp to me.

/matti

It's pretty obvious to me, but I know what it looks like when done right - I used to do it far too much.

More than half the portraits and self-portraits on http://www.mapplethorpe.org/selectedworks.html are softed in printing...

Russ Young · Jan 24, 2008

Ole-

There was a model of the VERITO made specifically for enlarging. It has a slot for Waterhouse stops. The stops were geometric shapes such as stars. I own one but it lacks the special stops... Most of the major pictorialists opposed diffusion in the darkroom as the blacks bleeding into whites were such an unnatural appearance (Kenna obviously didn't read their statements).

Russ

lee · Jan 24, 2008

I know it is not the place but welcome back Ed.

lee\c

matti · Jan 25, 2008

Aha. Here I see it: http://www.mapplethorpe.org/portraits3.html

/matti

cowanw · Jan 25, 2008

Ole said:
It's pretty obvious to me, but I know what it looks like when done right - I used to do it far too much.

More than half the portraits and self-portraits on http://www.mapplethorpe.org/selectedworks.html are softed in printing...

(Did not catch the above post before I posted)
For example Isabella Rossalllini (sic), see how the dress bleeds into the skin, rather than the other way around.
I think you need wrinkle free skin for this since it is the opposite of hiding wrinkles by the more usual bleeding light into the darker wrinkles.
Regards
Bill

matti · Jan 25, 2008

I suppose diffusion with stocking/vaseline is the same as using a soft lens when enlarging as we are talking about flat surfaces compared to a taking lens where softness and out of focus areas is connected and a soft lens and a soft filter gives a totally different image. Or?

/matti

BobNewYork · Jan 25, 2008

I quite often use two 5x7 mats sandwiching two layers of Saran Wrap for this. It is particularly effective for my more vain clients! It is a very different "effect" from a Softar on the camera lens.

panastasia · Jan 30, 2008

cowanw said:
(Did not catch the above post before I posted)
For example Isabella Rossalllini (sic), see how the dress bleeds into the skin, rather than the other way around.
I think you need wrinkle free skin for this since it is the opposite of hiding wrinkles by the more usual bleeding light into the darker wrinkles.
Regards
Bill

Good observation!

When diffusing the image at the camera lens the bright areas of the image will blend/bleed into the dark areas, and when diffusing the image while printing the reverse is true, the dark will bleed into the lighter areas - not appealing with portraits and white clothing.

Jerevan · Jan 30, 2008

Some interesting thoughts here - I was thinking along the lines of how the uncoated optics might push light into the shadows or hold the highlights in some other way. That the older lens might "see" differently. Sort of the equivalent of the discussions of uncoated vs coated camera lenses.

Ed Sukach · Jan 30, 2008

panastasia said:
Good observation!
When diffusing the image at the camera lens the bright areas of the image will blend/bleed into the dark areas, and when diffusing the image while printing the reverse is true, the dark will bleed into the lighter areas - not appealing with portraits and white clothing.

I am **completely** lost here!

I have used a "diffusion filter" in portraiture for many moons, now, with success. I've been trying to reason out all this about "dark bleeding into light" - and vice versa ... and nothing seems to make sense.

There is now way I can determine if anyone will consider this as an acceptable procedure to everyone - or anyone - here.

Gang - try risking a piece of paper or two - you just MAY discover another useful tool for the box ... and you may not. Worth a shot at it ... no?

Enlarging lenses - is always sharpness preferable?

Jerevan

Ole

Moderator

Ed Sukach

Pinholemaster

BobNewYork

matti

Ole

Moderator

matti

srs5694

Lee Shively

Ole

Moderator

Russ Young

lee

matti

cowanw

matti

BobNewYork

panastasia

Jerevan

Ed Sukach

Enlarging lenses - is always sharpness preferable?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency