The art of the soft portrait

gandolfi · Oct 22, 2010

CGW said:
Whatever. SF lenses are really one trick ponies. The images have a stale look however rendered or manipulated that's worn out its welcome.
Maybe the look will come back sometime but for now the PS versions trump in camera versions for photo editors.

Whatever? that's a nice reply.

I forgot to say in my previous post that in many of the dedicated SF lenses you can make the choise of making a tack sharp image. OR a soft one - the amount of softness is also your choise. (hardly a one trick pony).

I respect your dislike in SF images. But stating that they has worn out their welcome is hardly right...your welcome maybe.

you said earlier: "Suspect those who buy them really don't know what they're getting."..

I suspect you don't really know about SF lenses, but you don't like the SF look(s), (which is fine by me)

Barry S · Oct 22, 2010

CGW said:
Whatever. SF lenses are really one trick ponies. The images have a stale look however rendered or manipulated that's worn out its welcome.
Maybe the look will come back sometime but for now the PS versions trump in camera versions for photo editors.

This couldn't be further from the truth. What's stale are are the canned photoshop effects you seem to think are better than the real thing. Original organic effects created in camera and by the process can be (poorly) imitated in Photoshop, but not duplicated. Photo editors like strong images, they don't necessarily care how they were created. Perhaps Sally Mann should have used photoshop and saved herself a lot of trouble.

Your experience sounds like it doesn't go beyond the 70's and cokin soft filters. The effects of large format soft focus lenses are complex and variable as gandolfi mentioned--nothing like one-dimensional photoshop tricks. These lenses were made between the late 19th and mid 20th centuries and their prices have been skyrocketing as photographers rediscover them.

CGW · Oct 22, 2010

Barry S said:
This couldn't be further from the truth. What's stale are are the canned photoshop effects you seem to think are better than the real thing. Original organic effects created in camera and by the process can be (poorly) imitated in Photoshop, but not duplicated. Photo editors like strong images, they don't necessarily care how they were created. Perhaps Sally Mann should have used photoshop and saved herself a lot of trouble.

Your experience sounds like it doesn't go beyond the 70's and cokin soft filters. The effects of large format soft focus lenses are complex and variable as gandolfi mentioned--nothing like one-dimensional photoshop tricks. These lenses were made between the late 19th and mid 20th centuries and their prices have been skyrocketing as photographers rediscover them.

For starters, we're not talking about Sally Mann--a personal favorite--whose work isn't on the table.To tarbrush PS "effects" as bogus or "canned" simply implies you know less than most about what someone like Pascal Dangin does. His fashion work isn't one-dimensional or trite.

The OP brought up the issue of SF portraiture,its long gone heyday in the 70s, and why it passed in favor of hyper-sharpness. I see greater inventiveness and creative latitude made possible by PS in capable hands than was ever enabled by a lens alone--whatever the format. I love analog capture but it's often only the first step to a final image for me.

Barry S · Oct 22, 2010

We're not debating the utility of photoshop--but it's ability to displace the effect of lens and process. This thread expanded beyond the misguided notion that the 70's was the pinnacle of "soft-focus" photography. You can use a soft focus lens or photoshop to turn out kitsch, but your dismissive tone to gandolfi's points seems to ignore both Pictorialism and the facts on the ground regarding soft focus lenses.

panchro-press · Oct 23, 2010

There's one element I'd like to add to this discussion. It's format size and its relationship to soft focus images.
Frankly, I don't think 35mm soft focus photographs can approach the quality of a large format soft focus print.
A 35mm soft focus print will still have sharp focus grain. To blur the grain pattern requires the picture itself to be blurred and there is a world of difference between soft focus and out-of-focus.
This sharp grain/soft image creates, I think, a discordant image. The viewer is confronted with seeing a soft focus image and simultaneously a sharp grain pattern.

Dave

Grif · Oct 28, 2010

Gerald C Koch said:
Use a small embroidery hoop to hold the fabric taught. They come as small as 3 inch diameter. The distance between the lens and the stocking determines the amount of diffusion.

Then you open the issue of spreading dark into the light areas,,, vs in the camera, when the light moves into the dark areas of the film.

I liked the effect in the enlarger. Back when,,, I tried for the sharpest, clean negative I could do,,, and did the manipulation in the dark room. Now that I'm old,,, I'll be trying out the other side a bit, might even try the old vasoline on the skylight filter trick.... never did that as a kid.

Mainecoonmaniac · Oct 28, 2010

I remember Hasselblad made soft filters plus some other brands made them too. Have you ever tried the black netting over the lens. You could also print softer with soft filters in the darkroom too.

lxdude · Oct 29, 2010

CGW said:
Whatever. SF lenses are really one trick ponies. The images have a stale look however rendered or manipulated that's worn out its welcome.
Maybe the look will come back sometime but for now the PS versions trump in camera versions for photo editors.

SF lenses have a large degree of variability. A slight effect is possible-not everything SF will look like that 70's look. Saran wrap, Vaseline on a filter, sheer stockings over the lens-all these do something different optically than what happens inside an SF lens.
BTW-You know so many photo editors you can make a blanket statement like that about them?

Rudeofus · Oct 29, 2010

panchro-press said:
There's one element I'd like to add to this discussion. It's format size and its relationship to soft focus images.
Frankly, I don't think 35mm soft focus photographs can approach the quality of a large format soft focus print.

A 35mm soft focus print will still have sharp focus grain. To blur the grain pattern requires the picture itself to be blurred and there is a world of difference between soft focus and out-of-focus.
This sharp grain/soft image creates, I think, a discordant image. The viewer is confronted with seeing a soft focus image and simultaneously a sharp grain pattern.

This sharp/soft combination creates a certain mood which I like a lot for some motives. While not made with SF lenses, look at highly pushed B&W images with out of focus areas or motion blur. It looks like half tone which creates a raw/crude look, and with SF lenses you gain extra control over it.

So I would like to phrase the opposite question: what's the point of large format and soft focus? Can't you replicate its effect in the dark room, and much more accurately than small format and SF? Note that Heinrich Kühns negatives were all tack sharp, only in the dark room and by choice of photographic paper he created his famous dreamy prints.

Mainecoonmaniac · Oct 29, 2010

I really love portraits taken with Petzval lenses. This shot is just beautiful.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabato/5099924296/

It's it not all soft. Also softness is not just shallow DOF.

gandolfi · Oct 29, 2010

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I really love portraits taken with Petzval lenses. This shot is just beautiful.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabato/5099924296/

It's it not all soft. Also softness is not just shallow DOF.

as much as I agree with you, petzval has nothing to do with soft focus....

rather about the big difference between a razor sharp center and diffused corners.

Russ Young · Jan 18, 2011

The typical gauche comments from those who have never seen anything but the poor imitations of the last fifty years... look at an original before 1920. What has become truly boring is the ultra-sharp images of the last eighty years - you'd think there would be some progress in photographic aesthetics in that long a time.

Anything placed in front of the lens destroys resolution. Period. This is not true of a good soft focus lens.

A soft focus lens works primarily through spherical aberration and creates a less distinct image overlaying a sharper image.

Another extremely important difference is the rendering of the areas behind best focus. With a quality soft focus lens, they transition very gradually into softer and softer rendering. Somewhat related is the issue of bokeh. Neither PhotoSnot nor something placed in front of the lens has either of these qualities.

Russ

Mainecoonmaniac · Jan 18, 2011

I'm a huge fan of Petzval lenses. Take a look.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=petzval+portrait&m=text

michaelbsc · Jan 18, 2011

jnanian said:
a thousand dollars is quite a bit of money.
i hate to suggest this, but i will ...
lens baby makes a single cell meniscus lens
with sink strainer apertures. it is basically their
take on one of the most popular portrait lenses
of all time - the rodenstock imagon. it is a glass lens,
and it comes in their new mount system.
you won't spend anywhere near 1000$

i am a big fan of soft focus portraits.
less sharp, less in critical focus allows the viewer
some lee-way in understanding an image.

while some may think soft focus is cheesy
ultrasharp and deep DOF can be just as bad.
its just another tool to work with.

have fun
john

Stretch pantyhose across the objective lens.

I've only tried it a few times, but it is interesting.

gandolfi · Jan 18, 2011

CGW said:
For starters, we're not talking about Sally Mann--a personal favorite--whose work isn't on the table..

gotta love this sentence.

doesn't Sally Mann use true soft focus lenses all the time....

CGW · Jan 18, 2011

gandolfi said:
gotta love this sentence.

doesn't Sally Mann use true soft focus lenses all the time....

Lens or process--you tell me.

gandolfi · Jan 18, 2011

lens - definitively lens...

She is a master in a darkroom, but ...

greybeard · Jan 18, 2011

2: "easily replicated with PS"...
well - we're talking analouge photography here, aren't we?
And even if we were not - the true SF (at least in LF) isn't easily replicated. And if it were, then it just look exactely like that: a replica..

(I have never seen a SF picture made in PS that looks right....)

Gandolfi, that's because the PS images weren't done right.

All you have to do is separate the pixels according to distance from the focal plane and radial distance from the lens axis, then apply a mathematical transform to replicate the effect of each pixel at its particular "depth" being defocused as it would be due to the effects of spherical aberration. Of course, Photoshop has no way of knowing how far from the focal plane a given pixel is, so for a high-resolution digital picture you are going to be at this for a while.

Or you could just use a soft focus lens in the first place

gandolfi · Jan 18, 2011

greybeard said:
2: "easily replicated with PS"...
well - we're talking analouge photography here, aren't we?
And even if we were not - the true SF (at least in LF) isn't easily replicated. And if it were, then it just look exactely like that: a replica..

(I have never seen a SF picture made in PS that looks right....)

Gandolfi, that's because the PS images weren't done right.

All you have to do is separate the pixels according to distance from the focal plane and radial distance from the lens axis, then apply a mathematical transform to replicate the effect of each pixel at its particular "depth" being defocused as it would be due to the effects of spherical aberration. Of course, Photoshop has no way of knowing how far from the focal plane a given pixel is, so for a high-resolution digital picture you are going to be at this for a while.

Or you could just use a soft focus lens in the first place

removed account4 · Jan 18, 2011

greybeard said:
2: "easily replicated with PS"...
well - we're talking analouge photography here, aren't we?
And even if we were not - the true SF (at least in LF) isn't easily replicated. And if it were, then it just look exactely like that: a replica..

(I have never seen a SF picture made in PS that looks right....)

Gandolfi, that's because the PS images weren't done right.

All you have to do is separate the pixels according to distance from the focal plane and radial distance from the lens axis, then apply a mathematical transform to replicate the effect of each pixel at its particular "depth" being defocused as it would be due to the effects of spherical aberration. Of course, Photoshop has no way of knowing how far from the focal plane a given pixel is, so for a high-resolution digital picture you are going to be at this for a while.

Or you could just use a soft focus lens in the first place

lxdude · Jan 18, 2011

CGW said:
Whatever. SF lenses are really one trick ponies. The images have a stale look however rendered or manipulated that's worn out its welcome.
Maybe the look will come back sometime but for now the PS versions trump in camera versions for photo editors.

Unless you're submitting work to them, who cares what photo editors think?

cowanw · Jan 18, 2011

gandolfi said:
gotta love this sentence.

doesn't Sally Mann use true soft focus lenses all the time....

Maybe not. I don't think the lenses she describes here are true soft focus lenses in the way we are talking about them
http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/mann/clip2.html
MANN: Well, you know I told you that none of my equipment has ever been any good, I certainly could go out and buy a good, tack-sharp lens that would take the perfect picture that's in focus from end to end. But instead, I spend an awful lot of time at that antique mall looking around for these lenses with just the right amount of decrepitude. The glue has to be peeling off of the lens elements, its great if its mildewed and out of whacka lens is made up of several different pieces of glass which are supposed to stay glued in the right relationship with each otherbut my most prized lens has one of the pieces of glass askew, so when the light comes in it it's refulgent. It just bounces all around and does this great sort of luminescent thing on the glass. You can tell a good ruined lens right from the get-go....they are the ones you find in the trash cans of old photo studios, in some ghost town in Iowa. I mean, that's the kind of lens I'm looking for.

michaelbsc · Jan 18, 2011

lxdude said:
CGW said:

Whatever. SF lenses are really one trick ponies. The images have a stale look however rendered or manipulated that's worn out its welcome.
Maybe the look will come back sometime but for now the PS versions trump in camera versions for photo editors.

Click to expand...

Unless you're submitting work to them, who cares what photo editors think?

I've never submitted anything to an editor. It never crossed my mind to think about them.

Diapositivo · Jan 19, 2011

Information on the Minolta Rokkor 85/2.8 Varisoft, in Minolta SR mount (aka MC/MD mount). Spherical aberration can vary continuously from "0" to a "high value".

http://www.cameraquest.com/minsoft.htm

They cost a lot on eBay when you find one. I think collectors are not extraneous to the price tag, those are rare lenses and therefore intrinsically valuable for a collector.

Fabrizio

removed account4 · Jan 19, 2011

is it "good" vs "bad" ?? ..
like photography in general ( and it doesn't matter F or D ) there is lots of bad and a lot less good ..

The art of the soft portrait

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency