PDA

View Full Version : Softening portraits



Jehu
19-May-2011, 08:03
I searched before starting a new thread. After almost 3 years of LF experience, I've finally got a darkroom going. It's kind of makeshift right now but I'm getting my workflow figured out before I start framing the walls. In doing so, I've noticed that I've become very reliant on Photoshop for softening my portraits. I know that portrait softening predates computers so there are probably some good techniques. A google search mostly yields digital methods. The few analog hits I got mentioned using panty-hose nylon as a diffuser.

I've only printed a couple of portraits so far. I'm not real happy with the results. They're kind of flat and muddy as far as tones go.

I could sure use some suggestions from those who have passed this way before.

Jim Galli
19-May-2011, 08:14
You can do much with lenses that are imperfect, ie. have some aberations. Use the Componon-S for the landscapes but for the portraits experiment with things that are less than perfect. One of my absolute favorites for this is the rear group from a Xenotar. A rear group from a large tessar might be a good place to start. Even an old 161mm Kodak enlarging lens will help a bit compared to a componon or Rogonar.

Jehu
19-May-2011, 08:36
Jim,
When I visited you last year, you put one of those soft lenses on one of your studio cameras and focused on the pickup in your back yard. I knew right then that I had better avoid that kind of photography because those old brass lenses would be worse than a drug addiction for me.

I wonder if there's a rear filter to create that kind of effect on one of my store-bought modern lenses.

Brian C. Miller
19-May-2011, 08:38
You can do it either in the camera or in the darkroom. There's a thread around here about filters, and the Zeiss Softar is at the top. Below that would be the Tiffen Soft/FX. There are a number of portrait lenses, and as Jim said, using a lens' rear group by itself can give you excellent results.

If you want to do it in the darkroom then you can hold a nylon stocking or other diffuser under the lens for half of the exposure.

Mark Woods
19-May-2011, 09:01
Portraiture is as much about the lighting as it is about the lens. Your comment about flat and muddy plays to the combination of lighting and development. Examine some of the great portraitists and look at the lighting. Karsh, Hurrel, Penn, Avedon are just a few. Enjoy the journey and your new darkroom. BTW, a stocking stretched in a needle point frame works well and is consistent.

Jehu
19-May-2011, 09:03
You can do it either in the camera or in the darkroom. There's a thread around here about filters, and the Zeiss Softar is at the top. Below that would be the Tiffen Soft/FX. There are a number of portrait lenses, and as Jim said, using a lens' rear group by itself can give you excellent results.

If you want to do it in the darkroom then you can hold a nylon stocking or other diffuser under the lens for half of the exposure.

The nylon stocking is probably what I'm going to try next. Is it best to put it right under the lens or should there be some distance? It seems like closer to the lens would minimize the effect and be easier to control.

grahamcase
19-May-2011, 12:30
You can also try the old vaseline trick. Slather some vaseline onto a UV filter on your lens, and photograph soft portraits to your hearts delight!

Jehu
19-May-2011, 13:37
You can also try the old vaseline trick. Slather some vaseline onto a UV filter on your lens, and photograph soft portraits to your hearts delight!

I've heard that you can use hair spray. I was going to experiment with that a little.

Peter De Smidt
19-May-2011, 13:45
In camera diffusion will spread the highlights in an image, whereas diffusion under the enlarger will spread the shadows. Both can be used to good effect. While it can be used both in camera and in the darkroom, you can also use the diffusion for part of the exposure, although that's harder in camera with portraiture.

The high end way to do this would be to use pencil/etching/dye on the negative. That's how many of the famous Hollywood portraits were done in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. See: http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2008/07/crawford_untouc.php That's a challenging skill to learn though.

How you light will also help. For example softer light will give less texture in the skin, as will moving the light closer to camera axis. Upping fill light will also help.

Finally, scanning, retouching digitally, and either outputting an inkjet print or a digital negative are also options.

Mark Sawyer
19-May-2011, 14:43
Keep in mind that most diffusion-during-enlargement techniques lower the contrast, some considerably, and you should adjust your film processing and printing accordingly.

jp
19-May-2011, 19:04
If you are softening on purpose to minimize skin issues, you might want to choose a filter or different film for shooting. Lots of good advice online for filter choices for B&W portraits. I've noticed film choice plays a big role, as they are of different spectral sensitivities like filters would provide. For example, I've noticed tmy2 shows freckles a bit less than fomapan100, which is good sometimes if it's not freckles or bad if you want to show them off.

Lighting is important too and since you're complaining about the tones, there's something to work on.

I'm liking soft focus lenses, but you have to have the lighting under good control first; they perform best under certain lighting contrast conditions.

Tom J McDonald
19-May-2011, 23:03
In camera diffusion will spread the highlights in an image, whereas diffusion under the enlarger will spread the shadows. Both can be used to good effect. While it can be used both in camera and in the darkroom, you can also use the diffusion for part of the exposure, although that's harder in camera with portraiture.

The high end way to do this would be to use pencil/etching/dye on the negative. That's how many of the famous Hollywood portraits were done in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. See: http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2008/07/crawford_untouc.php That's a challenging skill to learn though.

How you light will also help. For example softer light will give less texture in the skin, as will moving the light closer to camera axis. Upping fill light will also help.

Finally, scanning, retouching digitally, and either outputting an inkjet print or a digital negative are also options.

So if you diffuse the lens on the camera AND the enlarger, will you end up with a super-sharp print? :)
I'm going to do this tonight and see what happens.

David R Munson
20-May-2011, 07:32
I have this to add: I used to use a piece of drafting vellum or similar paper (usually Bienfang Graphics 360) laid directly over the photo paper while printing. This yielded a very subtle but nice diffusion effect that I liked. I tend to like diffusion at the printing stage (I dig the inky look), but almost universally dislike it at the exposure stage so obviously YMMV.

Jim Noel
20-May-2011, 10:32
The nylon stocking is probably what I'm going to try next. Is it best to put it right under the lens or should there be some distance? It seems like closer to the lens would minimize the effect and be easier to control.

I normally use a soft focus lens for portraits, however there are times when I get caught w/o one so I resort to the following.
I keep a piece of panty hose stretched in an embroidery hoop next to the enlarger. Holding it a few inches under the lens for part or all of the enlarging time gives me control over the amount of diffusion.

cjbroadbent
20-May-2011, 10:55
You could use the Hasselblad Softar (the filter with the bubbles, it comes medium and large in size). You need strong contrast (no fill) to hold the picture together though - (4x5 example here) (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/k2u0Cn9G-ScZJh6SU0h9Fm_sFTUDuEgW60CdgNe40M4?feat=directlink).

Emil Schildt
22-May-2011, 05:25
You could use the Hasselblad Softar (the filter with the bubbles, it comes medium and large in size). You need strong contrast (no fill) to hold the picture together though - (4x5 example here) (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/k2u0Cn9G-ScZJh6SU0h9Fm_sFTUDuEgW60CdgNe40M4?feat=directlink).

good suggestions.

Chris: as your most beautiful example unfortunately is a little small, I am not sure, whether you made this in camera or in the darkroom (?)

As mentioned before bu tin other words: softening in camera will let the whites go into the blacks - in darkroom the darks go into the whites..

I have done it many times in the past.
I never used nylon stockings, but in stead I just used a plastic charteque (sp?) - the ones that are matt in the surface.

"Half the time" of the exposure is of course your choise! the longer time you use the softener, the softer it gets - and the closer you hold it to the lens - the more soften..

Sometimes I softened it about 25% of th eexposure time - sometimes more..
And I almost always moved the plastic sheet up and down, when softening to make the softening look more "natural"...

:eek: boy - this is hard to explain....

cjbroadbent
22-May-2011, 06:43
:eek: boy - this is hard to explain....

Louie Powell
22-May-2011, 10:57
The nylon stocking is probably what I'm going to try next. Is it best to put it right under the lens or should there be some distance? It seems like closer to the lens would minimize the effect and be easier to control.

You want to be far enough away that you don't inadvertently knock the lens and introduce vibration.

I use an embroidery ring to hold the panty hose.

By the way, you get different results with white versus black panty hose. With black, you are simply distorting the image. With white, you are also introducing a small amount of flare. You should also experiment with what fraction of the exposure time is diffused. My preference is something in the 30-50% range.

Another old-timers trick is to use crumpled cellophane - traditionally, the wrapper from a pack of cigarettes. Since I don't smoke, I was never able to test that approach.

And a related trick for those who did smoke was to blow smoke through the beam of projected light between the lens and enlarging paper during the enlarging exposure.