The second fussy image is out of focus (the focus point set too far away). Both fussy images show chromatic aberration near the edges. The lens might work better with black and white.
---------- From American Photography Aug 1921 "Soft Focus Lenses" "As a general rule it will be found best to rack the lens forward till the image is all out of focus and then rack slowly back until the most pleasing effect is secured. (pg 426)"
\Originally Posted by 8x10 user
Thanks, very possible that the Stanford Theater "Soft focus" is indeed out of focus. I had no place to stand except right in front of a parking space and the woman needed to get out and then the light was disappearing so I was a bit hurried. Will try again.
And yes, this is the Gundlach Manhattan Achromatic Portraits 7 1/2" that I am testing. May be I should try the Cooke 7 1/2" soft focus, which does a good job with color.
Just to amplify my previous vote for using a sharp lens - a soft focus lens would typically be used for a) portraiture or b) the pictorial effect. Neither of these would seem to be the focus (pun intended) of your historical architecture documentation effort. Used for these subjects, the soft focus effect just doesn't add anything, and in fact de-emphasizes the very critical aspects of architecture that you are trying to record.
Historical archive = Sharp and Colour from all angles.
Interesting Phototgraphs = Black and white/Architectual details (which are lost in medium/wide shots)/at an angle to the facades plane/lighting with obvious shadows or relief/ and pictorial composition(including lenses).
The inner court looks like a fine challenge and easier to get to than Alhambra!
It's not meant as an archive record project, but a personal "fine art" project, whatever THAT means :-)
My Brother in Law might have nailed it why I am testing the soft focus effect. He commented "I have to go with fuzzy. Razor-sharp detail actually detracts from a mood piece, if you need to use your imagination to fill in details, that image is yours and yours alone."
I guess I am going after the "Romantic" feel, again, whatever THAT means LoL. I will play with it some more...
Well, the soft focus effect isn't looking "romantic" or "fine art" at all in your tests. In fact, your soft focus shots are out of focus as well. Even soft focus shots have aspects of sharpness, which yours do not.
As a counterpoint, here's an example where the soft focus effect may work...
The Flatiron, 1904. Edward J. Steichen
Gum bichromate over platinum print
Yes Dan, I agree, the Stanford Theater soft focus is out of focus, as I mentioned above. I agree that THESE particular soft focus shots are not what I want ultimately. I will play with different lens and report back.
Thanks
The purposely fuzzy images look poorly done, as if the tripod was affected by unwanted vibration during the exposure. Also, the compositions are not as good in the fuzzy images. The sharp images are much better in every sense, plus they have the look of large format.
It just takes time to get use to the characteristics of a soft focus lens and each one is different. Who was it that said took 50 images to learn the personality of each soft focus lens (Coburn?)? Achromatic lenses have the longest learning curve but can be very rewarding.
I do like the inside of the building in the first soft focus image with the gate around it. To me it is the best part of the image.
Soft focus lenses love contrast, especially light subjects with dark backgrounds. I had some good results in shooting the capital here in Madison with my Dallmeyer Bergheim at night. The same lens also seemed to like the Thai Pavilion at Olbrich Gardens, when shot in the evening. Which is when the sun shins directly on the building and the reflections are the strongest.
Soft focus is very capable of showing mood, like the flatiron photo does, like Coburn and Struss's bridge photos do. It doesn't make mood; it shows mood that the photographer feels/sees and chooses to show. You're going to have to define Romantic a little better before proceeding that way.
For pictorial composition, go read a book on notan composition, then go shooting. It's what the original American practitioners likely did.
8x10 user said 50 photos to learn a lens. I've heard that, and also 100 photos, either of which are believable. If you're going to shoot more with them, try some different apertures and compositions.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks