The HP5 will help, that's for sure.
Sorry about the detour, Michael. I'm looking forward to seeing some photos with your DIY lens!
The HP5 will help, that's for sure.
Sorry about the detour, Michael. I'm looking forward to seeing some photos with your DIY lens!
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
Here is one from the session with the binocular doublet.
Model A Woody at the Mizpah
The focal length seemed to be about 8 inch so I chose 5X7. Perhaps a little too weak off center, it might be a good choice with 4X5. Even better since there's 2, maybe I should split the 57 frame and do stereo 3.5X5's with the 2 lenses.
Confused. A search seems to indicate that image was in the fuji soft focus thread posted by BrianShaw
That's not the answer but I appreciate the comparison to JMC. That is a style I quite enjoy but not the look I particularly want to achieve in my work. The problem I always have in these SF discussions is the diversity of opinion on what the correct SF look is, etc. What I'm looking for is almost exclusively is to just "break the edges" on portraits.
In 35mm and MF I tend to like the looks from a duto. I have almost every SF filter ever made and have done comparisons. Duto is my favorite and Tiffen SoftFX1 are the only ones I use. The others were interesting for experimentation and comparison, though.
For that one, I used a Fujinon SF with yellow disk and I recall it being almost wide open. I think the film was Bergger 200. I thought I focused good and tried to do so... but with that little DOF it doesn't surprise me that I missed the mark a bit.
I would love to use SF for the ethereal in images other than portraits. As example, the works of David Hamilton are the look I'd like to achieve. Maybe he sometimes has too much glow for my taste, but that's the best examples I can think of.
Ah, well that unfocused look, with nothing added, is exactly why my Fujinon is in pieces in front of me right now-- being unable to do more than this, making me think I need to clean my glasses:
Dan K
by Michael Darnton, on Flickr
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
So that's a good way of saying what troubles me. I can't seem to find consensus on what is perceived as the unfocused look versus the soft focus look. I have my idea but everyone else has theirs. In the contact print that image looks soft, not unfocused. But just saying that doesn't make it so. You may look at the neg and the contact print and still think it is a Julia Margaret Cameron-style inability to focus.
And not to insult anyone (intentionally)... the supershallow unfocused images from makeshift or primitive lenses just don't do a thing for me. Not even from a fun experimental perspective. Sometimes it is so sad to be me.
I only wish that I were a more avid scanner to put a few more images into the discussion. I could chat about this until the cows come home. One day I'd like to not only figure out what is SF and what isn't SF... and maybe come up with a solution that more people will like than dislike. For now, though, the Fujinon meets my LF SF needs and some folks actually are complimentary about the resulting images.
Bookmarks