DIY soft focus

[BrianShaw]

No worries, Jim. The timing of your reveal was right!

[Mark Sawyer]

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.

True soft focus lenses operate through spherical aberration, wherein the light passing through the outer edges of a lens focus closer than light from the center of the lens. There is a conventionally sharp image from the center of the lens, and a soft out-of-focus image from the periphery of the lens. That's why, as you close the aperture and block light from the outer portions of the lens, the image grows sharper.

[Tin Can]

My 2 cents is spent on finding what I like, not historically correct. Some of the fiercely shallow DOF images I see are really odd looking to me.

I am chasing soft with maximum DOF.


Which is exactly how I see the world without corrective eyeglasses. I really enjoy softened colors, shapes. I also see this vision on a rainy Fall day when texture/tone of trees and grass richens.

Maybe only the myopic want this perceived reality reproduced in a print.

[Taija71A]

... I am chasing soft with maximum DOF...

If truly so...
Think 'Pinhole' Photography.

[mdarnton]

First:

True soft focus lenses operate through spherical aberration. . .

Mark, I've heard this before, but this sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy. You can solve this question quickly for me. Is the reason that the Verito was reformulated into the Veritar because the new use of color materials for portraiture showed up the Verito's lack of color correction, as I have read? If this is so, then your definition of a True Soft Focus lens means the Verito, and probably every other soft focus lens previous to 1950 or so. . . none of those is a True soft focus lens by your definition. I'm pretty sure that lack of color correction contributed something to the special qualities of all of them, and that without that they would not be the same lenses.

Second: Taija71a--I was thinking exactly the same thing!

Third: Does anyone know what those guys who were grinding their own "pictorial" lenses at the turn of the century, like the Port-Land, Pinkham & Smith, et al, were doing, very specifically? The reason I ask is because I think I may have figured it out, but I'm not going to waste anyone's time with my idea if everyone knows but me. What I'm thinking explains both their inconsistency in reproducing the same lens over and over--their failure to deliver a consistent product--and also their claims of increased depth of field (which some writers appear to have prematurely dismissed, if I'm on the right track). If I'm right, then this kind of lens could be made by just about anyone, at home. If my current experiment works, that might be the next step for me.

[BrianShaw]

I've seen that definition many times before. Perhaps it is some bodies formal definition of SF, but what does that make dish strainer SF - fake SF? Some folks like tat effect, whatever one wants to call it, even if it isn't in alignment with that definition. So when I evaluate SF and diffusion prions I'm looking for an effect that I (and others hopefully) find pleasing... However it is created.

[mdarnton]

I've seen that definition many times before. Perhaps it is some bodies formal definition of SF, but what does that make dish strainer SF - fake SF? Some folks like tat effect, whatever one wants to call it, even if it isn't in alignment with that definition. So when I evaluate SF and diffusion prions I'm looking for an effect that I (and others hopefully) find pleasing... However it is created.

Actually, the Imagon/Fuji dish strainer is exactly that phenomenon, not a contradiction. All the strainer does is increase the proportion of outer edge aberrations when a small central opening is used. Think of it as using the lens at a smaller stop, represented by the central hole, while mixing in some percentage of the outer areas of the glass to bring back some of the spherical aberration that gets cut out by using the central part of the lens via the smaller stop. The strainer doesn't create the diffusion by itself, which is why I always laugh at people making strainers for normal lenses, thinking they're making Imagons.

[BrianShaw]

Okay, that's interesting. I've never thought about it at that level of detail. But have seen folks say they aren't "true" SF.

[BrianShaw]

Maybe I need to work more on achieving better uses of SF, then. I agree that just softening wrinkles isn't the best use, nor is it the kind of work is someday like to produce. The look I like is David Hamilton... But I'd like to steer clear of little children.

I'm looking forward to where this effort will be taking you!

[Jim Galli]

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.

It goes without saying (the horse has been dead a very long time) that there's no right or wrong. This is all very subjective. Difficult or impossible to really quantify. However, soft focus images should have verifiable sharpness within the glow. Nobody likes mush.

For Randy: Look for the no-name 1905 - ish "Wide Angle Anastigmat" f18 lenses that were sold by all the big catalog houses cheap. I checked and there's none on ebay right now to show you. Usually brass, but sometimes they're just black. If you poke the iris out of those you'll get a lovely f8 - ish wide angle lens that has a fine softness and being very wide for their intended format they also have nice DOF