Lighting for soft-focus lenses (like a Hermagis Eidoscope or Kodak Portrait Ektar)

[Scott Davis]

When photographing someone with one of the super fuzzy-wuzzy soft focus lenses, do you light them differently? I'm thinking that using hard, directional light would be better as A: the lens will take care of softening up the crinkles that the light brings out, and B: it will be easier to focus and compose. Any thoughts from the assembled ears of those with more experience working with soft-focus optics?

[djdister]

Go with strong directional lighting. If you look at the classic Hollywood soft focus glamor shots, they definitely used strong lighting with 1:4 or greater light to dark ratios. One exception (there are always exceptions) would be if you want the high-key portrait look - still strong lighting, but not the strong contrast ratio.

[Emil Schildt]

Go with strong directional lighting.
.
...and back light! in my Humble experience, backlighting makes the image show more the "trademarks" of that lens... hitting ex. hair, this will "explode" and thus give that beautiful halo...

[Mark Sawyer]

Ease of focusing and composing shouldn't be a consideration in lighting. The strong directional lighting and back-lighting are hallmarks of the commercial Hollywood soft focus work, but I've seen all sorts of lighting work well with soft focus lenses. I'd say just look at a lot of soft focus work with an analytical eye towards the lighting used, and decide which matches your intentions best...

[cowanw]

I think it depends on the lens. There is literature of the time that recommends stronger contrast for soft focus lenses and I find that for Heliar, Cooke and Pinkham/Smith this is true. However I have found the Kodak portrait lens does not smooth out wrinkles as much as the others and requires a lesser contrast.
It may also depend on the aperture. F 4.5 more diffusion; more contrasty light. F8 less so and less so.

[mdarnton]

A lot depends on the intent, I think. Modern photographers tend to focus on Hollywood and its drama, but that was a very tiny part of the market for these lenses, most of which probably went into local portrait studios. I've been grazing old studio portraits trying to figure them out, and it appears that most of these guys didn't really appreciate the type of glow we value, but were just looking to save themselves some retouching time. And local studios weren't really into the Hollywood thing. Lower contrast lighting, more traditional lighting setups (not back, side or rim light) was what you see in the run of the mill stuff. You often see some very flat lighting by modern standads. I've been trying to replicate that more restrained look, while still keeping things interesting.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/682/21609295426_cd0c774fa5_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yVxhF5)

Juli (https://flic.kr/p/yVxhF5)
by Michael Darnton (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/), on Flickr
11-3/4" Verito @ f/6.3, 5x7 x-ray film; two lights, one white card (in spite of the eye highlights, which I added)

[thomasfallon]

Who cares about someone else's intent? I am concerned with what would look the best. Not broad lighting on most portrait subjects, but aside from that, soft lens and hard light is a great combination.


A lot depends on the intent, I think. Modern photographers tend to focus on Hollywood and its drama, but that was a very tiny part of the market for these lenses, most of which probably went into local portrait studios. I've been grazing old studio portraits trying to figure them out, and it appears that most of these guys didn't really appreciate the type of glow we value, but were just looking to save themselves some retouching time. And local studios weren't really into the Hollywood thing. Lower contrast lighting, more traditional lighting setups (not back, side or rim light) was what you see in the run of the mill stuff. You often see some very flat lighting by modern standads. I've been trying to replicate that more restrained look, while still keeping things interesting.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/682/21609295426_cd0c774fa5_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yVxhF5)

Juli (https://flic.kr/p/yVxhF5)
by Michael Darnton (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/), on Flickr
11-3/4" Verito @ f/6.3, 5x7 x-ray film; two lights, one white card (in spite of the eye highlights, which I added)

[Jac@stafford.net]

If you look at the classic Hollywood soft focus glamor shots, they definitely used strong lighting with 1:4 or greater light to dark ratios.

To clarify: Is that four stops to one, or four lights to one light? Big difference as you know.

[EdSawyer]

Lighting ratios Always deal in stops don't they?

[Tim Meisburger]

Right!

[djdister]

To clarify: Is that four stops to one, or four lights to one light? Big difference as you know.

This describes it pretty well.
143414

[cowanw]

What was confusing in learning this was, the fact that the 1 stop, 2:1 ratio is achieved by a fill and key light of equal power and distance.

[Jac@stafford.net]

This describes it pretty well.
143414

Thanks for the illustration. That is what I go by.
.

[Alan Gales]

Time to invest in some Barn Doors if you don't have them.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Time to invest in some Barn Doors if you don't have them.

Too late. The horse has fled the barn.