PDA

View Full Version : Soft Focus Lens With Shutter for Zone VI 4x5



Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 08:16
Hello! I'm new here and am just starting out with large format. I've been obsessively reading posts in this forum, and I'm so impressed by the wealth of collective knowledge.

I just bought a Zone VI 4x5 Classic - the one made by Zone VI in Vermont around 1991. I want to shoot pictorial-style portraits - soft focus but not super, super soft, glowy highlights, shallow DOF, natural light, etc. I have a fairly good handle on lighting, exposure, and composition, but I have no idea what I'm doing yet with large format. I don't want to make things harder on myself with a Packard shutter just yet, so barrel lenses and petzvals are out for now.

I'm thinking maybe a Voigtlander Heliar or a Wollensak Vellostigmat? Are there others I should be considering? Do options like an Imagon 250 or Fujinon 210 give a similar look? What about a Zeiss Jena Tessar? Budget is about $500, maybe up to $700 if it wasn't likely to need a CLA.

I appreciate any advice you can give. Please forgive me if I've revealed my ignorance too much. :)

jp
17-Mar-2019, 08:35
Veritar is a variation of the Verito which came in a shutter
Once in a while a Verito can be found custom mounted in a shutter
The Fuji soft focus isn't very soft.. More of a smooth lens
Tessars and most triplets are not soft but can do a very fine smooth non-pictorial style portrait.
Imagon are plentiful and Ihough they are meant to be used with the strainer, they are a pretty normal soft focus doublet without the strainer which is how I'd be inclined to use it since I don't like the Kühn bug the strainer can make.. Someone will get bent of out of shape for me suggesting that...

I use a speed graphic for soft focus 4x5 since it has a built in shutter. I've got several barrel lenses and some homemade lenses.

Oslolens
17-Mar-2019, 08:36
Buy the biggest, cheapest shutter you can fit, preferably with a lens. That could be a 240mm f5.6 from Nikkor, Symmar-S or (Apo-)Sironar-N in a Copal #3. Ask Skgrimes.com for one or two rings to fit filters to the shutter, facing outwards. Buy some achromatic and non achromats close-up lenses of similar focal length. For 250mm, use two +2 close-up lenses , for 167mm use two +3 close-up lenses. Use one +4 achromat close-up lense on the back to resemble a 250mm Kodak portrait lens, or +3 for 330mm. You will have little dof at portrait distance anyway, so close down aperture to reduces the soft effect.

Big Wehman, Toyo 5x7" and a small Chamonix

Peter De Smidt
17-Mar-2019, 08:38
Pictorial portraits, you mean ala William Mortensen? Anyway, do you want head-and-shoulders or more? I also don't remember the bellows extension on your camera. Anyway, assuming you are after William Mortensen style photos, he generally use a normal focal length lens. With 4x5, that puts you between 150 and 210mm. As someone new to the format, I'd get a decent classic lens in that range, but I'd avoid the soft focus ones, as they are very challenging to focus, and they're expensive. There are a lot of lens that will have some character, and will be good to learn with. Are you going to use available light, flash, or....? If flash, then you need a shutter with flash sync. I recommend getting a cheap but decent lens to start. Nothing fancy. That will allow you to get started. After you get some experience, then you can be more knowledgeable about the direction you want to go.

Kodak Ektars, Ilex Paragons, Wollensak Raptars can all be very good. They often have unusual flash sync and filter sizes, though. Whether that's important depends on the situation.

Modern Plasmats are affordable and high quality. Some people snobbishly reject them, but tons of great pictures have been made with them. Fujinon, Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock......they can be had for little money in modern shutters. Posing, lighting, direction will all be way more important than using a cult lens.

Soft focus lenses are a rabbit hole. While I generally love Fujinon lenses, I don't particularly like their SF ones. I prefer Imagons, Veritars, Veritos.....A 1950s Veritar is a good lens.

Where are you located? There's a good chance that one of us lives nearby and can demonstrate various lenses.

jp
17-Mar-2019, 08:41
Member Jim Galli has been selling some custom creations of shutters with glass which are soft focus lenses. Very affordable.

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 09:17
Wow! Thanks! So many ideas I hadn't really considered yet!

Where I'm located: Minnesota, near the Twin Cities

Flash sync: I am going to go with natural light/available light for now, so I'm not concerned about flash sync at this time.

Look I'm after: Less William Mortensen, more sort of Robert Demachy/Julia Margaret Cameron/Gertrude Käsebier with a dash of Sally Mann. I mostly do portraits of my family, especially my 12-year-old son on the autism spectrum.

Focal length: I usually like to shoot normal, ranging from a slight tele to slight wide angle. I'm thinking 150mm to 210mm would be ideal.

I think that answers all the questions so far.

Thank you so much for thinking about this!

tgtaylor
17-Mar-2019, 09:58
Wollensak Veritar, which is the updated version of the Verito made to work with color film which, became popular in the 50"s as well as B&W, is available in 10" (250mm) which should cover 4x5 and perhaps smaller FLs'. I use the 14" Veritar for 8x10 and 5x7. Here is a salt print made with the 14":

https://www.spiritsofsilver.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Hatward-Japanese-Gardens.174213323_large.jpg

Rodensak Imagon's are available in 250mm FL (which is designed for the 4x5)as well as smaller FLs'. This print of a Japanese Monument Lantern which is toned with Nelson's Gold was taken with the 250mm on a 4x5:

https://www.spiritsofsilver.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/001_800_Peter.5985849_large.jpg

Although not LF, the Pentax 67 120mm soft is an excellent soft focus lens which possibly can be mounted to a 4x5 camera and used with a 6x7 film roll adopter:

https://www.spiritsofsilver.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Coastal_Barn.363161248_large.jpg

Thomas

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 10:21
Oh, that's beautiful work, Thomas! I especially like the character of the Imagon in the second one. Did you use that with diffusion discs or without?

I do shoot a Pentax 67, actually. I will take a look at the 120mm soft focus for that too.

Thank you!

Peter De Smidt
17-Mar-2019, 10:22
In looking through samples of the artists listed, it looks like fast, non-coated lenses would get you the closest. The had slow film, and so they used fairly long exposures. There are some that look like true soft focus lenses, but most are not. They often use a printing process that looks more like an illustration, such as bromoil. Are you planing on printing, and if so, how?

This is an Imagon with a 47mm round aperture:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gaiwyc9winpkfc5/Faux_Ima_47mm_8bit.jpg?raw=1

Here's a 300mm Symmar, a plasmat:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/era0kyvyp2qsnhu/Faux_Symmar_f1123rds.jpg?raw=1

Here's an Aviar at f/8
https://www.dropbox.com/s/byifv993ymfr2fy/Faux_Aviar_f8-0173_8bit.jpg?raw=1

Here's a Buhl slide projector lens at f/4
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cbwruj9g36vu4vd/Faux_Buhl_small.jpg?raw=1

Peter De Smidt
17-Mar-2019, 10:26
Veritar at f/6:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5mny9f8m0venzn0/Faux_Veritar_1_8bit.jpg?raw=1

Paragon f/16:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mon2tn1v9zbg7le/Faux_Paragon_f16-0191.jpg?raw=1

Collinear f/16:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ok2v1pprxz8znmu/Faux_collinear_f16-0195.jpg?raw=1

Jac@stafford.net
17-Mar-2019, 10:28
I am familiar with your excellent photography and look forward to your future soft-focus work. About shutters - so many old shutters are terribly inaccurate that I try to find one shutter speed that is consistent in each shutter and stick with it. Packard shutters in 'I' mode are consistent enough, but indeed they do seem klunky.

Late model Imagons have decent-to-very good shutters. We recently had a long thread about Imagons and I think there was fair consensus that the 200mm is adequate for 4x5 and by your work it seems you will be working with enough bellows extension to make it work. Maybe we can review that possibility.

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 10:29
What a great illustration of the lens differences - thank you, Peter!

I am not planning on printing, although I might at some point. I really love the look of the Buhl projector lens, but that probably isn't in a shutter, is it?

That's interesting that the photographers I listed may have been using fast, uncoated lenses and not soft focus lenses. Maybe that is more what I am after....

Thank you so much for your help!

tgtaylor
17-Mar-2019, 10:37
Oh, that's beautiful work, Thomas! I especially like the character of the Imagon in the second one. Did you use that with diffusion discs or without?

Yes Kate - it was shot with the small disk fully open. The Veritar will produce soft images similar to the Pentax and both are focused in the same way.

Thomas

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 10:38
Jac, thank you! It's a big leap for me, but I love how challenge can be creatively energizing. I expect to fail a whole lot for a while. :)

That's what I'm worried about with the shutters. I love the look of some of these old lenses, but I need something fairly reliable for a shutter while I learn. Plenty of time to make it hard on myself later once I have the basics. At the same time, I want to feel like I can really like the work I produce at first when I do have some success.

An Imagon could be really good, maybe! I think my bellows extension (which I only barely understand) is 18 inches on a 22-inch bellows. Would a 200mm Imagon cover me if I wanted to do some tilts? Or would I be better off with a 250mm? Can I even use a 250mm? Obviously, I know only enough to be dangerous at this point.

Thank you so much for your help!

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 10:41
Yes Kate - it was shot with the small disk fully open. The Veritar will produce soft images similar to the Pentax and both are focused in the same way.

Thomas

Thomas, thank you! That's very helpful!

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 10:42
Peter, I really like that Veritar too! That might be a really good choice. Thank you for the amazing illustration of the different options!

Peter De Smidt
17-Mar-2019, 10:48
Kate, let me know if you'd like to try out some of the options. I like visiting the twin cities, but I haven't been there in awhile. I'd be up for a trip later this spring.

Another thing to consider is that these old prints were likely contact prints. Enlarging the negatives would produce a softer, possibly too soft, effect. Enlargement size has a big effect on soft focus lenses. A pleasing blend of sharp/soft with an 8x10 print could be mush with a 16x20 print.

There are a number of options for shutters. First, get a modern lens in a modern shutter in good condition. Second, get an older lens in an old shutter but plan on in it getting a CLA. Third, get a big shutter, such as a Copal three. Mount barrel lenses, such as a Buhl projector lens, on the front. There are other options, although they might not be practical with your camera.

Check out: http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/Home.html

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 10:54
Peter, that's really nice! Thank you! I actually spent 5 years of my growing up living in an octagon house in Ripon, WI - very near Fond du Lac. Such a pretty area. I drive through there from time to time also, so I could meet you somewhere too if I haven't decided yet.

Dan Fromm
17-Mar-2019, 11:41
See http://www.galerie-photo.com/soft-focus-objectif-portrait-flou.html for many example shots.

This site has resources. There's a section on soft-focus lenses in the FAQs on the mail page. In addition, the first link in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion has a link to a collection of links that some find interesting. It has a soft focus lenses section with links to pages, including the one I posted above, that you might want to visit.

Kiwi7475
17-Mar-2019, 11:58
Wow Dan, very useful links, thanks!
And a good opportunity to brush up my French :-)

Jac@stafford.net
17-Mar-2019, 12:02
By all means do visit Dan's site. Here is the page translated to English (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.galerie-photo.com%2Fsoft-focus-objectif-portrait-flou.html) if you do not read French.



I actually spent 5 years of my growing up living in an octagon house in Ripon, WI

There are many octagon houses in Ripon. Why? I'm terribly curious.

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 12:08
See http://www.galerie-photo.com/soft-focus-objectif-portrait-flou.html for many example shots.

This site has resources. There's a section on soft-focus lenses in the FAQs on the mail page. In addition, the first link in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion has a link to a collection of links that some find interesting. It has a soft focus lenses section with links to pages, including the one I posted above, that you might want to visit.

Thank you so much, Dan! Those are great resources!

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 12:20
Jac, I'm not entirely sure. I believe it's because there was the Ceresco commune there in the 1840s, and many members of that community were devotees of Orson Fowler's octagon houses. I think it was believed they were more healthful with better air flow and more efficient use of space (although, in truth, the rooms are super awkward for furniture placement). People used to stop to photograph the house often, and now I wonder what kind of cameras they were using.

Peter De Smidt
17-Mar-2019, 12:20
Don't know, Jac. There's one in Fond du Lac, too. It could just be that at one time a builder thought they were neat.

Jac@stafford.net
17-Mar-2019, 12:43
Jac, I'm not entirely sure. I believe it's because there was the Ceresco commune there in the 1840s

Looking back we know he was a whack job but his octagon houses might be an entirely different story. It is so cool you lived in one.

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 12:52
It was falling apart (holes in the floor and plaster, mold, peeling wallpaper), but it was the most magical house I've ever been in.

Jim Noel
17-Mar-2019, 15:13
What could be ideal for you at this time is a Wollaston SIngle Meniscus Lens. Softness is determined by aperture. Check http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/. Reinhold is a pleasure to deal with. His lenses are very inexpensive and I believe he is now able to add a Packard shutter to the front. He can mount them on boards to fit most cameras. I have three of them and find them a joy to work with. Look at some of his work to see how beautiful the images are.
ALso,don't forget film.Mortensen,and most of his contemporaries used orthochromatic film, not panchromatic. I believe Ilford is still making Ilford Ortho film,or you can use the extremely inexpensive x-ray film as I usually do.

Daniel Unkefer
17-Mar-2019, 16:45
Ilford makes this orthographic sheet film which adds a nostalgic style of rendition to photographs. Can be handled and processed under a red safelight.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7883/40259016023_ece4e7ee71.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/24kxYRV)Ilford Commercial Ortho 4x5 (https://flic.kr/p/24kxYRV) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

AJ Edmondson
17-Mar-2019, 17:54
Really look closely at the Imagon lenses. Some love them, some hate them but they are unique and can result in a beautiful blend of soft and sharp... when used with the discs, and are usually available in Copal or Compound shutters. I would suggest the 250mm which should be fine with an 18" bellows. Even though you don't think it important now, flash synch is good to have and there should be no need to restrict yourself now only to decide later that it might be nice to have. Even though the Imagons really illuminate a large circle, there are significant aberrations if you try to use them at larger than intended formats. Do look closely at images with specular highlights because this can be annoying when using the discs with open/partially open peripheral openings. True, it can be used with only a central aperture but there are other soft-focus lenses which perform as well or better when used in this manner. If you go with an Imagon, hold out for one with all three discs, the ND Filter and hood because replacements are difficult to find. There is no front element, just a receiver for the discs, ND Filter and hood so don't be surprised if you see no front lens group. I wish you success in narrowing down your selection.
Joel

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 18:03
Thank you, Jim! That's good to know about the film too!

I will look into the site you mentioned as well. Much appreciated!

Kate Miller-Wilson
17-Mar-2019, 18:05
I've been wondering about that, AJ. Thank you! I don't love the shape of those specular highlights with the discs; I'm sure everyone has difference preferences about that. But if I got one and shot it without the discs, it sounds like it might not perform as well as other options?

So many choices!

Peter De Smidt
17-Mar-2019, 18:26
When one opens the outer holes, you get more of a soft effect, but out-of-focus highlight will look like the aperture. Here's an example:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zk1dxl4se30j83w/SD_4-0491.jpg?raw=1

If your image doesn't have out of focus specular highlight, then you'll be fine. You also don't have to use the outer holes, and you can make your own round apertures if you want more softness without that effect. The lenses, though, are hard to focus.

AJ Edmondson
17-Mar-2019, 18:44
For my two cents they perform as well as many other soft focus lenses with just a central aperture but the real "effect" of the Imagon is the layering of the soft and sharp images which yields a "creamy" (for lack of a better word) image. Even at lower lighting ratios than Rodenstocks' recommendations I find them to very pleasing for portraits but I cannot abide the specular highlight rendition and am always careful to insure that they are not present.
Joel

Bob Salomon
17-Mar-2019, 18:45
Really look closely at the Imagon lenses. Some love them, some hate them but they are unique and can result in a beautiful blend of soft and sharp... when used with the discs, and are usually available in Copal or Compound shutters. I would suggest the 250mm which should be fine with an 18" bellows. Even though you don't think it important now, flash synch is good to have and there should be no need to restrict yourself now only to decide later that it might be nice to have. Even though the Imagons really illuminate a large circle, there are significant aberrations if you try to use them at larger than intended formats. Do look closely at images with specular highlights because this can be annoying when using the discs with open/partially open peripheral openings. True, it can be used with only a central aperture but there are other soft-focus lenses which perform as well or better when used in this manner. If you go with an Imagon, hold out for one with all three discs, the ND Filter and hood because replacements are difficult to find. There is no front element, just a receiver for the discs, ND Filter and hood so don't be surprised if you see no front lens group. I wish you success in narrowing down your selection.
Joel

The 300 in Copal only comes with 2 disks. The 120, 150, 200 and 250 in Copal come with 3.

Bob Salomon
17-Mar-2019, 18:48
When one opens the outer holes, you get more of a soft effect, but out-of-focus highlight will look like the aperture. Here's an example:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zk1dxl4se30j83w/SD_4-0491.jpg?raw=1

If your image doesn't have out of focus specular highlight, then you'll be fine. You also don't have to use the outer holes, and you can make your own round apertures if you want more softness without that effect. The lenses, though, are hard to focus.

They aren’t hard to focus once you learn what a properly focused image looks like. However there is a focus shift as you change apertures so you must focus at taking aperture.

Ken Lee
18-Mar-2019, 07:05
I appreciate any advice you can give. Please forgive me if I've revealed my ignorance too much. :)

You might find it helpful to examine Jim Galli's web site (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/). He has explored these lenses as much as anyone and freely provides a wealth of sample images.

With all due respect to 4x5, you'll note that with larger film (like 8x10) we use longer lenses which better demonstrate soft-focus effects and shallow depth of field. In general, larger film sizes were used during the era of pictorial portrait photography. To really reproduce the look, you might want to take this into consideration. Although 8x10 is costlier than 4x5, you can use X-ray film.

Another option to consider is certain Graflex cameras which have a built-in focal plane shutter. Similarly with a Sinar camera you can use the Sinar Copal Shutter: the entire galaxy of antique barrel-mounted lenses becomes wide open.

Jac@stafford.net
18-Mar-2019, 12:13
[...] With all due respect to 4x5, you'll note that with larger film (like 8x10) we use longer lenses which better demonstrate soft-focus effects and shallow depth of field. In general, larger film sizes were used during the era of pictorial portrait photography. To really reproduce the look, you might want to take this into consideration.

Ken Lee is a wise man so I ask this with humility. Enlarging 4x5 to 8x10 should make equivalent visual effects at normal viewing distance - no? Thank you.

William Whitaker
18-Mar-2019, 12:34
What could be ideal for you at this time is a Wollaston SIngle Meniscus Lens. Softness is determined by aperture. Check http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/. Reinhold is a pleasure to deal with. His lenses are very inexpensive and I believe he is now able to add a Packard shutter to the front. He can mount them on boards to fit most cameras. I have three of them and find them a joy to work with. Look at some of his work to see how beautiful the images are.


+1, although I am forever in love with my Verito (at moderate f/stops.)

188923

This image was made at f/6 using an 8 3/4" Verito on 4x5. My lens is in an Ilex Universal #4 shutter and so fits nicely on a Technika lensboard. If you shop around and are patient, one in a shutter will eventually pop up. Or find a good candidate for a shutter mount/re-mount. But that can be costly.
Seriously, for an economical SF lens, look at Reinhold's Wollastons.

Ken Lee
18-Mar-2019, 13:38
Ken Lee is a wise man so I ask this with humility. Enlarging 4x5 to 8x10 should make equivalent visual effects at normal viewing distance - no? Thank you.

I'm wise enough to admit it when I'm on thin ice :rolleyes: I can't really speak authoritatively about circle of confusion, enlargement, viewing distance etc. and how they influence the effects of soft-focus lenses.

An empirical approach might be to shoot the same scene with the same framing, using 2 lenses of the same design but different focal lengths on corresponding formats. For example a 9 inch Verito lens on 4x5 and an 18 inch Verito lens on 8x10. Then make prints of the same size and compare.

To get the same depth of field we'd have to stop down the longer lens by 2 stops. Depending on the lens design, stopping down will limit aberrations and thus reduce the soft-focus effect with the longer lens. Shooting at the same f/stop with both lenses, the longer lens will deliver shallower depth of field. This will likely magnify the soft-focus effects.

So let me take your gracious offer and retract my statement about using a larger format. I haven't experimented and I can't grasp the math :)

jp
18-Mar-2019, 13:50
Ken Lee is a wise man so I ask this with humility. Enlarging 4x5 to 8x10 should make equivalent visual effects at normal viewing distance - no? Thank you.

I have enlarged 4x5 soft focus negatives to different sizes with an enlarger... While they look good on any size computer screen, they don't always enlarge well on paper. The softness/glow is enlarged along with the rest of the picture and sharp is sharp no matter the size within reason (negative outresolves the paper). So enlarging soft focus photos makes them softer and that's not always a good thing as it alters the delicious blend of soft and sharp. You have to shoot and know the look you get and produce output in a small range of sizes to be happy. Many pictorialists contact printed, and other shot 1/4 plate or something near 4x5 and enlarge to whole plate size. Not much bigger works for enlargement ratio. If you want huge soft focus prints, shoot a bigger negative and lens.

Bob Salomon
18-Mar-2019, 14:28
I'm wise enough to admit it when I'm on thin ice :rolleyes: I can't really speak authoritatively about circle of confusion, enlargement, viewing distance etc. and how they influence the effects of soft-focus lenses.

An empirical approach might be to shoot the same scene with the same framing, using 2 lenses of the same design but different focal lengths on corresponding formats. For example a 9 inch Verito lens on 4x5 and an 18 inch Verito lens on 8x10. Then make prints of the same size and compare.

To get the same depth of field we'd have to stop down the longer lens by 2 stops. Depending on the lens design, stopping down will limit aberrations and thus reduce the soft-focus effect with the longer lens. Shooting at the same f/stop with both lenses, the longer lens will deliver shallower depth of field. This will likely magnify the soft-focus effects.

So let me take your gracious offer and retract my statement about using a larger format. I haven't experimented and I can't grasp the math :)

With the Imagon, since each one has two focal lengths, there is more DOF then other lenses of the same focal length.

Kate Miller-Wilson
18-Mar-2019, 19:52
Thank you so much for all the incredible advice and ideas! I really, really appreciate it. I feel like I know a lot more about the options.

Another question: Is there any reason it might be harder to learn large format starting with a soft focus lens? Would I be better off starting with a "regular" lens and then getting the soft focus after I had a vague sense of what I was doing? Or is it unlikely to make a difference?

Peter De Smidt
18-Mar-2019, 20:20
I find soft focus lenses more dificult to use, and I’ve been using them for awhile. Maybe it’s me.

Steven Tribe
19-Mar-2019, 08:15
Another question: Is there any reason it might be harder to learn large format starting with a soft focus lens? Would I be better off starting with a "regular" lens and then getting the soft focus after I had a vague sense of what I was doing

There are three types of "soft/pictorial lenses". The first are imperfect optically at any aperture but where the degree of imperfection is dependent on the aperture setting.The second are optically perfect at small apertures (for instance l'eidscope) but have aberrations when opened up. Finally, there are "pictorial" lenses that have control independent of aperture control - that is, they can provide perfect images OR pictorial images over a wide range of aperture values. Some of these you probably know about - like Universal Heliar, the Cooke triplet series II and VI and Graf variable.

So with the last two groups you can compare perfect /varying "distortions" from the same lens.
Being able to turn the ground glass image into what the negative will actually "see" is the biggest problem.

Bernice Loui
19-Mar-2019, 08:16
If this is your first time with a view camera of any size, it would be IMO better to start with the most basic outfit which is a "normal lens" on the camera of your choice. It is difficult enough at the start to gain visual adjustment to an image to be captured that is upside down and backwards. Adding soft focus diffusion lens will make this acclamation to the upside down and backwards image more difficult adding to this soft focus lenses in general are mode difficult to set focus due to their personality and degree of diffusion or softness. There is a core of focused area with diffusion added around that diffusion area, it takes time, practice and burning LOTs of film to understand and learn how to utilize this personality of the lens best.

Beyond lens and camera, there is a long list of to do's before the image captured appears as a print. Camera & Lens is the door to a very long journey of a finished print.


:)
Bernice

Andrew Plume
19-Mar-2019, 08:31
As usual the advice from Bernice is imo spot on - get to know your Camera and, say, one lens and why not add on a Softar/Soft image filter, they're pretty cheap (after all)

Also, which you will know, the Zone V1 boards are fairly small and which will restrict the size of lenses available

Anyhow, best of luck with this project

regards

Andrew

Ken Lee
19-Mar-2019, 19:19
I find soft focus lenses more dificult to use, and I’ve been using them for awhile. Maybe it’s me.

I agree. It's one thing to produce a competent rendering an attractive subject, but with soft focus there's a whole other element, what Minor White might have called "Things for what else they are". Getting those to work with the "things for what they are" requires real sensitivity.

Here's an example I've tried to re-work over the years. I'm still not sure if it conveys anything substantial.


http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/Tulips6.jpg
Tulips
Sinar P, 9-inch Kershaw Portrait Lens
4x5 TMY, D-23

Kate Miller-Wilson
19-Mar-2019, 19:43
This makes a lot of sense - first learn the basics, then add in the soft focus. Thank you, everyone!

Ken, the tulips are so beautiful! The composition is perfect, and the glow around them makes them look so ethereal.

Duolab123
19-Mar-2019, 20:57
Just to add another option. When Mamiya went under they had a LOT of the adjustable soft focus 180mm portrait lenses. I had one that I had bought used for 4 or 500 bucks that I was happy with. Well there was someone selling excess NEW inventory, I bought another a few years back brand new in the box for 110 USD. These lenses are plentiful and cheap, RZ bodies and backs as well. People that shoot really large format 8x10 and up with long lenses and wide apertures still occasionally use a head support to keep subject in focus.
If you could find a soft focus lens for the Pentax that was cheap? Otherwise, a normal lens on the 4x5. In the old days Kodak made portrait diffusion disks for enlargers, still can find the Arkay Pictrol etc.

Jim Galli
20-Mar-2019, 06:57
Format has much to do with successful soft focus. Here's why. All of the classic lenses were made during the era when 8X10 was simply the default. So there are many more choices for the bigger formats than 4X5. Plus there is a phenomenon that I simply like to call "brute force". With 8X10 a lens can actually be very very soft and still not be mushy. That's simply mathematics. You have so much real estate to work with. Good definition, big glow, because it has room to spread out and work in.

Last year a Verito 7" that someone had spent a lot of money putting in a Copal 3 showed up and I grabbed it. Cake and eat it too, but those don't come along very often. Another phenomenal lens that works in smaller sizes is the Dallmeyer Stigmatic. But almost never sold in shutter.

Nothing works like a large trash receptacle and actual work finding out how all this stuff works. I went into this knowing I'd need an industrial size dumpster. Most people don't want to go that distance. For me, it's been wonderful fun. Co$tly, but fun. And I've gotten a few keepers along the way. Also, after a while, you decide that the original generations that made the art with these lenses without shutters weren't superhuman. They weren't smarter than we are. If they could do it without Copal shutters, you can too.

Louis Pacilla
20-Mar-2019, 07:02
Also, after a while, you decide that the original generations that made the art with these lenses without shutters weren't superhuman. They weren't smarter than we are. If they could do it without Copal shutters, you can too.

I'll AMEN that brother Jim.

AMEN!;)

Bernice Loui
20-Mar-2019, 07:55
Soft focus is best on 8x10 contact printed. There is a long history and legacy of speciality soft focus lenses specific to 8x10 when used properly and the negative contact printed to make a 8x10 print the visual quality needs to be properly experienced to appreciate what makes these images special. IMO, there is something lost when these soft focus negatives made using classic soft focus lenses are projected into enlarged prints.

Some years ago on LFF, got into a dis-agreement about soft focus lenses for small formats (35mm and cinema and etc) over how the visual effect of soft focus is not the same as those contact printed with 8x10 soft focus lenses and film negative.

The entire soft focus and LF images in general takes time, knowledge and wisdom to appreciate what makes them special (IMO, too many initially get interested in LF believe the potentially "shaper" image is automatically better than all else). There are a lot of possible image subtleties that will not be present in smaller film formats and demands depth of understanding to fully appreciate what LF has to offer.


Bernice

Duolab123
20-Mar-2019, 09:19
Soft focus is best on 8x10 contact printed. There is a long history and legacy of speciality soft focus lenses specific to 8x10 when used properly and the negative contact printed to make a 8x10 print the visual quality needs to be properly experienced to appreciate what makes these images special. IMO, there is something lost when these soft focus negatives made using classic soft focus lenses are projected into enlarged prints.

Some years ago on LFF, got into a dis-agreement about soft focus lenses for small formats (35mm and cinema and etc) over how the visual effect of soft focus is not the same as those contact printed with 8x10 soft focus lenses and film negative.

The entire soft focus and LF images in general takes time, knowledge and wisdom to appreciate what makes them special (IMO, too many initially get interested in LF believe the potentially "shaper" image is automatically better than all else). There are a lot of possible image subtleties that will not be present in smaller film formats and demands depth of understanding to fully appreciate what LF has to offer.


Bernice

My Dad graduated from high school in 1934, I have his portrait. It's amazing. 8x10 contact print, slightly soft, I suspect it was a "Verito" type lens. His brother, my uncle graduated in 1948, his is a 8x10 contact print, hand colored. It's a stunning work of art. These prints are amazing,

Kate Miller-Wilson
20-Mar-2019, 17:21
Bernice, I can't speak for anyone else getting into large format for the first time, but I think there is definitely a heavy emphasis on sharp lenses in general these days. I'm not sure what that is - maybe just a trend. In trying to figure out what kind of work I wanted to do in LF, I spent a lot of time looking at photos and writing down the lenses used in them. To my surprise, most were soft focus!

Duolab123
20-Mar-2019, 18:10
One thing I've noticed with my 8x10 and my 11 x 14 cameras. No matter what you do, when taking head and shoulder portraits you tend towards a dreamy look. I use Kodak Commercial Ektars and Ilex lenses made in the 50's and early 60's. I also have a big old barrel Wollensak with a Packard shutter for the 8x10. None of these lenses are "soft focus" lenses. However the Wollensak is a f 4.5, and the others are f6.3. These lenses are 12 to 14 inch lenses, your depth of field is so shallow you have to try to keep the nose and eyes in focus and let the ears go soft. This is a function of focal length not some fancy lens. Put a 12 inch lens on a 4x5 and get back a ways. This is why I tell people that digital can't do what film can do. If you want the look of a classic 8x10 portrait, you need an 8x10 "sensor" or film to achieve that perspective and atmosphere.

mdarnton
20-Mar-2019, 18:28
Duolab is basically right: with 8x10 if you focus on the eyelashes, don't count on the eye's iris being sharp. It's not really soft focus, but it's not modern - sharp either.

A good option that might cover several bases is to get a 12" soft focus f/4.5 Velostigmat. This is Wollensak's basic sharp Tessar lens with an adjustment allowing you to crank out the front element separately on separate threads to gradually drive it over into soft focus. Use it sharp, or not. They often show up on Ebay in shutters, though there's nothing there right now.

Found this photo of mine. As you can see, it's a big one:

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4766/39410696114_aff41af77b_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/233A7UA)

velo-leica (https://flic.kr/p/233A7UA) by Michael Darnton (https://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear/), on Flickr

Duolab123
20-Mar-2019, 19:46
Duolab is basically right: with 8x10 if you focus on the eyelashes, don't count on the eye's iris being sharp. It's not really soft focus, but it's not modern - sharp either.

A good option that might cover several bases is to get a 12" soft focus f/4.5 Velostigmat. This is Wollensak's basic sharp Tessar lens with an adjustment allowing you to crank out the front element separately on separate threads to gradually drive it over into soft focus. Use it sharp, or not. They often show up on Ebay in shutters, though there's nothing there right now.

Found this photo of mine. As you can see, it's a big one:

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4766/39410696114_aff41af77b_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/233A7UA)

velo-leica (https://flic.kr/p/233A7UA) by Michael Darnton (https://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear/), on Flickr

I've got a 19 inch Red Dot Artar, came off a Robertson process camera. I've used process cameras these lenses are tack sharp focused on the copy board. Put it on a regular camera and point it at a 3D object it gets "dreamy" even wide open.

Peter De Smidt
20-Mar-2019, 21:45
I agree with the comments about long lenses going soft really quickly. A Betax No. 5 would be awful big on a Zone VI 4x5.

mdarnton
21-Mar-2019, 05:38
Whoops! I forgot that the discussion was 4x5.... that same series of lenses has something shorter that's appropriate for 4x5, in a much smaller shutter.

Bernice Loui
21-Mar-2019, 09:12
Kate,

Follow your passions, Follow your interest. Use the history of art as a guide to what has been done and what can be done yet do not allow these previous works to completely dictate your own work. This is much about finding your own artistic voice.

A view camera, digital camera or any other imaging creating device and system are mere tools and process to facilitate expressing your artistic voice.

As with any endeavor in life, there is and will be much to learn and experience. Know some of the very best works come from the ashes of failure. Know being able to resist the chains of failure is one of the foundational means to achieving your artistic voice.

At this point, do pick up the view camera of your choice and proceed to burn film in vast quantities to produce prints. This is how your journey of creative image making needs to begin. The lenses, camera, film, developer and related to print making is lesser than the actual act of print making.



Do this :)
Bernice





Bernice, I can't speak for anyone else getting into large format for the first time, but I think there is definitely a heavy emphasis on sharp lenses in general these days. I'm not sure what that is - maybe just a trend. In trying to figure out what kind of work I wanted to do in LF, I spent a lot of time looking at photos and writing down the lenses used in them. To my surprise, most were soft focus!

Kate Miller-Wilson
21-Mar-2019, 14:04
How beautifully put, Bernice! That is how I have approached every other step of photography, and I hope to do the same here.

I think, as adults, we forget it is okay to fail in the attempt to create art. Failing is just part of the process. I've done a lot of it already! :)

Ken Lee
21-Mar-2019, 17:11
Some portrait lenses envelop a sharp subject with ethereal halos. Others can produce exaggerated blur rendition behind a sharp subject.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/Fujinon180b.jpg

Here's an image made with a 180mm f/5.6 Fujinon SFS, a comparatively modern soft focus design which comes mounted in a modern shutter and will fit easily on your Zone V camera. (See brochure here (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/as-sfs.htm)).

Wide open it gives a modest halo effect, but if we stop it down a bit the halos go away and we're left with a lens which transitions from sharp to soft more quickly than a typical lens.

Bob Salomon
21-Mar-2019, 17:53
Some portrait lenses envelop a sharp subject with ethereal halos. Others can produce exaggerated blur rendition behind a sharp subject.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/Fujinon180b.jpg

Here's an image made with a 180mm f/5.6 Fujinon SFS, a comparatively modern soft focus design which comes mounted in a modern shutter and will fit easily on your Zone V camera. (See brochure here (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/as-sfs.htm)).

Wide open it gives a modest halo effect, but if we stop it down a bit the halos go away and we're left with a lens which transitions from sharp to soft more quickly than a typical lens.

As does the Imagon, with the smallest disk with all holes closed it is extremely sharp,