Portraits: Fujinon SFS lenses vs. Fujinon 240 A + Soft Focus filter

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

I've a Fujinon A 240mm for my 4X5 and have read about the SFS lenses that seem to have behind the lens soft filters (that look more like baffles than filters). These latter remind me of the feather boa lighting I've read was often used in Hollywood for some reason. At anyrate, these SFS lenses don't run all that much, yet every $ saved is usable elsewhere. So I'm wondering whether a standard lens like the 240 A with a soft filter might produce the same effect? Got a couple of the latter from an old MF camera that passed through my hands. Anybody know? Just curious.

[Dugan]

I had a Fujinon SF lens, it had an acceptable softness, but specular out-of-focus highlights had a weird "flower power sticker" ( for lack of a better description) pattern that didn't work for me...so I sold it and got a Verito.
The soft focus filter that I liked the most was the Nikon Soft 1. When examined closely, it looked like there was a pattern of small water droplets on the filter glass...they worked as small lenses, softening the image by giving it two planes of focus...one sharp, one not so much.
If you are going to use a SF filter. I recommend one of that variety. There are many kinds out there.
Or...less expensive still, stretch a black stocking over the lens, after poking a pattern of small holes in it with a lit cigarette (or similar).

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm a big fan of Fujinon lenses, but I don't like their soft focus lenses very much. I have a 190sf lens for the GX680 system. It doesn't have much character. It's just a not very sharp lens. It doesn't have any of the glowy magic of an Imagon, Verito, Veritar....

[mdarnton]

I had a Fujinon SF and disliked it so much that I gutted out the glass, no regrets, and used the shutter and mounts to make my own SF lens from parts. It doesn't work like a real SF lens; it's just unsharp.

A good diffusion filter is better. But a real SF, like a Verito, or even an Imagon, would be the thing to have.

[Pere Casals]

I've a Fujinon A 240mm for my 4X5 and have read about the SFS lenses that seem to have behind the lens soft filters (that look more like baffles than filters). These latter remind me of the feather boa lighting I've read was often used in Hollywood for some reason. At anyrate, these SFS lenses don't run all that much, yet every $ saved is usable elsewhere. So I'm wondering whether a standard lens like the 240 A with a soft filter might produce the same effect? Got a couple of the latter from an old MF camera that passed through my hands. Anybody know? Just curious.


Not the same effect. SF glass has many nuances, this is a complex matter with many flavors, there is a very refined imaging subculture around that.

_____


First you should be aware of the PSF concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_spread_function)

A soft filter spreads the light that should go to a point on film/sensor over a "circle", and/or generating flare.



A SF lens may have two differences compared to a soft filter.


>> Effect may depend on the distance to subject, effect can be different in the perfect plane of focus compared to the out of focus regions.

>> The PSF may not have circular symmetry, rather diffusion being a circle diffusion may be directed to the image center or to the counter. See this image (https://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/24080971035/in/album-72157643501915954/) and look/enlarge the distant bright points in the background, you see the diffusion directed to the image center. In this case that PSF comes from spheric aberration provocated by the displacement of the inner element of the Universal Heliar, it has a ring to adjust that.

With that kind of diffusion shown in that example if you have a dark background, in a protrait, then the face silhouette is not "diffused", you don't have a glow around it, but the face itself is softened, so the trick is not evident.

Or you may want a "glow"...

Just saying that soft focus is a "complex matter", a SF filter it's just a kind of softness. We have many resources and many interactions with focus, aperture, illumination, background...

Of course many times any kind of softness may work, but if wanting refinements in this field then we have a lot.

______

A soft focus image may have many refined nuances, first all image can have an imperfect sharpness, or you may have a sharp image component overlaped with a less sharp image, and that less sharp image can have a circular diffusion or instead a light difussion that has a "direction" or a character.


For a characterization of your diffusion system, you may use a bright spot with a dark background, then inspect the PSF it renders depending on focus, position and adjusted intensity.


Note that with systems that have directional difussion (to the image center...) with rise/shift you may displace the diffusion center over the format (in a similar way that the swirl bokeh center can be displaced from the image center).

[Tin Can]

Then I will stop looking for #13

an inside joke for Peter


I'm a big fan of Fujinon lenses, but I don't like their soft focus lenses very much. I have a 190sf lens for the GX680 system. It doesn't have much character. It's just a not very sharp lens. It doesn't have any of the glowy magic of an Imagon, Verito, Veritar....

[Ken Lee]

...So I'm wondering whether a standard lens like the 240 A with a soft filter might produce the same effect?

Every model exhibits its own distinct combination of under- and over-corrected lens aberrations, which vary with aperture, focus distance, sensor size, view camera movements and lighting. You can't easily lump them together or mimic one with the other. You can, however, find one that you like.

For some images made with the Cooke Portrait PS945, click here (https://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/largeformat.html).

For some images I made with 180mm Fujinon SFS (no strainer), click here (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/fujinon180/index.php). I love the lens, particularly its smooth blur rendition.

For some images I made with 9 inch Kershaw, click here (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/NineInchKershaw.php)

For some images made with a variety of Reinhold Schnable's Wollaston Meniscus lenses, click here (http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/Gallery.html)

For some images made with huge variety of soft focus lenses, see Jim Galli's work here (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/) - although the link appears to be down today.

[Peter De Smidt]

As usual, Ken's work is terrific. I haven't tried any still life photos with my Fujinon SF, but I will now. My view was based on studio portraits. Besides the lack of glow, I don't like that the strainer type aperture isn't removable. Just like with an Imagon, out-of-focus highlight will be in the shape of the aperture, and, generally, that's very unwelcome. (I don't use my Imagon with the sink-strainer apertures.) I might try dismantling my Fujinon to remove the strainer. With the LF versions, I believe the strainers are interchangeable between a yellow and a red one. Thus, they must be easy to remove.

[Dugan]

The strainer is easily removable on a Fujinon SF

[mdarnton]

Peter, take out the front component (if I remember right) and pop the strainer off with your fingernail. Slip fit.

[Pere Casals]

For some images made with the Cooke Portrait PS945, click here (https://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/largeformat.html).


That sample shot in particular is extraordinary, IMO it exemplifies how softness vs sharpness vs focus roll-off vs illumination vs movements help to depict extraordinary depth and 3D feel. People mastering all that play in another division. That shot alone is a really advanced master class about what a portrait lens does in the right hands, it looks that at Cooke's they know what sample image they have to show.



204565

[Peter De Smidt]

Thanks, Michael!

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Thanks for all these responses. Clearly there's a lot more to the subject than simply slapping an SF lens on the lens board and firing away. Lighting, angle, subject tones, etc.
Lens fits in that list, but it's not the only one. Ken's work shows portraiture and still life just might have something in common ...I'd not exactly thought of it that way before,
but yeah... a lot more than I thought even. Thank you for all those links! and thanks to the rest of you for your contributed discussion... Pere Casals, thanks for starting with some
background regarding alternative types.

[mdarnton]

If you look through my LF Flicker pages you'll find some different SF lenses represented. Which is which is noted in the text underneath. The one I personally like the quality of best is simply the front component of a 15" Tele-Raptar. It gives a different effect depending on whether it's used on the front or the back of the shutter, but at around 180 mm it may be a bit short for some uses. The Verito and my jigged up 250mm achromat in the Fuji's shutter are my second choices. Big price difference between the two. The Wollaston is adequate, but incredibly cheap. There's a shot in the group with the Fuji SF used as intended, too.

[Ken Lee]

Clearly there's a lot more to the subject than simply slapping an SF lens on the lens board and firing away.

I forgot to mention: as with ordinary lenses, we often find differences in rendition before - versus behind - the plane of focus. Each lens can be many lenses, depending on all the factors.


...portraiture and still life just might have something in common ...I'd not exactly thought of it that way before, but yeah... a lot more than I thought even.

The distinctions we make between different kinds of still photography are often arbitrary. Landscapes can resemble nudes, nudes can look like peppers... etc. :cool:

[Peter De Smidt]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vkujb79p32lc4qz/Faux_Sym_f1123-0178_8bit.jpg?raw=1
Symmar as a non-soft-focus-control.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/91xe5azxmi854q9/Faux_Ima_57mm_8bit.jpg?raw=1
Imagon 57mm circular aperture

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vz2hxjuwz8vday/Sophia_190SF_F8.jpg?raw=1
Fuji 190SF @ f/8

[Bernice Loui]

Reminded of why no real love for the Fujinon SF, disc inside or no disc. There is a distinct harshness to the softness of the Fuji SF, visible even on web transmitted data.


Bernice





https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vz2hxjuwz8vday/Sophia_190SF_F8.jpg?raw=1
Fuji 190SF @ f/8

[Bernice Loui]

Keep in mind, quality of light has a HUGE effect on sorta focus lenses.

For studio portraits, consider using hot lights for better control of the interaction between the directional lighting on the subject -vs- effect on lens softness-diffusion.
Apply reflectors aluminized, white or negative fill boards as needed.

If a soft box or diffusion is used as a light source, the resulting image could become smooshy mush.


This portrait example was posted years ago, since it is already public here it is again:
Hot lighting, 360mm Imagon, H7.7 disc. Sinar 5x7, Ilford FP-4+, HC110 developer (think it was)..
204573

Sorta Focus filters tend to mush out the entire image while a GOOD sorta-focus lens produces an image area of good definition then gradually falling off with a very smooth visual transition from definition to diffused focus.

Do spend some time William Russell Young, III Ph.D thesis on Pictorialism and Soft Focus lenses.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?83576-An-interesting-soft-focus-read


Bernice

[Peter De Smidt]

Reminded of why no real love for the Fujinon SF, disc inside or no disc. There is a distinct harshness to the softness of the Fuji SF, visible even on web transmitted data.


Bernice

Right, which is why I posted it....

[Ken Lee]

Right, which is why I posted it....

Could you point to an area where you see this harsh softness please ? Are you talking about the lack of halos ?

[Peter De Smidt]

Could you point to an area where you see this harsh softness please ? Are you talking about the lack of halos ?

Well, that's Bernice's description.....It might not be all that evident from these web-sized photos, but with the Imagon there's a sharp image inside of a glowing image. With the Fuji that is only apparent along the very top of her hat. When it comes to Sophia's eyes, they do not have the sharp in soft effect. They're just not sharp. So I guess I interpreted what Bernice meant as there wasn't the soft/sharp dichotomy throughout the picture, as there is with an Imagon. There's not really enough completely out of of focus to judge bokeh, unlike with your terrific examples.

[Bob Salomon]

A true soft focus lens diffuses the highlights into the shadows while an add on soft focus filter or diffusion filter diffuse the shadows into the highlights. It’s just not the same thing. Even with the Softar or a Kodak type diffusion disk.

Another big difference is that an Imagon has two different focal lengths. One in the center and one at the periphery. The disks let you control how much of each you are using by the size of the center hole size and how open or closed the surrounding holes are.
In addition the Imagon has more depth of field at any given stop then regular lenses at the equivalent aperture.
To get the true Imagon effect you need a strong lighting ratio, 5:1, and a strong main light from an elliptical reflector rather then a soft box or an umbrella.
Then you get that feeling of sharpness with that softness and haloing that sets a lens that is true softfocus apart.

Bear in mind that the Imagon shifts focus with every disk setting and becomes very sharp with the disk with the smallest center hole with the periphery holes closed. And with each disk there is a common T stop between one and the next but different softfocus.
So an Imagon with no disk is 5.8 as it is with the disk with the largest center hole and with the periphery holes open. Close those periphery holes and it is 7.7. The next disk with all the holes open is also 7.7 but slightly sharper, and so on.

[Greg]

In the past have had and used a 250mm FUJINON-SF and was very pleased with the image that it projected. If I remember correctly, it actually projected an image that covered the 11x14 format though wasn't really useable for the 11x14, edge Bokeh was terrible. Then acquired a 300mm Rodenstock Imagon. Used it without any discs and only at its maximum aperture. Very subjective opinion here since I never owned both lenses at the same time to compare but preferred the Imagon. Soft Focus filters never liked very much except for the Hasselblad Softars. But even they, again in my opinion, never came close to my 120mm f/3.3 SMC PENTAX SOFT lens adapted to a 2000FC.

[Bob Salomon]

In the past have had and used a 250mm FUJINON-SF and was very pleased with the image that it projected. If I remember correctly, it actually projected an image that covered the 11x14 format though wasn't really useable for the 11x14, edge Bokeh was terrible. Then acquired a 300mm Rodenstock Imagon. Used it without any discs and only at its maximum aperture. Very subjective opinion here since I never owned both lenses at the same time to compare but preferred the Imagon. Soft Focus filters never liked very much except for the Hasselblad Softars. But even they, again in my opinion, never came close to my 120mm f/3.3 SMC PENTAX SOFT lens adapted to a 2000FC.

Hasselblad Softars? Rollei Softars? Zeiss Softars? Heliopan Softars? B+W Softars?

They are all the same, the filter was made by Zeiss who mounted the disks into the rims supplied by Hasselblad, Rollei, Heliopan and B+W.

[Greg]

Hasselblad Softars? Rollei Softars? Zeiss Softars? Heliopan Softars? B+W Softars?

They are all the same, the filter was made by Zeiss who mounted the disks into the rims supplied by Hasselblad, Rollei, Heliopan and B+W.

Too bad that Zeiss didn't market larger Softar filter sizes... I would have been one definite purchaser of them.

[Bob Salomon]

Too bad that Zeiss didn't market larger Softar filter sizes... I would have been one definite purchaser of them.

Heliopan had them up to 105mm but that was awhile ago.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I once special ordered through B&H a Contax 86mm Softar II. Still have it. I used to use it for wedding "beauty shots" on hot-rodded Exakta 66's. Used the 180mm F2.8 CZJ Sonnar which is a proven winner.

I've acquired over time all the complete collection of Imagons from the 120mm and 150mm Schmactenburg up to the barrel 420mm and they are quite different from the glass Zeiss etc softars. Completely different. Hot spot "pincer lighting" is generally required.

I've got quite a collection of the original Rodenstock literature from many different eras. Important reading as a starting point if you own one of these.

[Bob Salomon]

I once special ordered through B&H a Contax 86mm Softar II. Still have it. I used to use it for wedding "beauty shots" on hot-rodded Exakta 66's. Used the 180mm F2.8 CZJ Sonnar which is a proven winner.

I've acquired over time all the complete collection of Imagons from the 150mm Schmactenburg to the barrel 420mm and they are quite different from the glass Zeiss etc softars. Completely different.

I've got quite a collection of the original Rodenstock literature from different eras. Important reading if you own one of these.
Almost the complete collection. There was a 120 as well,as a 150 that Burghard sold. Actually the 120 and the 150 that he sold had been long discontinued when he convinced Rodenstock to put them back into production for himself and he had to buy the entire production run. He also tried to get an exclusive on the 200 but they would not give that to him.
In the US Frank Crichiho sold Burghard’s system but he left Frank and we became the distributor until he went out of business. Since we also sold Zorkendorfer as well as Rodenstock we had small format Imagons from 120 to 200mm and Some custom focus tubes for the 250 on special order plus the 200 to 300 for larger formats.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Oops Yes I have the 120 as well. I had Glenn Evans make a set of "prolongation tubes" for the 120 &150 which he collimated to the Exakta 66

We used the Schmachtenburg Helical for both lenses

A lot of thought went into this construction.

[Bob Salomon]

Oops Yes I have the 120 as well. I had Glenn Evans make a set of "prolongation tubes" for the 120 &150 which he collimated to the Exakta 66

Quite a collection,
Actually Hervig and Burghard, as well as Rodenstock called them the focus tubes. Do you have that neat Prontor Professional shutter that Burghard sold, primarily for the Hasselblad C series?

[Daniel Unkefer]

Nope I was heavily into the Pentacon Six/EX66 system at the time for focal plane MF. But I was daring enough to use those on commercial assignments without ever a fail. As a supplement to my Hasselblads.

Later I gravitated away from the P6 and sold the 120 & 150 set to my internet friend "Mr. Pentacon Six". He documented these lenses configured by Glenn Evans on his extensive P6 website.

http://www.pentaconsix.com/imagon.htm

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Follow-up:

First step decision: Thanks to the discussions here, I "thought" long and hard about the Rodenstock Imagon and "looked" as much as you can on the internet about some of the other options. Came back full circle to a Fuji Fujinon 180mm SFS F/5.6 lens with a Copal shutter and ordered it. Yes, I actually buy off ebay. And no, it's not a Cooke, but it's also not expensive. But it is probably as good a place to start and enough different from my 135mm and 240mm to double in offering a different length... which is to say I did not go for the same make lens in the 250mm option. I've got a lot to learn, but perhaps as much of that will have to do with lighting as with handling a lens of this sort.:D For now I have the relatively modest ambition of learning how to take good enough portraits that I can compliment the women in my life from 88 to barely 6 months. Yes... simultaneously my biggest fans and toughest critics. Are men even close to as picky? Not sure. Maybe we'll find out.

Side note: I've a Richard Avedon book or two, but my idea of portraiture is for something a little less dramatically staged (not that all of his fit that by any means). I've read that many of us get into still life, landscape and architecture BECAUSE we're not enthralled with portraits. Maybe that's more true than I like to admit. But if you have any suggestions or suggested texts and care to point the way... I'm all eyeballs, ears, and yeah... "the rest of me".

[Peter De Smidt]

Enjoy! Focusing can be tricky, but, like anything, the more your practice, the better you'll be. Try more contrasty lighting than you'd use with a non-soft-focus lens.

[Bernice Loui]

180mm focal length is a bit short for 4x5 portrait work, the 180mm was intended to be used on 6x7 to 6x9 roll film head-shoulder and similar portraits. The 250mm is preferred for 4x5 portrait work. At this point, it matters not as this is part of getting on the learning curve. Your challenge is learning to focus a sorta-focus lens. Suggest practicing on some area of high contrast ratio in the subject (eye lash to eyes white area) on the ground glass image illuminated with hard or hot lighting. If diffused lighting is used, learning to focus will be more difficult.

At some point, there might be the discovery and realization that lighting and all non-camera image making related stuff is more important than the camera-lens alone.

As for portrait examples, Know Richard Avedon made his reputation on tradition busting. Many of his famed portraits were done using a BIG soft box, strobe and "sharp-harsh" images. Better would be to spend LOTs of time at your local art museum studying portrait paintings, then getting good books

by Edward Steichen:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155698-Edward-Steichen-In-High-Fashion-The-Conde-Nast-Years-1923-1937&highlight=Edward

Any of the famed pre WW-II Hollywood portrait photographers including George Hurell:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155701-George-Hurrell-Documentary

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155711-Clarence-Sinclair-Bull-the-lesser-known-Hollywood-Photographer


At this point, it is much about learning how best to used the "tools" and process related to using these tools as a means to achieve a image goal.
Once this learning of technique and what the tools are capable of, comes the time to develop your own style and means of portraiture. Previous works by other portrait image makers should be applied as examples of what is possible, what has been done. Challenge is, formulating your own style and means of portraiture.


Enjoy this ride :)
Bernice




Follow-up:

First step decision: Thanks to the discussions here, I "thought" long and hard about the Rodenstock Imagon and "looked" as much as you can on the internet about some of the other options. Came back full circle to a Fuji Fujinon 180mm SFS F/5.6 lens with a Copal shutter and ordered it. Yes, I actually buy off ebay. And no, it's not a Cooke, but it's also not expensive. But it is probably as good a place to start and enough different from my 135mm and 240mm to double in offering a different length... which is to say I did not go for the same make lens in the 250mm option. I've got a lot to learn, but perhaps as much of that will have to do with lighting as with handling a lens of this sort.:D For now I have the relatively modest ambition of learning how to take good enough portraits that I can compliment the women in my life from 88 to barely 6 months. Yes... simultaneously my biggest fans and toughest critics. Are men even close to as picky? Not sure. Maybe we'll find out.

Side note: I've a Richard Avedon book or two, but my idea of portraiture is for something a little less dramatically staged (not that all of his fit that by any means). I've read that many of us get into still life, landscape and architecture BECAUSE we're not enthralled with portraits. Maybe that's more true than I like to admit. But if you have any suggestions or suggested texts and care to point the way... I'm all eyeballs, ears, and yeah... "the rest of me".

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Peter: Thanks!
Bernice: Yes, I agree it's a bit short. Figure with the Fuji A 240 which ISN'T soft, I kind of felt I had that length covered. So the 180 is more coverage than I'd like, and the 240 more like my 85mm in 35mm film... a sweet spot. Glad to hear you echo an emphasis on lighting. Thank you!

[Bernice Loui]

At this point, don't worry about the focal length, far more important is to USE this Fuji SF to gain experience. After burning LOTs of film and image making, then the tuning process begins.

~Again, concentrate on lighting (reflectors & negative fill are your FRIENDs) , less on the lens for now.


:)
Bernice


Peter: Thanks!
Bernice: Yes, I agree it's a bit short. Figure with the Fuji A 240 which ISN'T soft, I kind of felt I had that length covered. So the 180 is more coverage than I'd like, and the 240 more like my 85mm in 35mm film... a sweet spot. Glad to hear you echo an emphasis on lighting. Thank you!

[BrianShaw]

As an infrequent user of Fujinon SF 250... Bernice speaks my (probably much more limited) experience also.

Question to Skip... did you get both “strainers”?

[Daniel Unkefer]

For smaller format Imagon sittings I would often use a set of snooted Photogenic Mini-Spots. They are small and plentiful and sometimes cheap. Don't touch them you will brand yourself :/

Broncolor has an extensive system of optical spots for their strobe heads and I have some of those around as well. Get or make some fill panels and material to make Gobos and subtractive panels

And Have fun :) Take extensive notes

Buy this book and enjoy/study it Available for as low as $30 on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/Edward-Steichen-Fashion-Conde-1923-1937/dp/0393066770/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=steichen+fashion&qid=1576862310&sr=8-1

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Brian: The 180mm "coming" does have both + the Fuji box and instructions. Most re-sale units have only one strainer. but this has both "Red" and "Yellow" dot strainers.

[BrianShaw]

Yay!