Got to play with a Cooke Portrait PS945 lens

[Jim collum]

I got to play with the Cooke soft focus lens for a few days. some test images at collum.omniblog.com (http://collum.omniblog.com ) . A very impressive piece of glass (not to mention expensive). Amazingly sharp at > f11 (in fact, one of the sharpest lenses i've used). A very unique look from f11 to f4.5.

Anyone compare this to the original Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality Series IV that it's modeled after?

jim

[Steve Hamley]

Thanks for the info and link Jim. Now if the price were just a bit lower...

Steve

[medform-norm]

Jim,
I can't get the pictures to load in your blogspace - it's too immense and even after 10 minutes of loading I see nothing. Is there another space on the net that one can see your results? I'm dying to see them.
Regards, Norm

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks for the nice demo. Interesting to see how much it sharpens up after f:11. With a Verito there is still a fair amount of chromatic aberration at small apertures, even after the spherical aberration that causes the glow at wide apertures is gone.

I didn't have any problem seeing the images posted on the blog from my 56K dialup connection at home.

[Pete Roody]

"Anyone compare this to the original Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality Series IV that it's modeled after?"

Clive Russ can probably answer your question. http://www.cliveruss.com/

[Jim collum]

norm,

let me see if i can get that fixed today. i've pinged the blog developer on that (there should be a 'table of contents' type page, with only the latest entry showing. as it is now.. all blog entries come up

[Ted Harris]

Jim,

Yes, it is a very impressive piece of glass at a very impressive price. When I did the article on modern variable focus lenses (November - December View Camera) I went through the same sorts of tests and comparisons that you did. Your results match mine and those of most everyone else who has used the lens. I did have the opportunity to compare it to an original Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality Series IV as well (courtesy of Kerik Kouklis) although that comparison was strictly a studio comparison and was not a one-to-one comparison at that since the older lens was much longer). A few points to consider:

1) Yes, it is very sharp at f11, perhaps sharper than the other modern soft focus lenses tested (Imagon and Fuji) but IMO it was not as sharp as a Fujinon 240 A and I only really see the point of considering the ultimate sharpness of a ‘soft focus’ lens as an addendum to its performance used in the soft focus mode.
2) When compared to the original Pinkham & Smith it did not provide as much of a range of softness and thus is not as technically useful for either portraiture or soft focus landscapes. I say technically as useful since ‘usefulness’ has many facets, the performance of the lens being only one. For example, I would never try and take the 300+ mm Series IV lens some of the places I routinely go with a 4x5 or 5x7 field camera and a Fujinon 240 or 300 A lens, but then I am an old guy and others may disagree. For the older lens I am talking a BIG piece of glass mounted in a studio shutter; needs a special lensboard opening larger than any of the modern standard openings but will, barely, on a Sinar/Horseman board. I recall that the lens is available in shorter focal lengths and that the shorter ones are also smaller. To me, however, for purposes of working photography, this sort of a discussion is a tour de force since the lenses are so uncommon on the used market and when they do show up are not inexpensive in their own right.
3) The performance was almost identical to the performance of the Imagon when used for portraits in the studio. So close, in fact, that when I showed the images to several others they had to turn the prints over to see which was from which lens and said they couldn’t see any difference. What differences I did see were very very very small. For environmental portraiture it had different bokeh than the Imagon but which you like better is a question of personal choice.

I liked the lens and shot some 60 sheets of film with it over a several week period but, to me, it remains a very specialized lens. If you want to carry only one lens in your kit and shoot both portraits and landscapes then this could be a contender if price is no object or if you could easily amortize the price for business. If you are in the portrait business and want modern glass then I would go for either this lens or the Imagon (I have owned and used the Fuji SF off and on over many years and just never liked it, never thought it performed as well as the Cooke or the Rodenstock Imagon .. personal choice). A final note, all these lenses are very finicky. They can be difficult to focus, need to be focused at the taking aperture, etc.

[Jim Galli]

Per Volquartz had one from Cooke to evaluate about a year or more ago. I loaned him my Coated 240mm Heliar at the same time so he could compare them. The Cooke is of course much more diffused at f4.5 than the Heliar. The Heliar is more subtle. I have an original 13" P&S but have never had the pleasure of comparing to the pricey PS945. That would be a fun test. I have to think the personalities would be quite different because of the coatings the modern lens has compared to the older uncoated lens. If you've got the $$ and are wanting a difuse portrait lens I doubt the PS945 would disappoint. I'll bet it's gorgeous.

[darr]

I am waiting on a PS945 right now. Jeff from Badger says Cooke is waiting on delivery of shutters from Japan and that is the hold up. I am a portrait photographer and it is my intention to share with this forum a small portfolio of images I will make after I can get my hands on the lens. If I had enough knowledge like some of you guys have with the older LF portrait lenses, I would try to equip myself with some of the classic SF lenses, but I do not. I did use an Imagon SF with a Mamiya RB a few years ago, but was not that impressed with the disk placements. I was a working pro at the time and was use to the demand of having to shoot quickly so my tried and true Hasselblad with Softars was more the speed at the time. If any of you LF lens gurus would like to recommend some older SF portrait lenses that I can equip my 4x5" with I would be interested in hearing about them.

[medform-norm]

"norm,

let me see if i can get that fixed today. i've pinged the blog developer on that (there should be a 'table of contents' type page, with only the latest entry showing. as it is now.. all blog entries come up"

Jim,
I managed to look at your blog in another browser. It was my very old IE that was making the trouble - it 'hung' on one of the images loading and would just sit there and not finish. Not the first time the old IE is playing up - time for an upgrade.
Now I've found out that I have to look at your blog at another computer with a better screen resolution....oh well, maybe it's time for a new computer altogether. From what I could see, it looks as nice as other results I've seen with the Cooke. Can't wait to see how their other lens projects will turn out.

But thanks for the effort. I may not be the only one having this glitch.
Regards, Norm

[Jonathan Brewer]

I have three images on my website www.imageandartifact.bz done w/the Cooke PS 945, the initial image on the index page, also click on that image which will take you to the copyright statement and another Cooke PS 945 image, and you can also go to the 'infrared' gallery, and click on 'Out of Ivory', where I shot a portrait of my daughter using the Cooke and Maco infrared, it's been digitally manipulated for the obvious effect you see in the final image.

I've had this lens for some time, but I'm still learning how to use it, in a continual search for that 'sweet spot' where everything comes together, which I think/prefer is a 'smooth' look with a glow/sparkle which for every individual shot comes at a certain distance/lighting effect/exposure, or said another way, ...................... there seems to be a certain combination of distance/amount of diffusion/exposure/light ratio where these variables combine w/what the Cooke can give you where the shot 'sparkles', and then the magic disappears as you miss the 'sweet spot'.

As you close down from wide open, there's less of an abrupt transition from the plane of focus to the background, so for me, when you close down a little, things go from soft(which I prefer less and less as I get older) to 'smooth' and 'elegant' from foreground to background.

[Ken Lee]

If we are using digital capture, could this look be attained by using one of the blur "filters" - such as Gaussian Blur ?

If we are shooting film, can this effect be attained by shooting or enlarging through a real filter ?

Or does the lens do something special that cannot be duplicated with other means ?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Gaussian blur never looks like any kind of real effect produced by a lens, and each soft focus lens produces a different effect. There are some effects that are similar to each other, and some less costly ways to produce effects that might be appealing, but I don't see one as a substitute for another.

[Jim collum]

Ken,

short answer is i don't think you can duplicate this with a simple blur. there are a few long essay's i've found on what's going on technially .. you don't really end up with just a blurry/soft image.. the lens still resovles all the detail (in some of the sample, you can see some spider web that was resovled at 1 pixel). i haven't found an action yet that duplicates this 'look'

jim

[Jonathan Brewer]

Per Volquartz has several still lifes shot the Cooke on his website, they show a tactile quality, and a sparkle/glow that you/at least I don't see from other lenses.

Having been obsessed in the past w/the soft look, I had the Mamiya soft focus lens in MF w/the disks, Zeiss Softars, the old Tiffen diffusion 1-5 filters which duplicate smearing vaseline on glass, fogs, double fogs, Tiffen softnets which duplicate a woman's stocking stretched over the lens, the Wollensak Veritar, black toule netting, the Wollensak Velostigmat and so far nothing looks like of a Cooke PS 945 image closed down somewhat.

I've gotten rid of everything except the Velstigmat which I think can produce very interesting nuances when closed down depending on taste, I got the Cooke PS 945, because for several years I couldn't find a Pinkham & Smith, but as always happens, a P&S showed up and I bit on it, it's at S.K. Grimes now, and I plan to shoot mostly w/the Velostigmat, the Cooke, and the Pinkham(from the shots I've seen), because these lenses seem at least to me to give the shot something different than just softness.

I think the issue of comparing these lenses closed down/closed way down to what other lenses do in terms of sharpness is a sort of a 'trap' in that looking at some of Per Volquartz images shot w/the Cooke, there are nuances/values/values in the images shot w/the Cooke, that other lenses wouldn't give the shot, so for me the Cooke is 'sharp enough' to where sharpness isn't an issue, and if it is, then the reverse is true in that the ultra sharp images will never give a shot what the Cooke gives it.

[darr]

"Having been obsessed in the past w/the soft look, I had the Mamiya soft focus lens in MF w/the disks, Zeiss Softars, the old Tiffen diffusion 1-5 filters which duplicate smearing Vaseline on glass, fogs, double fogs, Tiffen softnets which duplicate a woman's stocking stretched over the
lens, the Wollensak Veritar, black toule netting, the Wollensak Velostigmat and so far nothing looks like of a Cooke PS 945 image closed down somewhat."

Add some Cokin diffs, minus the Wollensak and there you have my past SF tool box. I too have came to the same conclusion and thus my ordering of the Cooke.

[darr]

"If we are using digital capture, could this look be attained by using one of the blur "filters" - such as Gaussian Blur ? "

From my experience some of the look I crave comes from the splitting of the light that starts in the beginning of image making and CS2 filters are an after fact. There are some key indicators that can tell how a SF portrait was made when you look at the catch-lights in the pupils or how the surrounding ambient light reacts by haloing, fuzzing, darkening, etc. I am not a light physicist, but I can tell the difference when I see it. The creamy effect of the PS945 and the ability to control it in camera through aperture from zero to heavy makes me want to run with one. I did use a series of Tallyn filters with a double Lindahl system that worked for a while when I got tired of the Softar look. I think the bottom line is probably a matter of taste with the type of composition.

[Frank Petronio]

If you have a nice SF image to begin with, the Photoshop's Gaussian Blur filter can be used with gradiated and/brushstroke application to sleectively increase the blur where appropriate. But the key is to already have some nice bokeh to begin with. It would be really hard (impossible) to duplicate the look a lens from a perfectly sharp clinical shot.

[Steve J Murray]

Just a side note: a fellow on pnet/Nikon forum posted some interesting photos taken with a older 50mm 1.4 Nikkor that had been lightly sandblasted, which resulted in a rather unique look of softness.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Has anyone done a comparison between the Cooke PS945, or the Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality IV and a Universal Heliar, or the older Cooke ("knuckle") portrait lenses? I'd be interested in seeing the results of such a comparison. The Universal Heliar and the older Cookes have movable center elements that can be used to dial in more or less sperical aberration as desired.

Kerry

[Jim collum]

i've always been a 'as sharp as possible is the best' kinda photographer. But i really like the look of images coming out of this lens. maybe i'm just getting old :^)

jim

[Frank Petronio]

Shoot people with that scan back Jim!

[Jim collum]

well.. i also have a freezer full of film, and a howtek scanner :^)

i'd imagine if i shot people, i'd end up with the early look of portraiture when you nail someone's head to a board to keep it from moving during the multi minute exposure

[Jim collum]

more samples (http://web1.omniblog.com/_smartsite/modules/local/blog/blog_display.php?cmd=show_blog&user_id=10004&type=entry&map_id=1191)

some studio examples, using the Betterlight without the IR block filter (and color balanced)

[Ken Lee]

The Calla Lily photo is quite beautiful. Whatever it is you are doing with that setup, keep on doing it. Many of your images have a deep sense of presence.

[Jim collum]

thank you! i think that's the best thing anyones said about my images. much appreciated!