Focusing Soft Focus Lenses

[Stephane]

Sf lenses are special, very special. One needs to practice, but practice means film, time, and a model expecting great results.

Just because IMO this subject deserves a searchable topic with DIY instructions.
Currently, there's no info around.

No more waste of time.

So to repeat, the way I do things as DIY instructions:

Rack the rear to bring the face in near focus.
Then find the position so that you have a feel of sharpness over the face.
From there, concentrate on the lips of the model and pull the rear standard towards you gently. When the lips look nice, do fine focusing and find the point for the best lips. Do not use a loupe. Try to look at the gg as far back as the dark cloth allow. Maybe 40 cm, and have a better idea of the overall picture.

Anybody want to share their technique?
Special effects? Aperture effect and diffusion? Using one element?
Also effects are different using German (Perscheid to me are very formal), French (Eidoscope to me are very rounded, 3D effect), American (so many models, except Veritar was a tricky one...)
There's more: lighting effect... I found meniscus are better for frontal lighting.

So many variables... But in the end, think about the rewards: your partner will (at last) be happy posing for you!

[Mark Sawyer]

I feel the focusing itself is very similar to focusing normal "sharp" lenses wide open. On portraits, I focus on one eye, then rack the rear in and out to see how much and what direction swing I need to get the other eye in focus, and how much and what direction tilt I need for the lips to be in focus. Those three points usually define my plane.

My latest preference, btw, is to bring the second eye very nearly into focus; both eyes in perfect focus doesn't seem quite right, but neither does one eye in focus, the other noticeably out-of-focus. Cases in point from this month's portrait thread:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/RileySharp-1.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/RipleySofts-1.jpg

...but ask me again a month from now and I'll have likely changed my mind again.

I'm lucky in that, so far as I can tell, all my soft focus and portrait lenses have the same chemical focus as visual focus. That would be a major pain! Sometimes there's a focus shift, so I always focus at the taking aperture, though I always compose wide open. Then again, I tend to like wide open for the taking aperture too... :)

Choosing the aperture is usually the big question; it's no longer just a depth-of-field choice, as degree-of-allowed-aberration is every bit as importatant. That's where lens choice comes in. Veritos, Veritars, Imagons, and Kodak Portraits are soooo soft wide open that it's usually best to close them down one to two stops, (but they're so delicious wide open that I use them that way far too much... rather like too many peppers in the hot sauce! Mmmmm, so good, but too much for most people's taste.) Cooke's, Portrait Plastigmats, Portrait Unars, and soft-focus Dallmeyer and Vitax Petzvals are more subtle with their softness, so it's easier to get away with going wide open and not overwhelming the viewer with softness.

And all the soft lenses seem to have their own personalities. I suppose that's part of the addiction of accumulating a small collection to work with, being able to choose the right lens for the right effect. I can't do with the Cooke what I can do with the Velostigmat, and a meniscus doublet like the Imagon is completely different that either, and the Dallmeyer is still something else. To learn and appreciate the differences is part of the experience, and it's and experience known to very few photographers.

Just my take on it; others can be completely different and completely correct for how they work and see.

[John Berry]

In the Kodak portraits all depth of field will be to the front of the lens focus. If you focus on the eyes it will go to the nose none toward the ear. I would recommend focus at F8 and open to the diffusion effect of choice. Universal heliars offer a hair-pulling range of choices of purdy. Most think of portrait lighting as soft for the most part. I would recommend a harder lighting than you would assume. you need to punch it to get some flair going. ( In a verito anyway ) Mark also shows that fabulous can be had by throwing my opinion in the trash.

[cowanw]

A very interesting topic and I hope many others will contribute their interpretations.

One thing that becomes apparent with these lenses is that wysiwyg on the GG is not really true.
I have found it very heplful to use a sharp specular light source such as a maglight with the top screwed off,with the older style of bulb, not LED
http://www.maglite.com/productline.asp for the non North Americans.
Using this I find a real difference in the nature of the depth of field in front of and behind the subject (light filament)
The Universal Heliar, Kodak Portrait , Verito, Imagon and Veritar all maintain the central core of the filament when the bellows are focussed closer. Focussing towards Infinity the filament changes to a diffuse cicle with a dark core. This suggests that these lenses are best focussed on the nose to use the depth of field to extend back to the catch light of the eyes. This is the opposite of what John says so I set up two mag lights for and aft to test this. And this confirms the focus on the front light the a core of specular light in the distant light is maintained. When the focus is on the diatant light the core of the front filament is lost to darkness.
The kodak portrait lens manual on Camera eccentric agrees with this, describing racking the bellows out to focus "the tip of the nose to bring the face into the depth of field". It is a bit confusing about the depth of field being behind the lens focus but it is clear the bellows is racked out to the nose so the face is in the depth of field. "The lack of depth of field is in front of the focused plane." (not behind)
I think if you check out pages 3 and 4 of Camera eccentric
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/kodak_1.html
You will see this.


The Graf Variable is the opposite of this with the central core of the image being maintained as the bellows is shortened or as focus is shifted to infintiy.
The instructions on camera eccentric page 6
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/graf_1.html
warn against too much bellows extension, which coincides with my observations of it being the opposite of the others.

The cooke RVP flares as the focus is move to infinity and looses the central core of the filament as the bellows are lengthened, the same as the Graf but with worse flare.

The Cooke soft and the Velostigmat soft favour neither front or rear depth of field.
As to focus shift, it is true that my choise of best focus is different at different fstops but I still wonder if the above different depth of field effects have more to do with this than focus shift. Actual Photos of rulers are in order.
As In all things I may be totally out to lunch
Regards
Bill

[Steven Tribe]

Keeping on coming with new stuff, please. This is very helpful!

[eddie]

thanks for the interesting and helpful read.

i just received a P&S synthetic #2. i thought i would go play with it for a while. i used one direct light source and a white reflector. all shot wide open.

the only thing i changed was the focus point. everything else was the same. well, other than obviously moving closer in....which also appears to have affected the glow.

thanks again.

eddie

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/5/7/8/5/0/webimg/434439750_o.jpg



http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/5/7/8/5/0/webimg/434439759_o.jpg



http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/5/7/8/5/0/webimg/434439766_o.jpg

[Jim Galli]

My approach fwiw has been learned the hard way over time and much material in the dumpster. Sadly most of my subjects are static. I'm very shy and when I do finally get a sitter (this is Tonopah Nevada remember) I sort of get deer fever and don't relax and think which is the necessary thing to do.

Anyways, back to easier subject, ie. static things. I find a contrast line at the area of interest and roll the back towards me until that line snaps sharp. When that happens you're typically just too fuzzy to do any good, so then I slowly roll back in until I see the best compromise. That isn't much either.

Preferences; I shoot at least 80% of the soft lenses wide open. Surprisingly the Eidoscop, Series IV Pinkhams, and especially the Perscheid is almost too understated and conservative for me at first look. But then later when you look at those prints, one word comes to mind. Class.

[cowanw]

Your talk of a contrast line brought to mind a section of O. R. Croy's book "The Photographic Portrait"
He suggests for practice
"A length of black flex is suspended in front of a wall lit by a white light.... When the lens is moved forward, the black cord is first seen in sharp contrast against the white background, but the image is still blurred. As the lens advances the definition of the cord improves without, however, becoming completely sharp. At the same time it will be noticed that the contrast between the black cord and the white background diminishes. The cord becomes increasingly pale. If the lens is now moved still further forward, the cord becomes so pale it seems to be shrouded in mist. Now the sharp image lies in between these two extremes....
The central image makes its appearance shortly after the moment at which the white sheen penetrates the picture.
To sum up: the lens is moved forward, and at a certain point you believe that the maximum definition has been obtained. When the lens is moved forward a little further, the white mist increasingly covers the black outlines, and a moment later when the outlines have to some extent lost their contrast, the sharp central image can be seen within the mist."

By black flex, I presume a woven black cord is what is required. I find the woven nature provides slight texture that makes the focused image easier to distinguish.
Regards
Bill

[cowanw]

Croy goes on to discuss stopping down, to the point where you have a sharp image.
He does not mention Focus Shift.
But it occurs to me that once you have got the image focussed correctly at maximum aperture, you could then stop down to f8 or so and note at which point you are focussed.
From then on, you could use this knowledge (for this lens) and focus (more easily) at f8 at the newly defined point of focus. Then open up to your chosen aperture. A change in focus shift will be nullified.
Regards
Bill

[Mark Sawyer]

Anyways, back to easier subject, ie. static things...

That reminds me, in portraits, focusing is especially difficult as that's where we often like to work wide-open, with very shallow depth of field. The sitter's head moves very easily in and out, and can throw off thje most careful focusing while we fiddle with the film holder, etc. Having the sitter lean his/her head against something helps, but isn't always the best position. I'm working on one of those old head-braces used during the Daguerrian/Collodion days, not so much for the long exposure, but for maintaining the focus on the eyes.

I wonder whether those old head-braces made a bit of a comeback during the hey-day of wide-open portraiture?

[cowanw]

I have fashioned one out of a stand with a 3 bend arm with springs, sometimes seen with desk lamps, and, on the end, a rubber cup that the sitter can rest against comfortably. Gotta be careful of the arms though so they don't peek out on the print.
Has improved my in focus shots a to 9/10. Now I just need a good compositon and lighting tool.:)
Regards
Bill

[cowanw]

I have fashioned one out of a stand with a 3 bend arm with springs, sometimes seen with desk lamps, and, on the end, a rubber cup that the sitter can rest against comfortably. Gotta be careful of the arms though so they don't peek out on the print.
Has improved my in focus shots to a 9/10. Now I just need a good compositon and lighting tool.:)
Regards
Bill

[Steven Tribe]

I have considered the maglight solution with a filament bulb - certainly safer than mercury droplets. But they are a bit difficult to place. I thought something like a bare filament bulb with just the contact part and a thin cable to a battery box. And a wire hook/pin at the back of the skeletal bulb holder.

[Steve Hamley]

In the Kodak portraits all depth of field will be to the front of the lens focus. If you focus on the eyes it will go to the nose none toward the ear. I would recommend focus at F8 and open to the diffusion effect of choice. Universal heliars offer a hair-pulling range of choices of purdy. Most think of portrait lighting as soft for the most part. I would recommend a harder lighting than you would assume. you need to punch it to get some flair going. ( In a verito anyway ) Mark also shows that fabulous can be had by throwing my opinion in the trash.

This seems to be exactly the opposite of what Kodak recommends; see "Front Focusing" here:

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/kodak_1.html

Maybe using the terms "front" differently?

Cheers, Steve

[Michael Jones]

Here are the instructions from Fuji for their soft focus lenses.

Mike

[Joe Forks]

Here's a slightly different version of the same instruction sheet. A little easier to read, hope you don't mind.

Best
Joe

[Harold_4074]

I can't speak to all of the lenses mentioned in this thread, but from experience the Imagon and Velostigmat Series II definitely exhibit a radial gradient in softness. In other words, the best definition, when focused, is on the optical axis. In a typical portrait, the eyes and nose are usually about a third of the way from the top of the frame, so the best definition occurs at about collar level of the lens is pointed straight at the subject. I made quite a few pictures where the fabric of the subject's shirt was sharper than the facial features before I learned to center the camera on the eyes, focus, and then use front rise to frame the portrait instead of tilting the camera.

In closeups, such as the gorgeous examples by Mark Sawyer, this isn't so much of an issue because the face tends to be closer to the center of the frame anyway.

[John Berry]

This is the opposite of what John says
I stand corrected. That's what happens when I try to do stuff from memory. So here is the 2000 words. Same shot, first at F6 second at f16. These were the very first two shots taken with the 305 kodak portrait lens. I used key light only. I don't shoot much chrome and wanted to see how far the lens will dig into shadows. So, though many could describe better lighting, it was done this way for data. Visual evidence of stopping down on depth of field being one of them.

[Stephane]

I found that shooting wide open with SF lenses is more forgiving than when you start "shutting them up". Maybe because when you introduce sharpness, the plane of focus will be too evident and disturbing if behind or in front of the eyes.

In other words, a SF lens wide open gives the illusion of a greater DOF. And because of this I stopped using contraptions to hold the head still. The instructions are "dont swing or sway".

[eddie]

hey all,

i was out practicing with my SF lenses. thanks to stephane for some tips. i am still trying to get control over it all. seems that printing exposure times are critical as well. i have better ideas now. this was my 1st attempt with some of the lenses.

i thought it may interest some people.

all wide open. the port-land says f5.6 but it actually opens wider. i shot it at the unmarked wider aperture.

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/5/7/8/5/0/webimg/444851409_o.jpg

18 inch port-land wide open on 4x5

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/5/7/8/5/0/webimg/444851370_o.jpg

kodak 405 at f4.5 on 4x5

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/5/7/8/5/0/webimg/444851393_o.jpg

210 nicola perchid wide open on 4x5

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/5/7/8/5/0/webimg/444851362_o.jpg

12 inch heliar wide open on 4x5

thanks

eddie

[chassis]

This thread is helpful.

Can anyone comment on the two focusing guides. One is using a plane comprising (a portrait sitter's) two eyes, and the lips. The other guide is to focus on the tip of the nose. Are these the same rules said differently, or are they to be used in different situations, or something else?

Also, does a soft focus negative need more or less exposure, and more or less development, than a negative made with a "normal" lens? Assume for the moment the subject and lighting are identical.

I am trying to get the hang of a meniscus lens purchased from Mr. Galli. It has lots of personality, and I'm trying to be somewhat methodical at using the lens effectively. Thanks.

[Ken Lee]

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't this all a matter of taste ? Is there a right way ? Shooting with this kind of lens, I find that I never quite know what it's going to look like until I'm looking at the ground glass - and then it's still a bit of a guess until a proof image is made. That's what makes it an adventure.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/c3.jpg
Sinar P, 4x5 HP5+, D-23
9-inch Kershaw lens courtesy of Eddie Gunks

[Jim Fitzgerald]

'll contribute to this great thread in a day or two. I got Jim's Eidoscop 275 that he was selling a while back and it looks great on the GG. I shot a Calla tonight and I'll see what I've got. Wide open for the first go. I focused at a well defined area and I'll see what the print looks like. I like what I saw.

[Jay DeFehr]

I'm not a SF fanatic, but I've been using my Verito fairly regularly for several years, and I only just feel like I'm making sense of it. Wide open is just far too soft for my taste, and I usually land somewhere around f/5- f/7, but sometimes as much as f/11. I focus at taking aperture, because opening up confuses more than it illuminates. I never know exactly what I want in sharp focus until I'm looking at the GG. I might play with movements, or I might not, depending on what I see. I do tend to prefer hard light with soft lenses, unless I'm going for a feathers in fog kind of look. Not much use to anyone, I suppose. I do enjoy reading your takes on the issue.

[Jim Galli]

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't this all a matter of taste ? Is there a right way ? Shooting with this kind of lens, I find that I never quite know what it's going to look like until I'm looking at the ground glass - and then it's still a bit of a guess until a proof image is made. That's what makes it an adventure.



Sinar P, 4x5 HP5+, D-23
9-inch Kershaw lens courtesy of Eddie Gunks

Holy Moly Ken. I hope you didn't give it back! That's gorgeous.

[Ken Lee]

I hope you didn't give it back!

I'm afraid I did :rolleyes:

That lens has the MoJo big-time.

[cowanw]

Chassis
Imagon instructions suggest some what less exposure and somewhat more development. This is consistant with my experience with Strong diffussion lenses such as the Verito as well. Less so with the milder lenses such as a Cooke.
As to the position of the best plane of focus, I still think a trio of bare bulb Maglights, in a line and focussed on the middle one will be instructive for you to see if you like the back half or the front half of the available DOF.

[chassis]

Thanks for the comments. I do agree this is a subjective area. I'm new to using this type of lens, and am looking to color between the lines for a while until I see what the possibilities are. Seems like it's experimentation than rules based.

[jp]

This thread is helpful.

Can anyone comment on the two focusing guides. One is using a plane comprising (a portrait sitter's) two eyes, and the lips. The other guide is to focus on the tip of the nose. Are these the same rules said differently, or are they to be used in different situations, or something else?
.

These are something else. The first tip of keeping everything in a plane is because of the short depth of field you have with a large format lens wide open.

The suggestion of focusing on the tip of the nose is from the Kodak portrait lens instructions, but probably applies to many meniscus lenses as well. I've seen it mentioned in the new cooke documentation. The depth of field here is lopsided. You may have been taught DOF is 1/3 in front and 2/3 in back, except for macro where it gets more even. Not on this kodak meniscus. probably 80-90% of the depth of field is behind what you focus on.

[Bob Salomon]

This thread is helpful.

Can anyone comment on the two focusing guides. One is using a plane comprising (a portrait sitter's) two eyes, and the lips. The other guide is to focus on the tip of the nose. Are these the same rules said differently, or are they to be used in different situations, or something else?

Also, does a soft focus negative need more or less exposure, and more or less development, than a negative made with a "normal" lens? Assume for the moment the subject and lighting are identical.

I am trying to get the hang of a meniscus lens purchased from Mr. Galli. It has lots of personality, and I'm trying to be somewhat methodical at using the lens effectively. Thanks.

We were taught that the tip of the nose to the tip of the ear should be in focus and to do that you should focus on the spot where the bridge of the nose meets the face.

[eddie]

Holy Moly Ken. I hope you didn't give it back! That's gorgeous.


I'm afraid I did :rolleyes:

That lens has the MoJo big-time.

I think he may have worn it out!

Seriously though, Great images ken

[uphereinmytree]

I have limited experience, but am finding that my imagon 12" on 8x10 has a very sharp center that moves around with front tilts and swings and makes it hard to use movements as one might with a sharp anastigmat. Left swing moves the sharpest part to the right on the ground glass but doesnt really bring other areas into equally sharp focus as I expect. Keep in mind these are outdoor scenes and not portraits. Am I just blind or should I expect different physics with a meniscus doublet compared to a new anastigmat?

[jp]

Soft focus lenses generally aren't for wide angle use. You're probably seeing the plane of focus getting curved as it goes outside it's "coverage". Learn to use that feature or use smaller film with that lens.

[Mark Sawyer]

I have limited experience, but am finding that my imagon 12" on 8x10 has a very sharp center that moves around with front tilts and swings and makes it hard to use movements as one might with a sharp anastigmat. Left swing moves the sharpest part to the right on the ground glass but doesnt really bring other areas into equally sharp focus as I expect. Keep in mind these are outdoor scenes and not portraits. Am I just blind or should I expect different physics with a meniscus doublet compared to a new anastigmat?

The 12 inch Imagon "illuminates" 8x10, but it was made and recommended for 5x7. There might be times when you want to move that center spot of best focus off center a slight amount, but other than that, I'd recommend using rear swings and tilts for adjusting the plane of focus.

[tgtaylor]

I'm not an expert on SF lenses - I have only 3: 2 Pentax and 1 Vertitar - but found the Pentax focusing method for the 120mm 67 lens the best. Here it is copied from a 2005 post on photo.net: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/p67-120mm-soft-focus-lens.194721/

The second part of the article is written by photographer Kimio Tanaka. He includes the following statement: "The soft focus effect is almost nil around f/8 and depiction becomes as sharp as regular lenses over the aperture range f/11-22." Later, under the heading "How to focus with Pentax Soft lens", he writes: "The focus tends to be a little behind the in-focus point. In other words, the actual point of focus on the film plane is a bit behind the best focus point even if you focus on the focusing screen of the camera. Its principle is a little complicated but, in short, the human eye is dazzled by the flare of the soft-focus lens. Critical focusing is an unexpectedly indispensable factor in the use of a soft-focus lens. If it is not fully focused, a flare-combined picture is not attractive".

Tanaka then goes on to describe three ways to achieve best focus: "The easiest way is the use of correction lines engraved on the lens barrel. As the focus point differs with the aperture stops, stop down the aperture to the desired stop for taking pictures. Be sure to use a matte portion of the focusing screen. Then, turn the focusing ring to the correction line indicator. (The diagram here shows two white correction lines, the left one labelled "resolution weighted", the right one, nearest the orange standard line, labelled "contrast weighted".) The other way is to stop down the aperture to f/11 (the finder field will be a bit dark) and then return to the working aperture which should be within a range of f/3.5 to f/5.6. I myself like this method best and I used it all through the picture-taking this time. Still another way is to find out the focus point at which the contours of the subject image are the sharpest. The sharpest point inside the flare makes the focusing difficult."

The 2 white "correction" lines correspond to extending the bellows out 1 "tad" or 2 "tads" on the LF camera. The way I use it is to stop down until the subject is in sharp focus and determine the point of focus, stop-down until desired softness is achieved, focus on the focus point, and then apply the desired correction.

Thomas

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm not an expert on SF lenses - I have only 3: 2 Pentax and 1 Vertitar - but found the Pentax focusing method for the 120mm 67 lens the best. Here it is copied from a 2005 post on photo.net:

The second part of the article is written by photographer Kimio Tanaka. He includes the following statement: "The soft focus effect is almost nil around f/8 and depiction becomes as sharp as regular lenses over the aperture range f/11-22." Later, under the heading "How to focus with Pentax Soft lens", he writes: "The focus tends to be a little behind the in-focus point. In other words, the actual point of focus on the film plane is a bit behind the best focus point even if you focus on the focusing screen of the camera. Its principle is a little complicated but, in short, the human eye is dazzled by the flare of the soft-focus lens. Critical focusing is an unexpectedly indispensable factor in the use of a soft-focus lens. If it is not fully focused, a flare-combined picture is not attractive".

Tanaka then goes on to describe three ways to achieve best focus: "The easiest way is the use of correction lines engraved on the lens barrel. As the focus point differs with the aperture stops, stop down the aperture to the desired stop for taking pictures. Be sure to use a matte portion of the focusing screen. Then, turn the focusing ring to the correction line indicator. (The diagram here shows two white correction lines, the left one labelled "resolution weighted", the right one, nearest the orange standard line, labelled "contrast weighted".) The other way is to stop down the aperture to f/11 (the finder field will be a bit dark) and then return to the working aperture which should be within a range of f/3.5 to f/5.6. I myself like this method best and I used it all through the picture-taking this time. Still another way is to find out the focus point at which the contours of the subject image are the sharpest. The sharpest point inside the flare makes the focusing difficult."

The 2 white lines correspond to extending the bellows out 1 "tad" or 2 "tads" on the LF camera. The way I use it is to stop down until the subject is in sharp focus and determine the point of focus, stop-down until desired softness is achieved, and then focus on the focus point.

Thomas

With panchromatic film, the focus is where the focus looks like it is. And I think Tanaka is confusing "flare" with spherical aberration, two completely different phenomena. Flare should be almost eliminated in coated lenses like the Pentax and Veritar, and on single-cell cemented doublets and single menisci, as there are no internal air-glass surfaces to reflect the flare.

I think a lot of confusion over focusing soft lenses comes from the focus shift as you stop down. Soft lenses that work through spherical aberration have a spread depth of field, (that's what they were originally designed for, not the soft pictorial effect), and closing the aperture shifts the plane of dominant focus as light from the outer periphery of the spherical lens is blocked. The simplest rule-of-thumb is just "use panchromatic film, and focus at the taking aperture. What you see is what you get."

[tgtaylor]

With panchromatic film, the focus is where the focus looks like it is. And I think Tanaka is confusing "flare" with spherical aberration, two completely different phenomena. Flare should be almost eliminated in coated lenses like the Pentax and Veritar...The simplest rule-of-thumb is just "use panchromatic film, and focus at the taking aperture. What you see is what you get."

Focusing at the taking aperture is what Pentax recommends for this lens but as an alternative suggests the method set-out at the end of Tanaka's 2d paragraph above : "The other way..." Pentax goes on to say that using that method gets you close to the true focus point.


Thomas

[Mark Sawyer]

Pentax goes on to say that using that method gets you close to the true focus point.

The true focus point is pretty subjective when different areas of the lens are focusing the same point on different focal planes.