Convert normal lenses to soft focus?

[sanking]

I have seen some pretty interesting work here from soft focus lenses and would like to experiment with the effect. But the price of some of the premier soft focus lenses, like the Veritas Veritatums, Vertigos, Pickhimup Smiths, and of course the famous Hugo Chevalier Doppel Pretzel, are more than I want to pay to experiment.

So how does one go about converting a normal type lens to a soft focus one? Could I just break the glass on one of the elements, or maybe glue another piece of glass to one of the lenses. Must be a manual of some type on violating older lenses to kill the sharpness and give a lot of coma?

Sandy

[Peter De Smidt]

How about using a magnifying glass in front of a shutter?

[E. von Hoegh]

A Dagor used wide open gives a nice soft glow with a sharp core.

[DrTang]

vaseline

[E. von Hoegh]

vaseline

Except, smear the goo on a filter you don't care about instead of the lens. A stocking stretched over the lens works too.

[Randy]

Crumple up some plastic wrap and rubber band it to the front of the lens. Cut a small circle out of the center if you want it sharp(er) in the center.
You can purchase soft focus filters.
I think some have unscrewed the front or rear element somewhat for soft focusing.

[Peter Gomena]

An old-timer I once met used crinkled cellophane taped over the lens. He'd burned a central hole and 5 or 6 surrounding holes in it using a cigarette.

[Steven Tribe]

This is a deja-vu thread - as the same question and exactly the same answers have been given in a previous thread!!

"How to soften or diffuse a lens". Same contributers as well!

[Gem Singer]

A Tiffen Soft/FX screw-in filter is a simple solution to the problem.

Don't know if that type of filter is still being made. However, used ones are available.

Vaseline smeared on a clear filter, crinkled cellophane, or a piece of black nylon hose in front of the lens is a PITA to use.

Breaking one of the lens elements might not result in the effect you are seeking.

[C. D. Keth]

You can experiment with unscrewing one lens group, too. Some of the old portrait lenses worked like this. Fully screwed in, the lens was as corrected as possible. As one part was unscrewed, you introduced increasing aberrations. I'm guessing it's a "little goes a long way" kind of thing.


You can also make a pretty decent diffusion filter by spraying hairspray into the air and waving a flat through it. Once for lighter strength, twice or more for stronger. It will take a little experimentation to get the effect light enough.

[Bob Salomon]

Zeiss Softar add-on soft focus filters are a classic portrait photographer's tool.
They were made by Carl Zeiss and sold by Hasselblad, Rollei, Heliopan, B+W and Yashica. The Japanese copies do not work as well or give the same effect.

Also remember, a lot of the effect of classic soft focus is also in the type of lighting and the lighting ratio.

[Mark Woods]

I have a Hawkeye Kodak lens from 1909 that cost me $10 in an antique store. I unscrew the front element and it looks very nice and will cover 8x10 at infinity. I also have a 200mm & 300mm Imagon. I really like the 200mm. It also covers 8x10 at infinity. Cost more than the $10. ;-)

[Michael Graves]

The nylon mesh is actually pretty easy to work with. I have some that I put together with 4" gel filter frames. I taped a square of mesh onto one side of the frame, and then added glue to hold it in place. When the glue dried, I affixed the other half of the frame. On some of them, I cut holes in the center to make the image sharp in the middle and getting softer toward the edges. The one I have used the most has two layers of mesh. One layer has a 3/4" hole and the other has a 1.25" hole. It gets much darker and softer toward the edge, but stays quite sharp in the middle.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Breaking one of the lens elements might not result in the effect you are seeking.

Scroll down this page (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches) for an example of how that does not quite work. :)

[Mark Sawyer]

If you space the front element of a Tessar forward, it will induce spherical aberration, the driving force behind most soft-focus lenses. (A rare few use chromatic aberration.) The early Series II Velostigmats had an unscewable front element to vary the effect, but it isn't hard to mechanically move the front element of most Tessars forward an eighth or quarter inch for the same effect.

An old thread on how the Velostigmat works:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?57385-Velostigmat-Series-II-Info-and-Images

Jim Galli modifiesd a Bausch & Lomb Tessar to do the same thing:

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/BandLTessar/11X14BandLTessar.html

Completely removing the middle element of a Plasmat will also cause that design to pick up a lot of spherical aberration, and almost double the focal length.

Vaseline, mesh, etc. will induce diffusion, which is sort of a cheap imitation of true soft focus. It can have a nice effect, but it's not the same as from spherical aberration. It will also kill a lot of your contrast and shadow detail.

Softars are the most interesting alternative to a true soft lens, at least in my mind. Each "lenslet" (what Schneider calls each little bump in the filter) acts like an independant auxilliary lens, shifting the focal length slightly in that part of the whole lens system. The shift in focus mimics spherical aberration much better than diffusion by filters, mesh, smearing stuff on the lens. It also stays the same at all apertures as closing the large aperture on the main lens doesn't affect the aperture of the little lenslets.

But if you really want to save money on a soft lens, pick up a cheap glass magnifying glass at the 99-cent store:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?35097-A-new-line-of-Chinese-pictorial-lenses!

Or unscrew the front of a set of binoculars:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?35482-From-a-30-vintage-Pinkham-amp-Smith-lens

[cyrus]

But...but...just look at that gorgeous bokeh!

[Jim Galli]

The best of the macro converters (http://www.ebay.com/itm/OLYMPUS-IS-L-LENS-B-MACRO-H-Q-CONVERTER-F-40cm-FOR-IS-3-NEW-IN-BOX-55mm-THREAD-/221152932109?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item337dbdf10d) are doublets so achromatic. The one I linked to is particularly nice, multi-coated, and a fine length for 8X10, f8 40cm. There are lots of others. Any doublet with a diopter will do the trick.

[Sevo]

The overlap of focus and non-focus is what defines a soft-focus lens. It is an entirely different animal than using filters or whatnot.

There have been many different soft focus lens types - a few scientifically well founded designed ones, and a much higher number "invented" by amateurs by playing around with spare lenses. All of them boil down to leaving some optical error uncorrected - and most optical errors can be created with trivial filters just as well as in a lens.

[LF_rookie_to_be]

@ Mark Sawyer

Mark, I tried sending you a response re the lens from my PM, but your inbox is full...

[Mark Sawyer]

Just emptied it. Apologies!

[Jac@stafford.net]

An old thread on how the Velostigmat works:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?57385-Velostigmat-Series-II-Info-and-Images


Great article! I have a 14" Velostigmat Series II in barrel and just made the modification you documented. Like yours, the front ring unscrewed easily. Will try it this weekend!

[IanG]

The best of the macro converters (http://www.ebay.com/itm/OLYMPUS-IS-L-LENS-B-MACRO-H-Q-CONVERTER-F-40cm-FOR-IS-3-NEW-IN-BOX-55mm-THREAD-/221152932109?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item337dbdf10d) are doublets so achromatic. The one I linked to is particularly nice, multi-coated, and a fine length for 8X10, f8 40cm. There are lots of others. Any doublet with a diopter will do the trick.

I tried a macro/wide angle (quasi fish-eye) converter about 10 years ago on my Mamiya 645 and the results were rather similar to soft focus lenses great abberations :D I had planned to use it on my LF cameras but have yet to try it. It needs using in front of another lens so is different to Jim's suggestion.

Ian

[Ken Lee]

There have been many different soft focus lens types - a few scientifically well founded designed ones, and a much higher number "invented" by amateurs by playing around with spare lenses. All of them boil down to leaving some optical error uncorrected - and most optical errors can be created with trivial filters just as well as in a lens.

With lenses whose optical errors diminish gradually as the aperture is closed (or which employ a dial or other control mechanism), is there a factor of convenience ? Can we quickly adjust the effect to taste, with repeatability and control ?

You might find this article interesting: it's on the Cooke Optics Limited (http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/largeformat.html) web site:


Soft Focus Lenses versus Diffusion Filters

Using a soft focus lens is not the same as using a diffusion filter on a conventional lens, nor is it the same as stopping down a conventional lens. A diffusion filter causes a random scattering of the rays at all points across the aperture. The image obtained with a soft-focus lens retains all of the subject detail over a wider depth of field than with a conventional lens set to the same aperture, but the emphasis on the fine detail or the bolder elements of the image can be distributed as the photographer wishes.

The original Pinkham & Smith lenses achieve their distinctive soft focus in a manner different from other lenses. Using the traditional glass available at the time, craftsmen hand-corrected multiple surfaces of the lenses to achieve their unique soft focus look. The introduction of aspherical surfaces gave Pinkham & Smith lenses a higher-order spherical aberration that results (when the lens was used fully open) in an image with both very high resolution and a self-luminescent quality. Cooke has reproduced the unique performance of these hand aspherized lenses using modern design techniques that duplicate this unique soft yet high-resolution performance exactly.

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Kershaw3.jpg

Here's a photo I made with a vintage 9-inch Kershaw Soft Focus lens that was lent to me by Eddie Gunks. I may be mistaken but it appears that the blur effect is complex, and related to depth or distance.

I'm not sure how this effect could be attained with a filter alone - but I'm no expert.

[Brian Ellis]

This seems so obvious I hesitate to mention it but why not just buy a soft focus filter in the appropriate size? Nikon makes several, Hasselblad used to make the Softar, not sure if it's still made or not. Those two brands supposedly were the best though others make soft focus filters too. Seems like a good way to experiment for not much money. I think I paid about $100 for my Nikon 67mm.

[jp]

The blur depth as Ken talks about two posts above is a bit complex. It's like a pre-calculus sequence or series of infinitely small steps where numbers are replaced with images and they converge to what's in focus rather than an asymptote in a graph. This variety of images getting stacked into the same capture come from imperfect optics like magnifying glasses, meniscus lenses, poorly optimized lenses.

DIY would be a magnifying glass on an old leaf shutter or speed graphic.

Low budget would be something built by Galli or Reinhold.

Don't think you're getting out of it cheap; it takes a lot of film and use to learn how to make the lenses sing.

Big budget is the classic stuff.

[Mark Woods]

I made a lens out of a magnifying glass. It's really borderline -- in terms of knowing what you're looking at. Cool look, but one needs to understand what one is using and looking at.

[Alan Gales]

I have used soft filters since the 1980's for smoothing women's faces so my lens doesn't show every pore.

A true soft focus lens is different. It exhibits a beautiful glow.

At one time I owned an RZ67 with both 180 and 180SF lenses. I never used the 180SF enough to really get the hang of it but the effect was definitely different then using a soft filter.

Like jp498 advises, mastering a true soft focus lens will take a lot of practice and burning a lot of film but the effect is definitely unique.

[Brian C. Miller]

I have seen some pretty interesting work here from soft focus lenses and would like to experiment with the effect. But the price of some of the premier soft focus lenses, like the Veritas Veritatums, Vertigos, Pickhimup Smiths, and of course the famous Hugo Chevalier Doppel Pretzel, are more than I want to pay to experiment.

IIRC, didn't Richard Rankin have a loaner program going?

Anyways, you don't need the most expensive lenses on the planet to have some fun. There's the Wollaston Meniscus, made by forum member Reinhold Schable for a very affordable price. Other lenses will start to cost you a few bucks, like the Fuji soft focus 250mm. I think the Imagon is next in the price step-up. I've spent a few bucks bringing a Wollensak Vesta Portrait into a usable state (lens, shutter, mounting), and other lenses are catch-as-catch-can.

Have you actually tried anything yourself, like the soft focus filters?

[Mark Woods]

I have more than 160 filters of all types with an emphasis on diffussions, colored NDs, NDs, and CC filters. There are ways to get that "glow" with the use of filters, but that means that the photographer has control of the lighting and contrast ratio. For my large format work, I do like my funky lenses and not so funky Imagons.

[Adamphotoman]

I have made several attempts at soft focus.
The first was with a couple of closeup lenses cobbled together to a barrel for aperture. But Talk to (Reinholdt Schnable) Spelling?.

This image is made using just the rear element from an old Brass lens.
A Busch-Bis-telar F:9No3Foc.360
A friend tried to fix a delaminated front element by Cooking it on a wood stove. He promptly forgot about it and burnt and cracked the element beyond repair. So he gave it to me to see what I could do with it. I simply shot with it and got a pretty nice image. Hey I have a Cooked lens.
Who Knew?

[Tim Meisburger]

I have a 55mm SunPak Soft Effect B filter that cost 14.99 new, and $1.00 at a thrift store. It doesn't fit any of my lenses, so I would be happy to swap it for a 49mm, or loan it if someone wants to borrow it.

[Peter Lewin]

Intrigued by this thread, I took an old Bogen-Arcar (re-branded from Congo) 180/f6.3 lens and tried unscrewing, in sequence, the rear and front elements, to see what a single element might do. The lens is a Tessar design. Interestingly, without the rear element, I couldn't seem to get any image to focus, in fact couldn't even get an out-of-focus image on the ground glass. (Any explanation of this phenomenon would be welcome!) Then I put the rear element back in, removed the front element, and seem to have a wide angle lens with a lot of aberrations, which I will definitely experiment with. My basic question: if the lens is f6.3 with both elements, how do I figure out what f-stop the rear element alone would be? If the new focal length is, lets say about a 90mm, is there simply a proportion I can apply to the 6.3? I want to play around wide open (maximize the aberrations to see what happens), but of course I need some way to at least guesstimate the exposure. Since I will be using very out-dated Tri-X rated at 25 ASA, precision is not required!

Slightly different question, although the answer is probably "try it!": given the discussion earlier in this thread about changing front element spacing, any idea if its worth just unscrewing the front element part-way with the rear element in place? That would be similar to the earlier post about changing the front element spacing on a Velostigmat, but my lens is a tessar design, wonder if it is worth trying this variation along with the rear-element only.

[sanking]

I have a 77mm Carl Zeiss Softar1 filter and have used it several times. And I have seen lots and lots of work done with simple lenses like those from magnifying glasses, etc. However, the look that I like, soft/sharp, even light all over the frame, can not be obtained with either the Softar or with simple lenses. From what I have learned in this thread, changing the spacing of the front element of a tessar lens seems interesting and I think I will try that since I have several old tessar lenses in barrel mount with almost perfectly round irises, which should give good bokeh.

What sparked my interest in soft focus was a recent viewing of the film Casablanca, specifically the scene at the end as they are about to board a plane. The soft/sharp effect in B&W was mesmerizing. Does anyone know if this scene was shot that way, or has it been enhanced?

Sandy






IIRC, didn't Richard Rankin have a loaner program going?

Anyways, you don't need the most expensive lenses on the planet to have some fun. There's the Wollaston Meniscus, made by forum member Reinhold Schable for a very affordable price. Other lenses will start to cost you a few bucks, like the Fuji soft focus 250mm. I think the Imagon is next in the price step-up. I've spent a few bucks bringing a Wollensak Vesta Portrait into a usable state (lens, shutter, mounting), and other lenses are catch-as-catch-can.

Have you actually tried anything yourself, like the soft focus filters?

[Jim Galli]

Intrigued by this thread, I took an old Bogen-Arcar (re-branded from Congo) 180/f6.3 lens and tried unscrewing, in sequence, the rear and front elements, to see what a single element might do. The lens is a Tessar design. Interestingly, without the rear element, I couldn't seem to get any image to focus, in fact couldn't even get an out-of-focus image on the ground glass. (Any explanation of this phenomenon would be welcome!) Then I put the rear element back in, removed the front element, and seem to have a wide angle lens with a lot of aberrations, which I will definitely experiment with. My basic question: if the lens is f6.3 with both elements, how do I figure out what f-stop the rear element alone would be? If the new focal length is, lets say about a 90mm, is there simply a proportion I can apply to the 6.3? I want to play around wide open (maximize the aberrations to see what happens), but of course I need some way to at least guesstimate the exposure. Since I will be using very out-dated Tri-X rated at 25 ASA, precision is not required!

Slightly different question, although the answer is probably "try it!": given the discussion earlier in this thread about changing front element spacing, any idea if its worth just unscrewing the front element part-way with the rear element in place? That would be similar to the earlier post about changing the front element spacing on a Velostigmat, but my lens is a tessar design, wonder if it is worth trying this variation along with the rear-element only.

Long known that a Tessar has a usable doublet of much shorter focus. Much much shorter focus. To get a viable soft focus lens out of one of these for large format you'd need a giant size to start with.

In your case you'll likely be focusing on near objects. The only way to get a usable f ratio is to measure diameter of aperture in mm then measure distance from mid lens to film plane and divide. So if lens dia. is 17mm and distance to film plane at focus is 4 inches, you can calculate 17 into 102 and come up with f6. etc etc etc

As to spacing on the front group you have to actually seperate the 2 glasses that make up that front group. Just unscrewing the barrel to make it farther from the back won't do anything.

[Brian Ellis]

I have a 77mm Carl Zeiss Softar1 filter and have used it several times. . . . However, the look that I like, soft/sharp, even light all over the frame, can not be obtained with either the Softar or with simple lenses. . . .
Sandy

I've never used the Softar or "simple lenses," the filters I've used have been the Nikon soft focus filters. However, I'm surprised that the Softar doesn't give you the "soft/sharp" look. The two Nikons I've used do that very nicely. I'm not sure about "even light all over the frame," I don't remember noticing any light fall-off near the edges but then I wasn't paying close attention to that either.

[E. von Hoegh]

I have a 77mm Carl Zeiss Softar1 filter and have used it several times. And I have seen lots and lots of work done with simple lenses like those from magnifying glasses, etc. However, the look that I like, soft/sharp, even light all over the frame, can not be obtained with either the Softar or with simple lenses. From what I have learned in this thread, changing the spacing of the front element of a tessar lens seems interesting and I think I will try that since I have several old tessar lenses in barrel mount with almost perfectly round irises, which should give good bokeh.

What sparked my interest in soft focus was a recent viewing of the film Casablanca, specifically the scene at the end as they are about to board a plane. The soft/sharp effect in B&W was mesmerizing. Does anyone know if this scene was shot that way, or has it been enhanced?Sandy

It's been 3 or four years since I last saw Casablanca, but I think they used a fog machine(s) for that scene.

[sanking]

As to spacing on the front group you have to actually seperate the 2 glasses that make up that front group. Just unscrewing the barrel to make it farther from the back won't do anything.

A couple of questions.

First, how is the front glass separated from the rear one in a typical tessar lens? Is there a spacer ring in there, or is the front glass in a ring that screws in and out?

And second, is coating a plus or minus for conversion to soft focus?

Sandy

[C. D. Keth]

What sparked my interest in soft focus was a recent viewing of the film Casablanca, specifically the scene at the end as they are about to board a plane. The soft/sharp effect in B&W was mesmerizing. Does anyone know if this scene was shot that way, or has it been enhanced?

Sandy

It was shot that way.

There's a strong likelihood that there was a net (woman's stocking) behind the lens.

The other thing that contributes to that look is that it was shot on a film with no antihalation backing and a mirror polish pressure plate in the camera. At that point, no antihalation backing had been invented that would stay put when the film was moving at a foot a second. For the same reason, the pressure plate had to simply be polished, the chemical coatings we use in cameras now hadn't been invented yet. What you see in a lot of that era's movies is a pretty sharp exposure and halation around bright areas where the light has exposed the film, passed through the base, reflected off the pressure plate, and exposed the film some more but in a diffused and less intense way.

[Jim Galli]

A couple of questions.

First, how is the front glass separated from the rear one in a typical tessar lens? Is there a spacer ring in there, or is the front glass in a ring that screws in and out?

And second, is coating a plus or minus for conversion to soft focus?

Sandy

Most Tessar's have the 2 glasses in seperate holders that are threaded together. So if you unthread the rear glass from the front by 2 or 3 mm or whatever you can get away with, then thread the group back in and stop with the same gap, so the back doesn't hit the aperture blades, see what you get. Sometimes . . . nothing.

Coatings are subjective. They don't change the softness, but of course they mess with the contrast. Sometimes flare adds to the 'glow'.

[Jim Galli]

It was shot that way.

There's a strong likelihood that there was a net (woman's stocking) behind the lens.

The other thing that contributes to that look is that it was shot on a film with no antihalation backing and a mirror polish pressure plate in the camera. At that point, no antihalation backing had been invented that would stay put when the film was moving at a foot a second. For the same reason, the pressure plate had to simply be polished, the chemical coatings we use in cameras now hadn't been invented yet. What you see in a lot of that era's movies is a pretty sharp exposure and halation around bright areas where the light has exposed the film, passed through the base, reflected off the pressure plate, and exposed the film some more but in a diffused and less intense way.

Hollywood was into soft focus when it suited their needs. Karl Struss pioneered soft focus on 35mm motion picture cameras. Golden age.

[C. D. Keth]

That's true but Casablanca is a surprisingly sharp movie if you see it projected or look at the negative (which I have had the pleasure of doing). It's only old television transfers that make it look mushy and soft. It was released in 1942 when Hollywood was quite reactionary against the softer, older styles. Ingrid Bergman's singles are pretty soft and glowy (cinematographers know how to keep their jobs, after all) but the rest of that film is quite sharp and lit hard to a fairly deep stop.

[Brian C. Miller]

... However, the look that I like, soft/sharp, even light all over the frame, can not be obtained with either the Softar or with simple lenses. ...

What sparked my interest in soft focus was a recent viewing of the film Casablanca, specifically the scene at the end as they are about to board a plane. The soft/sharp effect in B&W was mesmerizing. Does anyone know if this scene was shot that way, or has it been enhanced?

Sandy

The Imagon is a fairly "simple" lens. I have a 300mm, but to use it you would have to dedicate a lens board to it. The shutter is larger than a #3 hole. The Fuji SF 250mm f/5.6 is a good lens, and my adapted Vesta is good. While the Vesta was not Wollensak's top flight soft focus lens, it does kick in once the front lens is moved to the rear.

Have you looked through the posted soft photographs and seen some images that resonate with you? A lot of it is in the lighting, just like Casa Blanca. (Ever notice in Star Trek they always used a soft lens and dramatic lighting when they were shooting a lady?) The soft/sharp look is also something that I've done with half-frame and 400 speed film. The grain creates the softness all by itself.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Sandy, which size film are you looking to play with?

[cowanw]

It's been 3 or four years since I last saw Casablanca, but I think they used a fog machine(s) for that scene.
from wiki with reference
The background of the final scene, which shows a Lockheed Model 12 Electra Junior airplane with personnel walking around it, was staged using midget extras and a proportionate cardboard plane. Fog was used to mask the model's unconvincing appearance

[sanking]

Sandy, which size film are you looking to play with?

I am interested primarily in 5X7" format.

Sandy

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"I am interested primarily in 5X7" format."

IF you can find a B&L 14x17 IIb tessar the rear cell is approx. 270mm f/3.5 and has a nice SF look to it.
I'm preparing for a coast to coast move right now, I can lend you some to play with when I get resettled.
Most lenses loss the SF when stopped down to f/11.
Have fun with the hunt.

Paul

[BrianShaw]

Gee thanks, Bill. You ruined it for me. So the plane wasn't real? Maybe everything else wasn't real either. I'm crushed.

[goamules]

... Ingrid Bergman's singles are pretty soft and glowy (cinematographers know how to keep their jobs, after all) but the rest of that film is quite sharp and lit hard to a fairly deep stop.

Struss and other cameramen in the day invented and used a LOT of soft focus cine lenses for certain scenes in a lot of movies. Hypars, and a bunch of others we seldom mention here were part to the lens kit of most professionals back in the 20s through 50s. It's quite obvious when they used a soft focus lens, usually for close ups of the leading lady. Then when the scene cuts to the leading man, it's not "sparkly and soft." I don't know about Casablanca, but if you read up on how a lot of the early movies were shot, they used soft focus lenses when needed.

[BrianShaw]

Are the Harrison diffusion filters any good? I thought they were common in the movie biz but hear little about them. I see them on ebay every now an dagain but never bought one to evaluate.

[sanking]

I've never used the Softar or "simple lenses," the filters I've used have been the Nikon soft focus filters. However, I'm surprised that the Softar doesn't give you the "soft/sharp" look. The two Nikons I've used do that very nicely. I'm not sure about "even light all over the frame," I don't remember noticing any light fall-off near the edges but then I wasn't paying close attention to that either.

Soft/sharp is not a very objective expression so I imagine it just means something different to us, at least in degree. The Softar does give a kind of soft/sharp look, it is just not the look I associate with a real soft-focus lens.

But what do I know? The great majority of soft focus shots I have made, with the exception of a few pinhole and zone plates, were accidents of focus.

Sandy

[sanking]

"If you can find a B&L 14x17 IIb tessar the rear cell is approx. 270mm f/3.5 and has a nice SF look to it."

I actually have a 14X17 B&L Tessar, in an old Betax shutter. But I believe it is too large to mount on a lens board for my 5X7 Nagaoka.

Also have a 450mm Nikkor-M that is quite a bit smaller, in a Copal shutter. It might fit. Anyone try this lens for SF with just the rear group?

Sandy

[C. D. Keth]

Are the Harrison diffusion filters any good? I thought they were common in the movie biz but hear little about them. I see them on ebay every now an dagain but never bought one to evaluate.

They're very good and I see them at work quite a lot, always brought and owned by individual directors of photography. By modern standards the sets are very heavy so the lightest values are sometimes hard to find while there's a wealth of the heavy values.

[Bob Salomon]

" I have a 300mm, but to use it you would have to dedicate a lens board to it. The shutter is larger than a #3 hole."

Not at all! All modern Imagons, those made since the 70s until they were discontinued by Rodenstock from 200 to 300mm were supplied in either NF mount or in a standard 3 shutter. Mostly Copals although some Compurs and Prontor Professionals were also used until Prontor Works discontinued making shutters. All of these 200, 250 and 300mm lenses in shutter fit the everyday 3 size hole. The same hole that a current Apo Sironar-S or Apo Symmar in 3 shutter would use.

Maybe you are thinlking about really old shutters rather then modern ones.

[Brian C. Miller]

Bob, I mean my Imagon 300mm. I think that mine is mid-60s or older, so it falls into the "older" category.

[Mark Woods]

Hello Christopher,

I don't think nets BTL were very popular on those old Baltars since they'd be fairly deep in the lens mount and the direction of the weave would change as the lens was focused. What was popular was nets in front of the lens, some with holes burned in the center so the center of the frame was the sharpest part of the image. Also, by looking at the still frames (which I have on my computer), I believe the old Mitchell filters were used in addition to the net. They give the halation that you see. Not a symmetrical bloom, but more of a dancing highlight -- particularly with candles (not in that scene). Panchro mirror made made those filters (and still do) for Mitchell and later Panavision. I have a 2 sets. The Tiffen version is the Classic Soft filter. Great movie!

[Mark Sawyer]

Y'know, Sandy, I can appreciate the need to save money, but if you're really into giving soft lenses a fair shot, it might be worth putting a few hundred into a lens with that history and design behind it. If it doesn't suit you, you could likely get your investment back out of it. Cheap imitations and compromises are just that, and there's something satisfying about working with a lens that has the look and the history.

[Mark Woods]

Karl Struss was one of the original members of the California Pictorialists group. BTW, the older H&H filters are the ones to get. The ones made by Hank (son) have QC issues. SMPTE actually revoked his membership because of this, and he wasn't an engineer. Quite a character though. I also have some of his filters. Quite a visionary.

[sanking]

Y'know, Sandy, I can appreciate the need to save money, but if you're really into giving soft lenses a fair shot, it might be worth putting a few hundred into a lens with that history and design behind it. If it doesn't suit you, you could likely get your investment back out of it. Cheap imitations and compromises are just that, and there's something satisfying about working with a lens that has the look and the history.

Given the recent history of increasing interest in "name" soft focus lenses I can understand that there would not be much risk involved in buying one. I will have to admit, however, that my interest at this point lies primarily in understanding how these lenses work, i.e. which aberrations are most responsible for the look. After seeing the scene from Casablanca I opened a copy of Russ Young's doctoral theses from St. Andrews University on soft focus lenses and Pictorialism (http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/505) to get some historical perspective on the use of soft focus, and the optical explanation of why they work. Russ Young's work must be very good because he had the good sense to quote from one of my research works on Pictorialism!

Thanks for all of the interesting information you and others have provided on this subject.

Sandy

[C. D. Keth]

I don't think nets BTL were very popular on those old Baltars since they'd be fairly deep in the lens mount and the direction of the weave would change as the lens was focused.

Now that I didn't know. The only time I have ever used baltars, they were rehoused to PL mount.

[Mark Sawyer]

Given the recent history of increasing interest in "name" soft focus lenses I can understand that there would not be much risk involved in buying one. I will have to admit, however, that my interest at this point lies primarily in understanding how these lenses work, i.e. which aberrations are most responsible for the look.

Ah, then you should forget all the diffusion filters and cheap substitutes, and concentrate on lenses with spherical aberration designed in, 'cause that's how the classic soft lenses were made to work! (Mind you, there's always been some optical pervert who does things wrong... Forman Hanna was a pictorialist form the 1920's-40's who used his Pinkham and Smith closed down to get a sharp negative, then printed through cheesecloth to fuzz it up. :p )

Mind you, different soft focus designs had different effects, even if most used the same aberration to achieve it. SA spreads in different ways and to different degrees, so some of us have a variety to explore and choose from.

[jnantz]

hi sandy

you might consider one of reinhold's wollaston meniscus lenes.
they do not cost very much $$ and come with waterhouse stops.
from all reports they are really works of art...

[leighmarrin]

A few years ago I took apart for cleaning a hazy uncoated 6" f4.5 B&L Tessar from a Graflex SLR, and accidentally reversed the rear element of the front cell. I got a "sorta" soft-focus lens, with a lot of flare. The first and third photos are done with the lens correctly assembled. The last photo is with the lens wide open.

My example using an odd lighted lamp-sculpture was probably not the best subject for testing...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?62038-Reversed-Element-Tessar-as-a-Soft-Focus-Lens-(-)

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6f4a3c0f84.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/9bca2e31b9.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/9effbd9367.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

[IanG]

I'd seen results of reversing the elements in a Tessar before but couldn't remember which so thanks Leigh.

Reinholds meniscus lenses are another great idea and often old brass originals can be found quite cheaply.

Ian

[Jody_S]

Reversing the middle element of a Triplet or 5-element lens will give similar results. I'm currently experimenting with a Fujinon Xerox 260/5.6 lens with a reversed element, I'm getting some interesting results. I will post something when I finish scanning and clean up one or two.

[goamules]

No one has mentioned yet that the front element of a Petzval, reversed and put in the rear, becomes a meniscus and is soft wide open. It's original intent was to convert a very sharp portrait lens into a landscape lens. But you had to stop them down or they were "too soft". They are achromatic, so all the softness is from spherical aberrations. Some lenses will convert easily, and screw right in. Jamin Cone Centralizeteurs were made to do it (they even have engravings to explain the portrait or landscape modes) as well as some Hermagis, and the Wollensak Vesta. Of course, Petzvals are about as expensive as soft focus lenses now!

[Jody_S]

Here are my preliminary results on 8x10 X-ray film, Fujinon 260mm f5.6 (no aperture), center element reversed. Front and rear elements are badly scratched as well. These are cheap lenses, I bought this one for $5 at a flea market but I've seen them on fleabay for $20.

87601876028760387604

[coisasdavida]

I tried the front cell of a 240mm Tele-Arton.
Here is a quick scan with wet neg and iPhone.

87613

[Mark Sawyer]

Here is a quick scan with wet neg and iPhone.


Or as it's called on Flickr, a "fine print"... :rolleyes:

But an interesting effect from the front cell only...

[Keith Fleming]

I have an Alphax shutter (came with a Protar VIIA set) with 45mm threads. A 45-52 adapter allows me to place a Nikon close-up filter behind the iris. Like a meniscus, the image is very soft wide open, and sharpens as I close down the iris. Even taping a close-up filter behind any empty shutter would also work--you just have to calculate the f-stops for the filter.

Most of you probably already have everything it takes to make such an improvised soft-focus lens.

Keith

[C. D. Keth]

I have an Alphax shutter (came with a Protar VIIA set) with 45mm threads. A 45-52 adapter allows me to place a Nikon close-up filter behind the iris. Like a meniscus, the image is very soft wide open, and sharpens as I close down the iris. Even taping a close-up filter behind any empty shutter would also work--you just have to calculate the f-stops for the filter.

Most of you probably already have everything it takes to make such an improvised soft-focus lens.

Keith

I'll add to that a simple little piece of math that might be helpful. Close up lenses are labeled in diopters, as in a "+1 diopter." The diopter number is 1000/f where f is the focal length so a +1 diopter is a 1 meter lens, a +2 is a 500mm, etc.

[Mark Barendt]

Given the recent history of increasing interest in "name" soft focus lenses I can understand that there would not be much risk involved in buying one. I will have to admit, however, that my interest at this point lies primarily in understanding how these lenses work, i.e. which aberrations are most responsible for the look. After seeing the scene from Casablanca I opened a copy of Russ Young's doctoral theses from St. Andrews University on soft focus lenses and Pictorialism (http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/505) to get some historical perspective on the use of soft focus, and the optical explanation of why they work. Russ Young's work must be very good because he had the good sense to quote from one of my research works on Pictorialism!

Thanks for all of the interesting information you and others have provided on this subject.

Sandy

Russ Young's paper is really quite a good read, found it a while back and keep coming back to it for various reasons.

[Andrew Plume]

Hi Sandy

first up, you're much respected in the UK, for the quality of your work, general modesty, knowledge and total lack of b******t, and someone who I immediately relate to along the lines of Merg Ross (who should be considered as being a 'treasure of the LF world')

the last time that we talked online, you had a Shen Hao, I'm assuming that you have moved on from that one..........?

soft focus images haven't from my memory, been part of your regular output but I'd immediately echo an earlier post. maybe from the respected Mark Sawyer, buy a known sf lens, it will hold it's value

best regards

andrew

[sanking]

Hi Andrew,

I certainly appreciate the kind comments. Along with the arthritis age does impart some wisdom in communicating with others about areas of common interest.

I have owned two Shen-Hao 5X7" cameras and liked both of them, but sold them because I found myself still using most of the time the small and compact 5X7" Nagaoka that I purchased back in the early 1980s. I have also owned some other 5X7" cameras over the years but for one reason or another I keep coming back to the Nagaoka as "the camera of my life." You might not be surprised to know that I have been married to the same woman since 1968!

You are absolutely correct in that soft focus has not been part of my personal photographic vision, but I am fascinated by it in the same way that I am fascinated by Pictorialism, though I don't often make images that would be considered pictorial. At least not in the sense of capital P pictorialism. In any event, for some reason I have reached a point in my life when I would like to experiment more with images that are not necessarily tack sharp so I am definitely looking into the possibility of buying a nice soft focus lens. The only issue is that the small lens board and limited bellows draw of my Nagaoka, which to this point has not been an issue in landscape photography, does limit the choice of soft focus lenses.

BTW, just so you will know that I have not abandoned sharp focus stuff I am attaching a revised image I am currently working on. The original is a 12X20" negative made a decade ago, the final version of which is still pending. I am getting close, having printed the attached file as a 24"X38" inkjet with Cone K7 inks, and as a 16"X 24" carbon transfer. My wife had indicated that she liked the image and would like to have a print in her office. I expected she would want the carbon transfer, but she burst my bubble in asking for the inkjet. I guess it is just we photographers who get process! Curious, it is one of those images that does not look sharp at all when printed small, but once you go big the detail just sings.

Best,

Sandy87674

[Brian C. Miller]

The only issue is that the small lens board and limited bellows draw of my Nagaoka, which to this point has not been an issue in landscape photography, does limit the choice of soft focus lenses.

(Flickr: Johnnyoptic, DIY Soft Focus Lens: Replicating the Rodenstock Imagon (http://www.flickr.com/groups/homemadelens/discuss/72157623873502868/))

Ok, that's a problem. I presume that you can fit a Copal 3 on your lens board. The next question is, how close do you want to focus? The best lens for your is probably a 250mm, either Fuji or Rodenstock. Since your maximum draw is 385mm, you could definitely do portrait distances with it, but you wouldn't get close to macro. I presume you have a 240mm lens. Focus range wise, how does that work for you?

[sanking]

(Flickr: Johnnyoptic, DIY Soft Focus Lens: Replicating the Rodenstock Imagon (http://www.flickr.com/groups/homemadelens/discuss/72157623873502868/))

Ok, that's a problem. I presume that you can fit a Copal 3 on your lens board. The next question is, how close do you want to focus? The best lens for your is probably a 250mm, either Fuji or Rodenstock. Since your maximum draw is 385mm, you could definitely do portrait distances with it, but you wouldn't get close to macro. I presume you have a 240mm lens. Focus range wise, how does that work for you?

Size of the lens board is 95mm X 105mm. I am pretty sure a Copal #3 would hang on there.

I do use a 240mm lens for 5X7, a f/9 Fujinon-A. Great lens for landscapes and will focus with the Nagaoka to 5-7'. Not very bright indoors, though.

Sandy

[Jim Galli]

Sandy, do you have any petzval's at all in your collection? 6" projection petzval maybe? If so, turn the front element alone around to face the film. That doublet is the basis of most of the soft focus lenses. I have a nice 5" projection petzval I can sell you cheap. The front element alone is about 8 1/2" soft focus.

[Doug Webb]

I have used my 250 Fujinon soft focus lens on my Wista 4x5 and managed to mount the big shutter on a Wista lensboard. Needed a top hat board for portrait distances because of the shorter bellows draw on the Wista. I have a 67mm softar and several Tiffen 52mm soft focus filters that I have not used in a long while. Don't know whether these filter sizes would work for you. If you wanted to borrow one or more of these and would be willing to pay shipping and to return them to me when you are done I could loan them to you for experimentation. Shipping would be probably only a few dollars. The softar has a defect that has shown up in a print, but also has not been a problem at times. There is a learning curve with soft focus filters.
Doug Webb

[russyoung]

Russ Young's paper is really quite a good read, found it a while back and keep coming back to it for various reasons.


I appreciate your comment, Mark. If you'd be so kind, I'd appreciate any criticisms as well sent as a PM. Am in the process of rewriting the dissertation to publish as a book - with the addition of about four more chapters and maybe another 200 illustrations. Give me some guidance, please.

Mark Sawyer's earlier post does a great job of summarizing why filters which destroy resolution are not equivalent to a soft focus lens. Perhaps the key issue is that when soft focus is produced by spherical aberration (perhaps in combination with some chromatic aberration), the image formed has a firm core image overlain by a less sharp image. No filter placed in front of a sharp lens can achieve this effect although the original form of DUTO filter is the closest approximation.

Russ

[Ken Lee]

Is that link disabled or obsolete ? I can't get to the document.

[Jody_S]

Is that link disabled or obsolete ? I can't get to the document.

I tried several times over the week-end, no luck. This morning it's working, I was able to view the pdf just now.

[Mark Barendt]

Is that link disabled or obsolete ? I can't get to the document.

PM me your e-mail Ken I can send you the complete PDF.

[Mark Barendt]

I appreciate your comment, Mark. If you'd be so kind, I'd appreciate any criticisms as well sent as a PM. Am in the process of rewriting the dissertation to publish as a book - with the addition of about four more chapters and maybe another 200 illustrations. Give me some guidance, please.

Mark Sawyer's earlier post does a great job of summarizing why filters which destroy resolution are not equivalent to a soft focus lens. Perhaps the key issue is that when soft focus is produced by spherical aberration (perhaps in combination with some chromatic aberration), the image formed has a firm core image overlain by a less sharp image. No filter placed in front of a sharp lens can achieve this effect although the original form of DUTO filter is the closest approximation.

Russ

You are welcome Russ. I'm not much of an editor though.

[tgtaylor]

The little known Pentax 67 120mm Soft Focus Lens is excellent and inexpensive (~$250 in mint condition). Here's a print made from a negative shot using it:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8423/7591648668_e797ffb873_z.jpg

I recently purchased a 250mm Imagon and have exposed 18 negatives that look real good - well, they look like what I was hoping for when I shot them. Haven't printed them yet. The Imagon, while costing a little more than the Pengax, is also relatively inexpensive. The 300mm version is optimized for 5x7 format and the 250mm for 4x5.

The Pentax takes a little more practice in learning to use it than the Imagon but both lens are fairly simple to use and offer extensive creative freeedom to experiment with. i own both of these lens and highly recommend them.

Thomas

[Mark Woods]

I have both an Imagon 200 mm & 300 mm that I use on my 8x10. I really like the 200 mm. Amazing!

[tgtaylor]

I'm going to try the 250mm on the 8x10 at first opportunity - within the next few days.

Thomas

[Roger Hesketh]

Hello Sandy
If I might go back to the original question of, convert normal lenses to soft focus? One normal sharp lens that have discovered recently which its maker says is soft focus when used at wide apertures and converted is the Steinheil Unofocal. It is an Anastigmat constructed of four meniscus lenses of equal power. Two either side of a central stop. When used converted the resultant Achromat of double the focal length of the complete lens is soft focus at wide apertures but sharpens up upon stopping down. I was intrigued enough when I first learned of this lens a month or so ago to buy one on a 9x12 German folder In order to try it out.
I have not yet managed to get any 9x12 film in order to use it I have been too busy so can not recommend it for use as a soft focus lens from personal experience but as a suggestion for further investigation. It's maker says it can be used as a soft focus lens.They are or were a reputable maker of high quality lenses so I suspect it is just a question of the form that the soft focus takes. Certainly upon the ground glass the image looks pretty good sharpish not mushy. I am hoping for a soft sharp Verito type look. I did post a question on here asking for peoples experience of using this lens converted as a soft focus lens but nobody who replied seemed to have used it that way. I do hope I have not just blown my chance to get a longer one for sensible money should it turn out to be useful a lens as I hope.

[Jim Galli]

Turner Reich lenses are not thought of as possible soft focus. But if you get one where the balsam has encroached over 50% of the lens area, what you'll find is it's the 2 smaller elements at the rear. The balsam goes bad at that 3rd joint between the larger glass and the smaller glass.

If you put the lens in a lathe and cut it so you take the thing apart, once you've got the glass out, sometimes they'll simply fall apart at that joint. If not, take a 1" end wrench and give it a whack sideways and simply knock the last 2 elements off. Clean the cement residue with some acetone (if you can still buy it in your state :rolleyes:). Re-assemble the lens and you'll have a remarkably subtle soft focus lens. It doesn't seem to matter if you do both ends or only one. Focal length is unchanged.

[cyberjunkie]

I have been told that another option is to use the Goerz Dogmar as convertible, wide open.
It is recommended to use the cell with the longer focal.
I haven't experimented enough with my 12" Dogmar, i have to test it with the right subject/illumination.
Another cheap way to get a mild soft focus lens is to free the front element in lenses with front glass focusing, and unscrew as much as possible to modify the separation between the glasses. There are tessars and triplets (like the Radionar, which should be available with front glass focusing up to 135mm FL, with 9x12 coverage).
Then there are some large format triplets which have a nice amount of softness wide open (B&L Sigmar), or a more controlled, Heliar-like, "plastic" rendition (Meyer Trioplan).
No need to customize the lens with them, just shoot wide open with the right lighting (the closer the better, to separate the planes of in/out of focus).

[Andrew Plume]

Hi Andrew,

I certainly appreciate the kind comments. Along with the arthritis age does impart some wisdom in communicating with others about areas of common interest.

I have owned two Shen-Hao 5X7" cameras and liked both of them, but sold them because I found myself still using most of the time the small and compact 5X7" Nagaoka that I purchased back in the early 1980s. I have also owned some other 5X7" cameras over the years but for one reason or another I keep coming back to the Nagaoka as "the camera of my life." You might not be surprised to know that I have been married to the same woman since 1968!

You are absolutely correct in that soft focus has not been part of my personal photographic vision, but I am fascinated by it in the same way that I am fascinated by Pictorialism, though I don't often make images that would be considered pictorial. At least not in the sense of capital P pictorialism. In any event, for some reason I have reached a point in my life when I would like to experiment more with images that are not necessarily tack sharp so I am definitely looking into the possibility of buying a nice soft focus lens. The only issue is that the small lens board and limited bellows draw of my Nagaoka, which to this point has not been an issue in landscape photography, does limit the choice of soft focus lenses.

BTW, just so you will know that I have not abandoned sharp focus stuff I am attaching a revised image I am currently working on. The original is a 12X20" negative made a decade ago, the final version of which is still pending. I am getting close, having printed the attached file as a 24"X38" inkjet with Cone K7 inks, and as a 16"X 24" carbon transfer. My wife had indicated that she liked the image and would like to have a print in her office. I expected she would want the carbon transfer, but she burst my bubble in asking for the inkjet. I guess it is just we photographers who get process! Curious, it is one of those images that does not look sharp at all when printed small, but once you go big the detail just sings.

Best,

Sandy87674

thanks Sandy

very grateful (for all of this)

best

andrew