Excessively sharp lenses

[Terry Hull]

I need to tone down a couple of lenses I bought for Mamiya 711

I know this is LF site, but think I have seen a discussion of this issue. I speak only of B&W photography

Two questions:

1. Will larger grain film do it
2. I have rejected most filters that simply make the pics fuzzy, although If I remember someone used to make a filter with some concentric, thin black circles that seemed to work.

Of course ideas are welcome. I am not wanting to tone them down in the enlarging process

Thanks

[BrianShaw]

1. Sure it will.

2. That is a DUTO. Hoya still makes them and maybe others. I like that filter a lot! (The concentric lines are "scribed" but not generally blackened.)

[David A. Goldfarb]

David Mullen has a useful overview of various kinds of diffusion filters here:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=42112

[BrianShaw]

I was about to mention one of the filters discussed in that link - the SoftFX-1. Of the many SF filters I own, I only really like the duto and the SoftFX-1. Both seem to be the mildest SF filters out there. I recently did test shots of all of my SF filters and quickly found why some find their way consistently to the bottom of the camera bag. I've never tried any of the net filters so I don't exactly know how they compare.

[C. D. Keth]

Soft FX and classic softs are nice. Those won't affect contrast much if any. I also like black promists and hollywood black magics but be aware they will lift the shadows a tiny bit and halate around light sources. That link David posted to David Mullen's (ASC, by the way) diffusion breakdown is very good. Mr. Mullen is a lovely guy and very, very knowledgeable about that subject. Diffusion has become an everyday thing in the cine world as we pair very sharp lenses with very sharp looking digital cameras.

[C. D. Keth]

I've never tried any of the net filters so I don't exactly know how they compare.

Nets are very hard to get light enough. They are also fragile and cause some strange artifacts with light sources in frame. I would stay away from them if you just want a little softening. They are a look in and of themselves.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Here is the link to the Tiffen Contrast (http://www.tiffen.com/contrast_filters.htm) series. I first used these in video and film work, and later to tame images in medium format.

Regarding grain - you might be surprised to find that some subjects appear sharper (greater acutance) with visible grain, especially if developed in solutions with no grain solvents. Rodinal is a good example.

There is a good example in the book Beyond Monochrome.

[Ari]

Tiffen Fog filters are great; #1, #3 and #5.

[C. D. Keth]

I didn't know anybody used anything as heavy as a fog 5. Is that just a sheet of printer paper, Ari? :)

[C. D. Keth]

Saran wrap?

Saran wrap is actually quite nice as a cheap diffusion. Stretch it nice and tight and it's subtle. Leave it looser and it's stronger.

[Ari]

I didn't know anybody used anything as heavy as a fog 5. Is that just a sheet of printer paper, Ari? :)

I admit I rarely used it on a camera lens; :) but it saw a lot of action in the darkroom, when I needed a specific area of a print to be well-diffused.

[ImSoNegative]

I read a post one time, i think it was on photo.net, this guy wanted to do holga type pictures with his hassy, the responses were hilarious, one guy said rub vaseline on the glass, another said throw the lens off a 10 story building, best answer was, why not just buy a holga ;)

[oysteroid]

Are you scanning the film? Why not reduce sharpness in Photoshop? It is very easy to reduce sharpness and have complete control over it. You can do some blurring on a duplicate of the image and blend it with the original in various ways and degrees. Or you can reduce microcontrast very easily by duplicating the image in another layer, applying the high pass filter to it with a small radius, setting the blending mode to overlay, and then inverting the layer. There are all sorts of things you can do like this. Is it artificial to process the image with PS? I suppose, but how is using a filter any different? Of course, if there is no digital in the workflow at all, I understand.

[StoneNYC]

I read a post one time, i think it was on photo.net, this guy wanted to do holga type pictures with his hassy, the responses were hilarious, one guy said rub vaseline on the glass, another said throw the lens off a 10 story building, best answer was, why not just buy a holga ;)

Someone actually suggested the Vaseline trick to me once as a REAL solution... Wow... Yea I'm going to smear Vaseline on my B+W MRC filter... I think not... Lol

[StoneNYC]

I find it funny that you don't want the sharpness. That's what the Mamiya 7 is known for, best lenses in MF possible.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Are you scanning the film? Why not reduce sharpness in Photoshop? It is very easy to reduce sharpness and have complete control over it. You can do some blurring on a duplicate of the image and blend it with the original in various ways and degrees. Or you can reduce microcontrast very easily by duplicating the image in another layer, applying the high pass filter to it with a small radius, setting the blending mode to overlay, and then inverting the layer.

On target! It's something like an anti-unsharp mask. :)

[Bernice Loui]

Clear nail polish works better than Vaseline. It will stay put, no mess and you can put the diffusion and softening where you want it (using a UV filter as the diffusion element).

These methods of image softening does not equal true soft focus lenses on sheet film 5x7 and larger.


Bernice



Someone actually suggested the Vaseline trick to me once as a REAL solution... Wow... Yea I'm going to smear Vaseline on my B+W MRC filter... I think not... Lol

[DrTang]

You could always use a wide angle so you'd have to enlarge the segment some to a lot..then use 400 speed pushed a stop

you'll get nice soft grainy pix


I used to shoot GAF slidefilm...800asa I think.. and just use like 1/4 of the frame and when enlarged.. it gave a nice soft pastel like rendition..of course all that can be had in PS or alienskin effects now

[C. D. Keth]

Someone actually suggested the Vaseline trick to me once as a REAL solution... Wow... Yea I'm going to smear Vaseline on my B+W MRC filter... I think not... Lol

It'll wash right off. It doesn't make a diffusion, though. I don't know why people think that. It makes a straight up directional smear.



Another diffusion to experiment with is hairspray. Spray some into the air and pass a clear filter through the cloud. You'll have to play with how much to spray and how many times to pass the filter through to get different strengths. Getting a light diff is harder to do than a heavy one.

[BrianShaw]

It'll wash right off. It doesn't make a diffusion, though. I don't know why people think that. It makes a straight up directional smear.

Primarily because it has been repeated so often for so long. :D

BTW, I have first-hand experience that vaseline washes off. My car was vandalized once by some punks (unproven allegation but I stand by it) who smeared vaseline all over my windshield, mirrors, and door handles. Water didn't work well, but Windex amoniated window cleaner and a healthy dose of elbow-grease cut through it.

[Joseph Dickerson]

For portrait work I used to use Zeiss softars. Don't know if they're still available though.

They came in different strengths and had a nice "glow" to them.

For my RB lenses I placed black tule, fabric store ladies hat netting, behind the lens held in place with a cut out rubber lens cap. You can increase the effect by adding more layers.

JD

[C. D. Keth]

Primarily because it has been repeated so often for so long. :D

BTW, I have first-hand experience that vaseline washes off. My car was vandalized once by some punks (unproven allegation but I stand by it) who smeared vaseline all over my windshield, mirrors, and door handles. Water didn't work well, but Windex amoniated window cleaner and a healthy dose of elbow-grease cut through it.

That is probably all there is to it. Lots of people repeating things they've never tried. I, unfortunately, have lots of experience cleaning vaseline off filters. I've done it for many music videos. For a very kitch-styled B&W feature, I even made a whole set of soft smeary-vignette filters with vaseline. We used those for the whole show even though they had to be stored in a cooler so the vaseline wouldn't run over time. The best cleaning routine I found out was to first rinse with boiling water to remove the bulk of the vaseline and then clean with 99% denatured alcohol you can get at drug stores.

[john borrelli]

For what it's worth here is another vote for Photoshop or similar software. Why?

Because you can soften images you have already taken. What you might find is what you wanted, now that you have it, isn't so great. This is because you are using a high contrast high sharpness outfit, which along with it's portability, are it's strengths. If you want a system that was designed to be soft and fuzzy(when needed) you might need a different camera system. Mamiya tried to do that with the RB and RZ.

Another nice thing about giving photoshop a try is that you can select specific areas you want to be soft in the image.

[John Kasaian]

Someone actually suggested the Vaseline trick to me once as a REAL solution... Wow... Yea I'm going to smear Vaseline on my B+W MRC filter... I think not... Lol

Then use K-Y. Water soluable. OR just get a cheap uncoated filter if you want to slightly degrade your images.

[StoneNYC]

It'll wash right off. It doesn't make a diffusion, though. I don't know why people think that. It makes a straight up directional smear.



Another diffusion to experiment with is hairspray. Spray some into the air and pass a clear filter through the cloud. You'll have to play with how much to spray and how many times to pass the filter through to get different strengths. Getting a light diff is harder to do than a heavy one.

I don't know what Vaseline you use, but mine certainly doesn't "wash right off" it's not at all water based, there's a reason they used it in napalm grenades, because it STICKS

[StoneNYC]

Primarily because it has been repeated so often for so long. :D

BTW, I have first-hand experience that vaseline washes off. My car was vandalized once by some punks (unproven allegation but I stand by it) who smeared vaseline all over my windshield, mirrors, and door handles. Water didn't work well, but Windex amoniated window cleaner and a healthy dose of elbow-grease cut through it.

This is MRC glass though not car paint... Cleaning that is not easy without scratching it. Lol

[C. D. Keth]

I don't know what Vaseline you use, but mine certainly doesn't "wash right off" it's not at all water based, there's a reason they used it in napalm grenades, because it STICKS

I know it's not water based. That's why I never suggested trying to dissolve it with water.

If you read my post above, I wrote (I'll highlight the important bit for you) "first rinse with boiling water." Boiling water will melt the vaseline into a liquid and mechanically move most of it off of the filter and down the drain. That just leaves you with a little film to cut with a solvent.

[StoneNYC]

I know it's not water based. That's why I never suggested trying to dissolve it with water.

If you read my post above, I wrote (I'll highlight the important bit) "first rinse with boiling water." Boiling water will melt the vaseline into a liquid and mechanically move most of it off of the filter and down the drain. That just leaves you with a little film to cut with a solvent.

Right and you want me to put solvent on my filter though. I guess I'm just skeptical about the idea.

Ok it's an option.

[C. D. Keth]

Right and you want me to put solvent on my filter though. I guess I'm just skeptical about the idea.

Ok it's an option.

Yeah, a solvent. What do you think lens fluid is?

I have usually done it with 6x6 movie camera filters (a flat, the cheapest thing you can buy in that size, costs $250) and I didn't get charged a single penny of L&D. It's glass and metal. Unless I am forgetting a lot about high school chemistry, neither of those are alcohol soluble.

[StoneNYC]

I have usually done it with 6x6 movie camera filters (a flat, the cheapest thing you can buy in that size costs $250) and I didn't get charged a single penny of L&D. It's glass and metal. Unless I am forgetting a lot about high school chemistry, neither of those are alcohol soluble. On a daily basis I handle a camera that costs as much as your house and lenses that cost more than your car. My point is I'm not just talking out of my ass.

I know you aren't as you spoke of actually doing it unlike most that talk of theory. I respect your knowledge I just also recognize the quality needed for motion is less than stills.

I also work in the movie industry so I've seen some pretty crazy things, I just don't see Vaseline as an alternative to like a Hollywood Black Magic filter at 2 stops or some other alternative. My lenses are in the $2,000 range which is sadly as much as my car LOL :) my house is $300,000. So you must be using Panavision type cameras, I don't think even the RED cameras go for that much, and with the availability of 4K Canon cameras now, it's an interesting new ballgame...

I just don't like the Vaseline trick, too messy, I would try the stocking trick. But would just buy a filter as a first option, that's why they make them :)

I didn't mean to insult you BTW you were offering advice, I was just saying it wouldn't be my first choice is all.

[C. D. Keth]

You must have been typing as I edited. I was rude with the end of that. My apologies for that.

Vaseline definitely isn't a substitute for any kind of diffusion. It's far too heavy and it's just not possible to apply without streaking. It's a special effect. Kind of unfortunate we're talking about it so much.


One really old DP I worked for a couple times had a trick for closeups of women. He would look through the viewfinder and have one of us assistants put a fingerprint on the lens or on the filter right where the face would be in frame. You could cover a filter with fingerprints. Just watch the light that falls on that filter. It'll be really ugly flare.

[StoneNYC]

You must have been typing as I edited. I was rude with the end of that. My apologies for that.

Vaseline definitely isn't a substitute for any kind of diffusion. It's far too heavy and it's just not possible to apply without streaking. It's a special effect. Kind of unfortunate we're talking about it so much.

Haha no worries :)

Perhaps I'll see you on set sometime, I REALLY want to join the 600 for stills, I have my Jacobson Blimp already, but it's such a closed market, so I've been looking at camera PA but the pay is such a cut for me to get in its hard to take that time.

Let me know when you're doing a movie in the City :)

[John Kasaian]

Haas anyone brought up nylon panty hose? Thats a pretty good diffuser.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm not sure why you don't want to "tone it down" in the darkroom but FWIW I had a Leica lens years ago that I thought was too sharp for some portraits and other people-pictures. I dealt with the problem by dividing the enlarging exposure time between time with a soft focus filter (Nikon) under the lens for part of the time and no filter the rest of time. I liked this system because it gave so much control - too soft? decrease time with the filter - too sharp? increase time with the filter.

[C. D. Keth]

Brian, it seems I do the digital extension of that when I have to diffuse something a little bit in photoshop. I place a copy of the original image over all the other layers. I then blur it and lower its opacity depending on how much of the softness I want.

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm not sure why you don't want to "tone it down" in the darkroom but FWIW I had a Leica lens years ago that I thought was too sharp for some portraits and other people-pictures. I dealt with the problem by dividing the enlarging exposure time between time with a soft focus filter (Nikon) under the lens for part of the time and no filter the rest of time. I liked this system because it gave so much control - too soft? decrease time with the filter - too sharp? increase time with the filter.

That's an old trick which can give beautiful results.

[BrianShaw]

I just kick my tripod leg.

[C. D. Keth]

I just kick my tripod leg.

That never gives me the highlight glow that I like.

[Terry Hull]

Thanks to everyone for replies! I am going to Perú and really wish I could take the4x5 ! Maybe some of the Fomapan films-more grain?

[C. D. Keth]

For a trip like that, I'd shoot them sharp and soften if you wish in printing. I'd hate to get back and wish your negstives were sharper.

[StoneNYC]

If you really don't like it take a rubbing cloth and scrub the front of your lens for 10 minutes, I'm sure that would help ;)

[C. D. Keth]

If you really don't like it take a rubbing cloth and scrub the front of your lens for 10 minutes, I'm sure that would help ;)

It would soften it some but you'd be surprised what the glass in a lens can look like and still work perfectly. I used to have a 250mm zeiss tessar that I shot on 5x7. Beautiful thing, all brassy and pretty. I dropped it and the front element cracked in half. Big crack across the whole glass right in the middle. I couldn't tell that it had any effect on image quality. I just had to be extra careful that no stray light hit that front element.

[oysteroid]

It would soften it some but you'd be surprised what the glass in a lens can look like and still work perfectly. I used to have a 250mm zeiss tessar that I shot on 5x7. Beautiful thing, all brassy and pretty. I dropped it and the front element cracked in half. Big crack across the whole glass right in the middle. I couldn't tell that it had any effect on image quality. I just had to be extra careful that no stray light hit that front element.

That's comforting! I am one of those OCD nuts who obsesses about that one nearly microscopic little speck I can't seem to get off the glass!



As for all this vaseline stuff, frankly, I just don't comprehend the desire to degrade image quality on purpose! I think all those photos taken with diffusion filters, vaseline, panty hose, and whatnot, look terrible. They make me feel like I need to moisten my contact lenses. I immediately blink hard and long when I see them! I do like softness when it is contrasted with sharpness. I like images with shallow DOF and creamy bokeh, but they look best when at least one small focal point is very sharp and clean. I like the contrast of hard and soft. But that hazy, flarey, bloomy, diffused look just doesn't do it for me. I can, however, understand just taking the edge off of some of the microcontrast with some images. And it seems that this is better done after the fact, in PS or in the darkroom. It is easy to remove information, but hard, if not impossible, to put it back. I say get the best quality, sharpest image you can in capture and play with damaging it later if that's what you want.

But I guess it's different strokes for different folks. If you like that vaselined look, have at it.

[StoneNYC]

That's comforting! I am one of those OCD nuts who obsesses about that one nearly microscopic little speck I can't seem to get off the glass!



As for all this vaseline stuff, frankly, I just don't comprehend the desire to degrade image quality on purpose! I think all those photos taken with diffusion filters, vaseline, panty hose, and whatnot, look terrible. They make me feel like I need to moisten my contact lenses. I immediately blink hard and long when I see them! I do like softness when it is contrasted with sharpness. I like images with shallow DOF and creamy bokeh, but they look best when at least one small focal point is very sharp and clean. I like the contrast of hard and soft. But that hazy, flarey, bloomy, diffused look just doesn't do it for me. I can, however, understand just taking the edge off of some of the microcontrast with some images. And it seems that this is better done after the fact, in PS or in the darkroom. It is easy to remove information, but hard, if not impossible, to put it back. I say get the best quality, sharpest image you can in capture and play with damaging it later if that's what you want.

But I guess it's different strokes for different folks. If you like that vaselined look, have at it.

I agreed until I had a 40yo client who thought she looked 16 and was upset at all her wrinkles round her eyes and doing research fond a very specific diffusion filter that would help with that immensely :)

So, we learn and grow :)

[StoneNYC]

It would soften it some but you'd be surprised what the glass in a lens can look like and still work perfectly. I used to have a 250mm zeiss tessar that I shot on 5x7. Beautiful thing, all brassy and pretty. I dropped it and the front element cracked in half. Big crack across the whole glass right in the middle. I couldn't tell that it had any effect on image quality. I just had to be extra careful that no stray light hit that front element.

Reminds me of when I dropped my nifty 50 / thrifty-fifty outside of a wedding getting out of my car.

It fell to the ground, crash, the front element flew out of it with some plastic attached to it, the middle part flew out a plastic spiral thing, and the whole thing lay in these 3 pieces.

I looked at it, picked everything up, put the spiral on the front element, put the spiral into the rear part of the lens body, twisted, pushed, heard a crunch, the front element was sort of bent a bit, I took the corner of the element, slammed it on the pavement, it looked straight now.. Put it on the camera, took a few test shots, looked ok, shrugged, and went in and shot the wedding with it haha. Amazing! Used it for 2 more years then sold it and got the 1.4 version. Sill miss the whiney noise of that old clunker... Lol

[oysteroid]

I agreed until I had a 40yo client who thought she looked 16 and was upset at all her wrinkles round her eyes and doing research fond a very specific diffusion filter that would help with that immensely :)

So, we learn and grow :)

It is too bad people are so uncomfortable with how they actually are! I wish they could see themselves through my eyes. I love wrinkles. They display a person's character, and that character is so much more fascinating than a slick, young, fake Hollywood face. Young faces don't have much of the imprint of a person's soul yet. It is like the aging of fine wine. Older faces are so much more complex and interesting, more fully developed and articulated. Look at some of the portraits of Ansel Adams in his later years, for instance. Those wrinkles tell a story. You can tell that he has spent a lot of time looking intently at things, perhaps squinting into a loupe or something.

I feel sorry for women. The culture puts so much pressure on them to look flawless and young. My mother is 81 and I absolutely adore her wrinkled face. I have taken some portraits of her that show all of her wrinkles clearly and I love every one of them. They are so expressive! Everyone else loves them too. She feels uneasy about such photographs though, which is sad.

And if the image is sharp, and you can see all the fine skin texture (not exaggerated though), the person in the photo feels so much more present, palpable, and alive. The gauzy look makes them seem distant, artificial, and somewhat flat. And frankly, most such photos feel sort of tacky and kitschy to me. When I see a portrait of someone I know done that way, it just feels like they are hiding something and trying hard to appear glamorous or dreamy or something, to deceive, and it looks phony. I have never liked that sort of portrait, especially of women. And it doesn't make them look more sensual or anything. It just makes them look insecure. I think they look more sensual when they have more presence in the image, when they look real. And only sharp lenses can deliver that.

I paint portraits sometimes, and it always irritates me how people want me to lie, to make them look like some imagined ideal. I don't do it. I am there to capture them, not some glamour magazine person they wish they looked like. The portraits are somewhat loose and impressionistic, but I indicate prominent wrinkles. They are an important part of capturing the feeling of the personality. Those are soul tracks! To hell with the youth-obsession in this society!

[StoneNYC]

It is too bad people are so uncomfortable with how they actually are! I wish they could see themselves through my eyes. I love wrinkles. They display a person's character, and that character is so much more fascinating than a slick, young, fake Hollywood face. Young faces don't have much of the imprint of a person's soul yet. It is like the aging of fine wine. Older faces are so much more complex and interesting, more fully developed and articulated. Look at some of the portraits of Ansel Adams in his later years, for instance. Those wrinkles tell a story. You can tell that he has spent a lot of time looking intently at things, perhaps squinting into a loupe or something.

I feel sorry for women. The culture puts so much pressure on them to look flawless and young. My mother is 81 and I absolutely adore her wrinkled face. I have taken some portraits of her that show all of her wrinkles clearly and I love every one of them. They are so expressive! Everyone else loves them too. She feels uneasy about such photographs though, which is sad.

And if the image is sharp, and you can see all the fine skin texture (not exaggerated though), the person in the photo feels so much more present, palpable, and alive. The gauzy look makes them seem distant, artificial, and somewhat flat. And frankly, most such photos feel sort of tacky and kitschy to me. When I see a portrait of someone I know done that way, it just feels like they are hiding something and trying hard to appear glamorous or dreamy or something, to deceive, and it looks phony. I have never liked that sort of portrait, especially of women. And it doesn't make them look more sensual or anything. It just makes them look insecure. I think they look more sensual when they have more presence in the image, when they look real. And only sharp lenses can deliver that.

I paint portraits sometimes, and it always irritates me how people want me to lie, to make them look like some imagined ideal. I don't do it. I am there to capture them, not some glamour magazine person they wish they looked like. The portraits are somewhat loose and impressionistic, but I indicate prominent wrinkles. They are an important part of capturing the feeling of the personality. Those are soul tracks! To hell with the youth-obsession in this society!

I completely agree, unfortunately she was an Actor who decided she wanted to get back into modeling at 40 (even though her acting career was very strong) and so she admittedly has to be more concerned about looks, but still, I think for 40 she looked just fine. But it did teach me that, though the realism style is something I personally like, if I'm shooting for a client, I have to think about them as well.

Warning this is a "tiny format" digital image. I have a few film shots from 120 Ektachrome EPT (to go with the blue theme) but not scanned yet.

89471

[oysteroid]

StoneNYC, the diffusion effect in that image is subtle and doesn't look excessive or distasteful as it does in the kind of image I am criticizing. In fact, I am not sure you used a filter on that version. Did you?



Have a look at this photograph (not mine):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50237907@N00/687884968/sizes/l/in/photostream/

That is one of the most sensual photographs of a woman I have ever seen. No, she isn't wrinkled. But her skin is covered with freckles and you can see the blood vessels rather well. There is a lot of fine texture there, which is probably more evident in a print. Most women would feel insecure about this. But she looks real and alive. I took that photo into Photoshop and tried some different diffusion effects and none of them improved the photo or made her look any more beautiful. They all ruined the image, even when the effect was subtle. I won't show any such modifications here, as that isn't my work, and I don't have permission.

Some photographers would have used a diffusion filter in this shoot. And that would have been a mistake.

[StoneNYC]

StoneNYC, the diffusion effect in that image is subtle and doesn't look excessive or distasteful as it does in the kind of image I am criticizing.



Have a look at this photograph (not mine):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50237907@N00/687884968/sizes/l/in/photostream/

That is one of the most sensual photographs of a woman I have ever seen. No, she isn't wrinkled. But her skin is covered with freckles and you can see the blood vessels rather well. There is a lot of fine texture there, which is probably more evident in a print. Most women would feel insecure about this. But she looks real and alive. I took that photo into Photoshop and tried some different diffusion effects and none of them improved the photo or made her look any more beautiful. They all ruined the image, even when the effect was subtle. I won't show any such modifications here, as that isn't my work, and I don't have permission.

Some photographers would have used a diffusion filter in this shoot. And that would have been a mistake.

I wouldn't say it's the most sensual I've ever seen, but I like the natural nature of her stomach, how it folds and how her breast is pressed downward, natural is beautiful, but people are always critical of themselves, moreso now, heck even I am about myself, it's human nature I guess. But I like my wrinkles... Lol

[BrianShaw]

I agreed until I had a 40yo client who thought she looked 16 ...

Out here that describes EVERY 40 YO.

[E. von Hoegh]

I agreed until I had a 40yo client who thought she looked 16 and was upset at all her wrinkles round her eyes and doing research fond a very specific diffusion filter that would help with that immensely :)

So, we learn and grow :)

I use a 16 1/2" Artar as a portrait lens. If the subject doesn't like it, she doesn't have to sit. Of course, I'm no professional so it doesn't matter.

[Terry Hull]

One last question-and thanks again to all of you!

Would a green filter, tone down the lenses a bit in skin tones?

[StoneNYC]

One last question-and thanks again to all of you!

Would a green filter, tone down the lenses a bit in skin tones?

I think green will make people black looking...

[C. D. Keth]

I don't know what you mean by "the lenses" in skin tone. A green filter will make the texture in skin come out stronger and will make people with a red or pink skintone look ruddy. It's something often done on men because it looks quite rugged. On a woman, it's not very flattering. It can be interesting but not something to do if you want the picture to be kind to her.

[gevalia]

Ladies stocking over the lens. An oldie but a goodie.

[paulr]

Just curious, what are these lenses for the Mamiya that are too sharp?

I don't understand the worry about ruining a good filter. If you were going to add hairspray or other goo for softening, wouldn't you use a cheap-o filter?

If you are working digitally, I would absolutely try the myriad tools available in photoshop. If darkroom printing, I'd be curious about what you could in the printing process ... filtering the enlarger lens, stopping it down for diffraction, defocussing it, substituting a non-flat field lens, etc. etc...

[Brian C. Miller]

I suppose this thread should link to this one: Convert normal lenses to soft focus (www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?98989-Convert-normal-lenses-to-soft-focus)

I was messing around with my Wollensak Versar, and I found that by unscrewing the front element a bit, the image became sharper. So that's one trick that the manufacturer used to create a portrait lens, was to change the distance between the elements a little bit. In this case, the elements were moved a bit closer to each other. I've read on the forum that elements would be unscrewed, to move them farther from each other.

I haven't really messed with the current Photoshop tools. But what's unique about softening at the camera lens is that the highlights bleed into the shadows, whereas when the image is softened in the enlarger, the shadows bleeds into the highlights. That could make for an interesting Heaven and Hell pair of images.

[StoneNYC]

Just curious, what are these lenses for the Mamiya that are too sharp?

I don't understand the worry about ruining a good filter. If you were going to add hairspray or other goo for softening, wouldn't you use a cheap-o filter?

If you are working digitally, I would absolutely try the myriad tools available in photoshop. If darkroom printing, I'd be curious about what you could in the printing process ... filtering the enlarger lens, stopping it down for diffraction, defocussing it, substituting a non-flat field lens, etc. etc...

The 43mm specifically is purportedly like the biogon Leica lens and is essentially perfect sharpness.

But all the Mamiya 7 lenses are SUPER sharp.

I don't own any cheap filters.

I have never tried Vaseline but I still think the idea is ludicrous but I suppose in a pinch its better than nothing.

Sharp lenses are like HD televisions, things are so sharp lines on older women's faces are accentuated and sometimes that can be bad.

To each their own.

[paulr]

TI don't own any cheap filters..

Ok, but with them being cheap and all, you could pick one just to experiment. People don't like cheap filters because they degrade image quality, but this is what you're trying to do. A bit of veiling flare would only help matters.


But all the Mamiya 7 lenses are SUPER sharp.

I'm just curious because I'm waiting for the release of a Schneider small format lens that's based on a 28mm they designed for Mamiya. I'm concerned because the MTF charts of the original lens aren't so impressive. Have you used any of the later model 28s?

[E. von Hoegh]

The 43mm specifically is purportedly like the biogon Leica lens and is essentially perfect sharpness.

But all the Mamiya 7 lenses are SUPER sharp.

I don't own any cheap filters.

I have never tried Vaseline but I still think the idea is ludicrous but I suppose in a pinch its better than nothing.

Sharp lenses are like HD televisions, things are so sharp lines on older women's faces are accentuated and sometimes that can be bad.

To each their own.

Proper lighting (in a studio setting) will take care of this.

[Jim Michael]

I have a 1/2 black frost that's pretty subtle, Schneider I think. Only used it on the video camera though. Re the vaseline and nail polish, in the past I made various filters by trying different patterns with vaseline and then using nail polish to make the final version. One that might work for you is a series of dots all over the filter. Use a cheap filter, no need to ruin a good one. KEH has used filters.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Kodak used to make softening filters for printing, and to put over the front of a camera lens. The particular virtue I found was the concentric expressed rings from center to edge which can take the 'edge' off a sharp image, but is uniform so it is not the same as a soft focus lens.

[sanking]

The 43mm specifically is purportedly like the biogon Leica lens and is essentially perfect sharpness.

But all the Mamiya 7 lenses are SUPER sharp.




The 50mm for Mamiya 7 is also very, very good. At one time I carried both it and the 43mm in my kit and both performed at about the same level, which is as good as it gets with medium format wide angle.

I now use a Nikon 800E for most of my travel photography and the comparison in image quality in B&W with the Mamiya 7 is very good in the 50mm and over range of lenses. However, for wide angle nothing I have seen for the 800E, including the best Zeiss primes, comes close to the 43mm and 50mm on Mamiya 7.

Sandy

[Armin Seeholzer]

for wide angle nothing I have seen for the 800E, including the best Zeiss primes, comes close to the 43mm and 50mm on Mamiya 7.

Sandy

Hi Sandy

Did you also test the 15mm Distagon on the 800?

Cheers Armin

[paulr]

I think the problem is with very strong retrofocus designs that you need for <35mm focal lengths on a dslr. They tend toward soft corners ... usually field curvature and astigmatism, or lots of odd shaped distortion. I don't know of any very wide lenses for dslrs that escape these compromises. I'm hoping the days of the reflex mirror are limited.

[sanking]

Hi Sandy

Did you also test the 15mm Distagon on the 800?

Cheers Armin

Have not had a chance to test that lens. Tested most of the other good ones in the 19mm-25mm range.

Sandy

[StoneNYC]

Ok, but with them being cheap and all, you could pick one just to experiment. People don't like cheap filters because they degrade image quality, but this is what you're trying to do. A bit of veiling flare would only help matters.



I'm just curious because I'm waiting for the release of a Schneider small format lens that's based on a 28mm they designed for Mamiya. I'm concerned because the MTF charts of the original lens aren't so impressive. Have you used any of the later model 28s?

Point taken with the cheap filter.

As far as the small format, no, and I don't look at MTF charts, I look at images, and for the most part, MOST higher end 35mm lenses are good enough, there's not enough surface area for it to matter ;). That's opinion but I just think people who go crazy on 35mm *cough...Leica owners...cough* tout their perfect lenses but I've never seen any 35mm images that was much sharper than I could get from my Canon AE-1

I'm not saying its impossible, sure if you shoot tech pan, it will matter, but for most film like tri-x/hp5 it won't make a lick of difference as far as sharpness goes, however distortion and CA in really cheap lenses is noticeable of course.


The 50mm for Mamiya 7 is also very, very good. At one time I carried both it and the 43mm in my kit and both performed at about the same level, which is as good as it gets with medium format wide angle.

I now use a Nikon 800E for most of my travel photography and the comparison in image quality in B&W with the Mamiya 7 is very good in the 50mm and over range of lenses. However, for wide angle nothing I have seen for the 800E, including the best Zeiss primes, comes close to the 43mm and 50mm on Mamiya 7.

Sandy

Just to bust balls, have you looked at the Canon 14mm USM Mark II? That's a damn jewel, you may be surprised ;)


I have a 1/2 black frost that's pretty subtle, Schneider I think. Only used it on the video camera though. Re the vaseline and nail polish, in the past I made various filters by trying different patterns with vaseline and then using nail polish to make the final version. One that might work for you is a series of dots all over the filter. Use a cheap filter, no need to ruin a good one. KEH has used filters.

Oh is that the "Hollywood Black Magic"? That's the one I want, I've debated between the 1/2 and full stop version.

Very expensive, worth it but I only PERSONALLY need a diffused look only rarely so it's not first on my list.


Proper lighting (in a studio setting) will take care of this.

Agreed, but I think the OP was doing outside work, personally I like it sharp in just answering the WHY question.

[patrickjames]

The Zeiss Softars are the best way to add softness to a sharp lens.

The other way that I know of that hasn't been mentioned yet is hair spray. Easy to put on and easy to get off.

[8x10 user]

Your right to be cautious...

Some solvents would be bad for filters. Glass filters would be less susceptible but some solvents can remove the paint or any glue that holds it in place. Non glass filters should not be boiled or used with solvents unless you know exactly which ones are safe for the material. Some plastics are crazed by alcohol but you can use a strong non polar solvent like naphta or "drum cleaner", other plastics will melt from naptha.

Being oil based I'd say soap and water would be best (most gentle) for cleaning vaseline, finish with distilled water or lens cleaner.




Right and you want me to put solvent on my filter though. I guess I'm just skeptical about the idea.

Ok it's an option.

[paulr]

As far as the small format, no, and I don't look at MTF charts, I look at images, and for the most part, MOST higher end 35mm lenses are good enough, there's not enough surface area for it to matter ;).

Maybe so with film, but the dslr I'm using now has put all my older small format lenses out of business. I've have two lenses that can take full advantage of its sensor—in the center. But not very far off axis. I haven't found any wide lenses, especially tilt/shift (very wide), that can do so.

[StoneNYC]

Maybe so with film, but the dslr I'm using now has put all my older small format lenses out of business. I've have two lenses that can take full advantage of its sensor—in the center. But not very far off axis. I haven't found any wide lenses, especially tilt/shift (very wide), that can do so.

Try that 14mm mark 2 lens ;)

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_14mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm

http://m.bhphotovideo.com/mobile/detail?R=519474_USA&

And .... Don't mock me... But "Ken" says its better than nikons haha

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/14mm-ii.htm

[paulr]

Well, I don't need anything that wide, and do need a nikon. Canon does have an enviable 24mm t/s lens right now. Waiting to see how Schneider's megabux offering compares. It's the one based on the design of the 28mm f4.5 mamiya lens.

[StoneNYC]

Well, I don't need anything that wide, and do need a nikon. Canon does have an enviable 24mm t/s lens right now. Waiting to see how Schneider's megabux offering compares. It's the one based on the design of the 28mm f4.5 mamiya lens.

Well the article did say that the Nikon 14-24mm was SHARPER than the canon 14mm prime but had more distortion so depends what's important to you.

[Nathan Potter]

I know we are drifting off topic here but I'll confirm that the 14 to 24 Nikon is the sharpest wide lens I've used - unfortunately briefly.

But I'm kinda wondering if it is possible to adapt any of the best Mamiya II lenses to a Nikon body. Has anyone done that or reported on doing that. I've never used those lenses but from reports they may be among the sharpest, so adapted to 35 mm format one would be using only a large part of the center of the lens.

Paul, you have spoken previously about some Schneider megabuck lens but I can't find any info on what that might be - are you speaking of a new shift/tilt type lens?

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[StoneNYC]

I know we are drifting off topic here but I'll confirm that the 14 to 24 Nikon is the sharpest wide lens I've used - unfortunately briefly.

But I'm kinda wondering if it is possible to adapt any of the best Mamiya II lenses to a Nikon body. Has anyone done that or reported on doing that. I've never used those lenses but from reports they may be among the sharpest, so adapted to 35 mm format one would be using only a large part of the center of the lens.

Paul, you have spoken previously about some Schneider megabuck lens but I can't find any info on what that might be - are you speaking of a new shift/tilt type lens?

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

You mean Mamiya 7 II?

I think nikons have a problem adapting other lenses to them because of the glass to film plane distance. Canon's on the other hand can accept almost ANY lens with adapter ring because there's more play room for them.

However, because you're cutting the surface area when putting a MF lens on a 35mm body, the Mamiya 43mm lens will of course look like a 43mm lens on 35mm so it will be a "standard" lens, and the 150mm Mamiya will be a zoom lens.

There won't be a wide angle to use. Just get a Mamiya 7 and be done with it ;)

[paulr]

This lens (http://pdnpulse.com/2012/09/photokina-2012-phase-onemamiya-intro-new-645df-medium-format-camera-schneider-kreuznach-28mm-aspherical-lens.html) for the Mamiya/Phase One. Very similar to an earlier model called the 28mm f4.5 D. That one was designed by Schneider and made by Mamiya; this one is made by Schneider.

The tilt/shift version for 35mm is on the left here (http://news.cnet.com/2300-17938_105-10013900-5.html). A contact at Schneider says it's based on the Mamiya design but ... but! It has been recalculated by Mrs. Ebbesmeier, "for an excellent performance." I'm not making it up.

I am hoping that it easily meets the OP's definition of excessively sharp, and that it won't be as expensive at it probably will be.

[StoneNYC]

This lens (http://pdnpulse.com/2012/09/photokina-2012-phase-onemamiya-intro-new-645df-medium-format-camera-schneider-kreuznach-28mm-aspherical-lens.html) for the Mamiya/Phase One. Very similar to an earlier model called the 28mm f4.5 D. That one was designed by Schneider and made by Mamiya; this one is made by Schneider.

The tilt/shift version for 35mm is on the left here (http://news.cnet.com/2300-17938_105-10013900-5.html). A contact at Schneider says it's based on the Mamiya design but ... but! It has been recalculated by Mrs. Ebbesmeier, "for an excellent performance." I'm not making it up.

I am hoping that it easily meets the OP's definition of excessively sharp, and that it won't be as expensive at it probably will be.

Wow totally off topic but that new Mamiya has me drooling... Sadly I'll probably NEVER be able to afford the MF digital cameras in any reasonable time before they are obsolete...

[Brian C. Miller]

The tilt/shift version for 35mm is on the left here (http://news.cnet.com/2300-17938_105-10013900-5.html). A contact at Schneider says it's based on the Mamiya design but ... but! It has been recalculated by Mrs. Ebbesmeier, "for an excellent performance." I'm not making it up.

Mrs. Ebbesmeier and Mrs. (http://xkcd.com/327/) Roberts (http://xkcd.com/341/) get together for lunch. They're good at math! You best watch out... ;)

[paulr]

Pwned indeed. Evidently Mrs. Hildegard Ebbesmeier holds several pattents and an award from the Academy of Motion Arts and Sciences. One of the pattents looks a lot like the 110 super symmar xl.
I absolutely want to be on a first name basis with my lens designers from now on.