Soft-Focus Lens Examples

[Mark Sawyer]

Randy: a question:

When you turn for more soft, do you then re focus?

To me these soft ones doesn't look soft, but more unsharp.. and if you don't refocus that will happen..

My thoughts exactly! Every lens I've ever tried that had adjustable softness (Cookes, Velostigmats, Paragons, Vitaxes, Ilex Portrait Lenses...) needed refocusing after the sharp/soft setting was changed.

[Tin Can]

For these images, I did not refocus as when I tried that with observation on GG it just sharpened up. I think the old brochure says focus it in the sharp setting and then shift the lens to SF. I will try a #3 max SF position with refocus, but I doubt that's what I want.

Randy: a question:

When you turn for more soft, do you then re focus?

To me these soft ones doesn't look soft, but more unsharp.. and if you don't refocus that will happen..

[tgtaylor]

Wollensak says to focus the Veritar SFL on the nearest point of the subject at f8 and then stopping down to the taking aperture (everything behind the focus point is in focus and everything before that point is not). This is similar to Pentax's instructions for its 67 120mm SFL.

Thomas

[Mark Sawyer]

For these images, I did not refocus as when I tried that with observation on GG it just sharpened up. I think the old brochure says focus it in the sharp setting and then shift the lens to SF. I will try a #3 max SF position with refocus, but I doubt that's what I want.

Many lenses with the adjustable soft/sharp option have limited travel of that setting, so the softness is subtle, just enough to soften skin texture and blemishes a little. That's why some are "uncorked", ie, the setting restrictor removed. The softness of the Cooke's is understated, but effective for its purposes.

Wollensak says to focus the Veritar SFL on the nearest point of the subject at f8 and then stopping down to the taking aperture (everything behind the focus point is in focus and everything before that point is not). This is similar to Pentax's instructions for its 67 120mm SFL.

Thomas

Those lenses don't have a soft focus adjustment. All lenses that I've run across that have the soft/sharp adjustment change focal length slightly when that setting is changed, so they need to be re-focused.

[Tin Can]

Scroll down to Diffusion control and read how Cooke advertisements say to use these lenses.

inho

Here

[Tin Can]

We need Jim Galli and Mr Gunks opinion. I have only shot meniscus portrait lenses before and I have the devil of the time focusing them. I was going to give up on SF until I read the Cooke advertisement on Diffusion Control.

I hope I do not need to refocus after setting the SF position.

Shooting more tests today, while ignoring the Futbol game which is huge in my neighborhood.

[Emil Schildt]

We need Jim Galli and Mr Gunks opinion. I have only shot meniscus portrait lenses before and I have the devil of the time focusing them. I was going to give up on SF until I read the Cooke advertisement on Diffusion Control.

I hope I do not need to refocus after setting the SF position.

Shooting more tests today, while ignoring the Futbol game which is huge in my neighborhood.

Ill bet you have to...

The change of softness is more subtle on the matt screen than in the final image...

(Football is almost over... voting for one of them.. )

[Tim Meisburger]

Hi Randy. You have to refocus the Cooke because adjusting softness changes focal length.

Best, Tim

[Louis Pacilla]

Many lenses with the adjustable soft/sharp option have limited travel of that setting, so the softness is subtle, just enough to soften skin texture and blemishes a little. That's why some are "uncorked", ie, the setting restrictor removed. The softness of the Cooke's is understated, but effective for its purposes.



Those lenses don't have a soft focus adjustment. All lenses that I've run across that have the soft/sharp adjustment change focal length slightly when that setting is changed, so they need to be re-focused.

Scroll down to Diffusion control and read how Cooke advertisements say to use these lenses.

inho

Here

We need Jim Galli and Mr Gunks opinion. I have only shot meniscus portrait lenses before and I have the devil of the time focusing them. I was going to give up on SF until I read the Cooke advertisement on Diffusion Control.

I hope I do not need to refocus after setting the SF position.

Shooting more tests today, while ignoring the Futbol game which is huge in my neighborhood.

Mark is 100% correct. You set to softness you wish and then focus and use your back movements so the plane of focus is in the right place then sqweeze the bulb.

The Cooke Portrait lens is much like Vitax & Dallmeyer and Velostigmat II (with out uncorking) only or mostly makes center portion of the image circle "less" sharp and that blends the super sharp center with the far less sharp outer parts of the image. doing away with some of the retouching. It does NOT produce diffusion and the atmosphere(not much anyhow) that lenses like the Struss,P&S I II II IV V,Verito, Gundlach Achromatic Portrait & Hyperion, Kodak Portrait, Imagon, Plastigmat Portrait, Kalostat, Bodine and so on which are Pictorial photographers tools of choice. They are different animals. Both types are/can be superb portrait lenses they just have different looks.

Set the amount of softness "less central sharpness" then focus and use your movements on the camera to place the plane of focus in the best position stop down a touch if needed & then sqweeze the bulb.

[Mark Sawyer]

Note that the 1911 Cooke advertisement (reproduced on Dan's site and linked to earlier here), states, "It is necessary merely to set the diffusion control at 'Sharp," focus in the ordinary way, and before exposing the plate, rotate the front portion of the lens-mount until the desired softness and roundness appear on the ground glass."

However, in the 1930's catalog on the Camera Eccentric site, under the Portric's description (page 12), Cooke states, "The portrait should always be re-focused after diffusion to insure obtaining the exact effect desired."

With manufacturers disagreeing with themselves over proper usage, I can see how confusion reigns. Wollensak published similar conflicting information on focusing with their Velostigmat. So, really, there's only one source you can trust:

Mark is 100% correct...