HELP + REFERENCE – Using soft focus lenses – and the world of "...ism"s.

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks Gents! I appreciate the thoughts and feedback. Two approaches that I thought may assist in this exploration is utilization of the Harman Direct Positive Paper as well as wet-plate collodion. As I don't have a wet darkroom I will have to work with the tools that I have, and I will not resort to Photoshop as I take this journey...

Also, film with sensitivity only to blue spectrum of light seems to more closely come to the feel of what I get when I look at photos such as these. X-ray film may come in handy.

Consider a simple light blue filter to mimic the spectrum sensitivity of films from 1900 to 1920.

My experience is that wet plate and soft focus lenses don't play well together. Each has it's own signature, and the heavy, sharp artifacts and somber mood of collodion don't compliment the airiness and glow from a soft lens.

For reference, Ernest Purdum's article on the forum's home page is a good start:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/soft-focus.html

If you haven't found it yet, Russ Young (a member here) did a wonderful doctoral thesis on soft lenses:

http://research-repository.st-andrew...ndle/10023/505

Jim Galli's website features many examples, comparisons, and insights on classic soft lenses:

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/

...and there must be hundreds of threads on soft lenses here on the forum. Plenty to keep you busy!

[tgtaylor]

After pouring over many Pictorialist tomes in recent years, one thing I have concluded is that the printing processes mattered as much as, if not more than, the lenses that were used.

I agree with Jonathon's statement. As a matter of fact that is exactly how I got into Pictoralism: I printed as a Van Dyke an image that was ok as a silver gelatin only to discover that the VD printing process gave it an atmosphere that was lacking as a straight silver print and turned an "ok" image into a much more interesting print. That was a turning point for me and I now give serious consideration to the printing process (and lens) that matches the subject before I set-up and shoot it. Pictoralism is more than using a soft focus lens.

Thomas

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Tim, I agree with everyone here. I find that my soft focus work lends itself well to my carbon transfer printing. I have so much control over the image tone and texture that I find myself doing more and more Pictoralist type work. It is about a mood or feeling I feel. For me it is always about the final print. BTW, when using the Kodak portrait lens remember that nothing is in focus in front of the focus point. That is if you focus on the eyes the nose will be out of focus. I focus on the nose and then I know I have eyes that will be good. A lot depends on the F- stop etc. Just some simple guidelines.

Printing your vision is where it all happens. Sop much fun to do!!

[ScottPhotoCo]

Thank you everyone! This thread has been extremely helpful already. It took ma about 4 1/2 hours but I finally got the lens mounted to the 6x6 board. I ended up cutting a 1/8" thick piece of hard rubber as a spacer/gasket to give me the space I needed so that I didn't need to modify anything. Made a few shots on 8x10 direct positive paper just because. I'll process those as soon as I have a chance.

[Roger Thoms]

Scott, looks great, nice to see you didn't have to cut the flange. Sorry I never found the pictures but obviously you didn't need them.

Roger

[ScottPhotoCo]

I appreciate it Roger! It was your comments that helped me come up with this solution.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Ok, the experimentation begins...


First the basics:
Deardorff 8x10
16" Kodak Portrait Lens
Harman Direct Positive Paper

Image 1: f5.6

KPL_011014_03_5.6001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

Image 2: f8

KPL_011014_06_f8001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

This was a test for me to see how depth of field was affected as the aperture was almost wide open and then progressively smaller. 2 more image made at f11 and f22 to come once I have a chance to scan.

I purposely shot these underexposed so that I could see detail in the white petals to get a better sense of how tones are resolved.

A HUGE nod to Mr. Tri Tran as his beautiful work was quite obviously an inspiration for this test subject. Actually, it's all that I had sitting there as light was fading Sunday afternoon.

[Jim Noel]

Thanks Gents! I appreciate the thoughts and feedback. Two approaches that I thought may assist in this exploration is utilization of the Harman Direct Positive Paper as well as wet-plate collodion. As I don't have a wet darkroom I will have to work with the tools that I have, and I will not resort to Photoshop as I take this journey...

Also, film with sensitivity only to blue spectrum of light seems to more closely come to the feel of what I get when I look at photos such as these. X-ray film may come in handy.

You are correct that a blue sensitive film will help in your project. The most common emulsions until about the middle of the 20th century were orthochromatic. X-ray film is an approach, but Ilford still makes Ilford Ortho in sheet film and it is much easier to handle. These coupled with any one of several alternative printing processes will produce very nice images.
Don't neglect the fact that a good number of pictorialist images were printed utilizing the qualities of cyanotype which requires no darkroom. Van Dyke Brown can also be handled in low quantity of incandescent light.
Jim

[Jim Noel]

I agree. Don't trim the flange.

I had a similar problem when I mounted a Pinkham Bi-Quality for a friend and rather than trim the mounting flange I was able to add a wood spacer underneath the flange. From the screw spacing on your flang it looks like it might work on your flange. I might have pictures, and will look to night when I get home. I would seriously avoid trimming the flange, but that's just me.

Roger

[Jim Noel]

Consider a simple light blue filter to mimic the spectrum sensitivity of films from 1900 to 1920.

My experience is that wet plate and soft focus lenses don't play well together. Each has it's own signature, and the heavy, sharp artifacts and somber mood of collodion don't compliment the airiness and glow from a soft lens.

For reference, Ernest Purdum's article on the forum's home page is a good start:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/soft-focus.html

If you haven't found it yet, Russ Young (a member here) did a wonderful doctoral thesis on soft lenses:

http://research-repository.st-andrew...ndle/10023/505

Jim Galli's website features many examples, comparisons, and insights on classic soft lenses:

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/

...and there must be hundreds of threads on soft lenses here on the forum. Plenty to keep you busy!

I agree with all but the first statement. A blue filter doesn't really mimic an ortho emulsion. There are emulsions available. Use them.