Soft Focus Lens With Shutter for Zone VI 4x5

[Kate Miller-Wilson]

I've been wondering about that, AJ. Thank you! I don't love the shape of those specular highlights with the discs; I'm sure everyone has difference preferences about that. But if I got one and shot it without the discs, it sounds like it might not perform as well as other options?

So many choices!

[Peter De Smidt]

When one opens the outer holes, you get more of a soft effect, but out-of-focus highlight will look like the aperture. Here's an example:



If your image doesn't have out of focus specular highlight, then you'll be fine. You also don't have to use the outer holes, and you can make your own round apertures if you want more softness without that effect. The lenses, though, are hard to focus.

[AJ Edmondson]

For my two cents they perform as well as many other soft focus lenses with just a central aperture but the real "effect" of the Imagon is the layering of the soft and sharp images which yields a "creamy" (for lack of a better word) image. Even at lower lighting ratios than Rodenstocks' recommendations I find them to very pleasing for portraits but I cannot abide the specular highlight rendition and am always careful to insure that they are not present.
Joel

[Bob Salomon]

Really look closely at the Imagon lenses. Some love them, some hate them but they are unique and can result in a beautiful blend of soft and sharp... when used with the discs, and are usually available in Copal or Compound shutters. I would suggest the 250mm which should be fine with an 18" bellows. Even though you don't think it important now, flash synch is good to have and there should be no need to restrict yourself now only to decide later that it might be nice to have. Even though the Imagons really illuminate a large circle, there are significant aberrations if you try to use them at larger than intended formats. Do look closely at images with specular highlights because this can be annoying when using the discs with open/partially open peripheral openings. True, it can be used with only a central aperture but there are other soft-focus lenses which perform as well or better when used in this manner. If you go with an Imagon, hold out for one with all three discs, the ND Filter and hood because replacements are difficult to find. There is no front element, just a receiver for the discs, ND Filter and hood so don't be surprised if you see no front lens group. I wish you success in narrowing down your selection.
Joel

The 300 in Copal only comes with 2 disks. The 120, 150, 200 and 250 in Copal come with 3.

[Bob Salomon]

When one opens the outer holes, you get more of a soft effect, but out-of-focus highlight will look like the aperture. Here's an example:



If your image doesn't have out of focus specular highlight, then you'll be fine. You also don't have to use the outer holes, and you can make your own round apertures if you want more softness without that effect. The lenses, though, are hard to focus.

They aren’t hard to focus once you learn what a properly focused image looks like. However there is a focus shift as you change apertures so you must focus at taking aperture.

[Ken Lee]

I appreciate any advice you can give. Please forgive me if I've revealed my ignorance too much.

You might find it helpful to examine Jim Galli's web site. He has explored these lenses as much as anyone and freely provides a wealth of sample images.

With all due respect to 4x5, you'll note that with larger film (like 8x10) we use longer lenses which better demonstrate soft-focus effects and shallow depth of field. In general, larger film sizes were used during the era of pictorial portrait photography. To really reproduce the look, you might want to take this into consideration. Although 8x10 is costlier than 4x5, you can use X-ray film.

Another option to consider is certain Graflex cameras which have a built-in focal plane shutter. Similarly with a Sinar camera you can use the Sinar Copal Shutter: the entire galaxy of antique barrel-mounted lenses becomes wide open.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] With all due respect to 4x5, you'll note that with larger film (like 8x10) we use longer lenses which better demonstrate soft-focus effects and shallow depth of field. In general, larger film sizes were used during the era of pictorial portrait photography. To really reproduce the look, you might want to take this into consideration.

Ken Lee is a wise man so I ask this with humility. Enlarging 4x5 to 8x10 should make equivalent visual effects at normal viewing distance - no? Thank you.

[William Whitaker]

What could be ideal for you at this time is a Wollaston SIngle Meniscus Lens. Softness is determined by aperture. Check http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/. Reinhold is a pleasure to deal with. His lenses are very inexpensive and I believe he is now able to add a Packard shutter to the front. He can mount them on boards to fit most cameras. I have three of them and find them a joy to work with. Look at some of his work to see how beautiful the images are.

+1, although I am forever in love with my Verito (at moderate f/stops.)



This image was made at f/6 using an 8 3/4" Verito on 4x5. My lens is in an Ilex Universal #4 shutter and so fits nicely on a Technika lensboard. If you shop around and are patient, one in a shutter will eventually pop up. Or find a good candidate for a shutter mount/re-mount. But that can be costly.
Seriously, for an economical SF lens, look at Reinhold's Wollastons.

[Ken Lee]

Ken Lee is a wise man so I ask this with humility. Enlarging 4x5 to 8x10 should make equivalent visual effects at normal viewing distance - no? Thank you.

I'm wise enough to admit it when I'm on thin ice I can't really speak authoritatively about circle of confusion, enlargement, viewing distance etc. and how they influence the effects of soft-focus lenses.

An empirical approach might be to shoot the same scene with the same framing, using 2 lenses of the same design but different focal lengths on corresponding formats. For example a 9 inch Verito lens on 4x5 and an 18 inch Verito lens on 8x10. Then make prints of the same size and compare.

To get the same depth of field we'd have to stop down the longer lens by 2 stops. Depending on the lens design, stopping down will limit aberrations and thus reduce the soft-focus effect with the longer lens. Shooting at the same f/stop with both lenses, the longer lens will deliver shallower depth of field. This will likely magnify the soft-focus effects.

So let me take your gracious offer and retract my statement about using a larger format. I haven't experimented and I can't grasp the math

[jp]

Ken Lee is a wise man so I ask this with humility. Enlarging 4x5 to 8x10 should make equivalent visual effects at normal viewing distance - no? Thank you.

I have enlarged 4x5 soft focus negatives to different sizes with an enlarger... While they look good on any size computer screen, they don't always enlarge well on paper. The softness/glow is enlarged along with the rest of the picture and sharp is sharp no matter the size within reason (negative outresolves the paper). So enlarging soft focus photos makes them softer and that's not always a good thing as it alters the delicious blend of soft and sharp. You have to shoot and know the look you get and produce output in a small range of sizes to be happy. Many pictorialists contact printed, and other shot 1/4 plate or something near 4x5 and enlarge to whole plate size. Not much bigger works for enlargement ratio. If you want huge soft focus prints, shoot a bigger negative and lens.