My Dream lens.

[Sal Santamaura]

...soft focus is really how we see...

No, it's not.

Use of soft focus lenses is a perfectly valid way to photograph. They enable creation of images that reflect what the photographer wants to present, and viewers will either like the result or not. But such pictures most definitely do not duplicate how humans -- at least those without defective vision -- see.

Our eye-brain system is dynamic. As we scan a scene, the brain establishes what it's interested in and the eyes focus on that. The brain is paying attention to what's in optical focus, not what isn't. The out-of-focus areas are, for the most part, not noticed by the brain.

A photograph that seeks to present viewers with a simulation of what they'd have seen at the scene must be of the "f/64" (sharp everywhere) type. It is a static artifact, unable to incorporate the eye-brain dynamic focusing mechanism.

To reiterate and underscore, I offer no value judgement about soft-focus pictures. They're no "better" or "worse" than other photographs. But they don't in any way reflect how humans with normal vision see.

[Jim Noel]

No, it's not.

Use of soft focus lenses is a perfectly valid way to photograph. They enable creation of images that reflect what the photographer wants to present, and viewers will either like the result or not. But such pictures most definitely do not duplicate how humans -- at least those without defective vision -- see.

Our eye-brain system is dynamic. As we scan a scene, the brain establishes what it's interested in and the eyes focus on that. The brain is paying attention to what's in optical focus, not what isn't. The out-of-focus areas are, for the most part, not noticed by the brain.

A photograph that seeks to present viewers with a simulation of what they'd have seen at the scene must be of the "f/64" (sharp everywhere) type. It is a static artifact, unable to incorporate the eye-brain dynamic focusing mechanism.

To reiterate and underscore, I offer no value judgement about soft-focus pictures. They're no "better" or "worse" than other photographs. But they don't in any way reflect how humans with normal vision see.

I don't know Sal's credentials for making such a statement,but I totally disagree. What I am looking at is in sharp focus,and all else is recognizable, but fuzzy at best.

[Vaughn]

Seeing is a dynamic process which involves not just the eyes transferring data to the brain, but also the brain translating/interpreting/extrapulating that data, based on experience and the occasional brain-fart (there is no such thing as an optical illusion -- better to call them brain-failures, or farts). Or as Berkeley Mike (or is he on APUG?) talked about, even genetic memory might influence how we see. No single static image is going to even get close to representing that complex process. But it is worth trying -- soft-focus, selective focus, or all in focus (even nothing in focus) -- whatever way works for the artist.

[Jim Graves]

Respectfully disagree ... Sal.

If I go out in the front yard and focus on a nearby bush (which I just did) ... the entire park scene across the street is still visible and not in focus. It may not have swirlies as with a petzval ... but it is all there and all visualized in the scene.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I agree with the Jim's about the way we see. For me, everything that is not what I'm focusing on is soft and out of focus but I see it.

The lenses we speak about were from a time at the turn of the century. 1800's to 1900's when Pictoralism was flourishing. I personally see the word both ways. Both sharp and soft. No right or wrong way just how my feelings are expressed at the time with the image I have before me and how I feel about it. I would highly recommend the following book to those who enjoy this style and want to understand the history behind the great works and workers of this time period.

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780...-and-his-world

It is a great read.

[jp]

Peter Henry Emerson defended the theory that we see sharply at a spot and everything else is soft and he didn't mind addressing such uncertain theories.. (His Naturalistic photography book is a tough read in part due to it's age). So it's not a new idea and if it helps make a good photograph all the better to think of it. Rather than contend for theories, I am more interested in photos and the actual shooting that go with the soft styles. Jim's book suggestions is excellent. The history is inspirational.

I've shot with the Reinhold's meniscus a considerable amount of photos, shot plenty of old multi-element soft focus lenses, and look forward to the results of the TT Dream Lens as people figure it out. All different ways of doing soft focus. I suspect it will take a while and many different users to produce a body of work showing the character of the lens.

[Sal Santamaura]

I anticipated a "strong" reaction to post #81, and you other members did not disappoint.

...Our eye-brain system is dynamic. As we scan a scene, the brain establishes what it's interested in and the eyes focus on that. The brain is paying attention to what's in optical focus, not what isn't. The out-of-focus areas are, for the most part, not noticed by the brain...

Humans who aren't photographers, i.e. haven't been trained or trained themselves to see the way a camera does, are constantly scanning the world before them to glean detailed information about things of interest. Their brains directs their eyes to point toward and focus on those things. The brain then evaluates what their eyes have locked onto. That the rest of their visual field is unsharp hardly matters to the brain, unless something moving quickly or of greatly different luminance in that unsharp zone is detected, at which point the brain will redirect eyes to focus on / track the "something."

...A photograph that seeks to present viewers with a simulation of what they'd have seen at the scene must be of the "f/64" (sharp everywhere) type. It is a static artifact, unable to incorporate the eye-brain dynamic focusing mechanism...

Perhaps you'll all be less upset if I qualify that by limiting it to viewers who aren't photographers/artists.

...To reiterate and underscore, I offer no value judgement about soft-focus pictures. They're no "better" or "worse" than other photographs. But they don't in any way reflect how humans with normal vision who aren't photographers/artists see.

[Jim Graves]

It's not really a "strong" reaction to what you posted. It is simply how we see.

A photograph is static ... just as you said "a static artifact" ... it has nothing to do with "scanning" a scene. If you want to document a scene ... shoot it at f-64 ... if you want to present an image that is important to you as an artistic view ... shoot it in soft focus with only the important portion in sharp focus.

Sure ... it's an opinion ... but ALL of what I consider my best images are presented that way. But as always .... YMMV.

[Vaughn]

I can not disagree with anything you wrote, Sal. While unfocused areas can be in our field of vision, the unfocused areas for most people are sub-dominate to in-focus areas. Recalling any scene, most people will not have a memory of the unfocused areas, but will recall the scene all in focus.

Throwing in other factors, we see in 3-D -- if you have two working eyes and what you are looking at is within 60 feet of you. I doubt we remember the 3-d effect, also. Both might be able to become true memory thru rigorous training, I suppose. Moving things are stopped, or if a long exposure, presented in such a way that our brains do not interpret them.

So to say any type of lens sees the world as we experience is it, IMO, is not a valid statement. But this is not a limitation, but something that frees us to express what we wish to express about an image. A photographic image is not an image of reality, even tho we tend to say, "Yes, that is the way it was."

[Jim Graves]

And now ... we should probably return this thread to Tri ... and his lens development project.