What did you compose at Waters Edge?

jp · 3-Jan-2018, 17:27

Scanning continues...

**Corran** · 3-Jan-2018, 17:44

Nice images Jason. I like the one with the squiggly line in the foreground. This last image also has a pleasant "roundness" to it - not too soft, not too sharp. I'm curious if you remember what aperture you shot that at?

Last year I bought a Verito, again, to try out. I like some soft focus images but I don't "see" them generally, if you know what I mean. I had a 12" but that was way too long - the one I bought is the 8.25" variety. Thus far I have not shot anything good with it. I am struggling with the "long" focal length (to my tastes) and also really wonky flare...so I put it on the shelf after getting a bit frustrated. Your images make me want to give it another try...

**chassis** · 3-Jan-2018, 18:53

Originally Posted by jp

img137 by Jason Philbrook, on Flickr

[/center]

Nice light with this one.

jp · 3-Jan-2018, 20:27

Thanks Chassis and Bryan.

Bryan, Speaking of flare, check this one out.. https://flic.kr/p/nBnW72 Your 8.25 is probably a great lens that you just need to spend some time with. My other SF lens of choice is a 9" lens on 4x5.

the img137 photo was probably close to 5.6, and the first was probably closer to 4.5, maybe a tiny bit wider. The lens goes to F4 but i rarely use it wide open, and rarely go darker than 5.6 All the variation in softness is within 4-5.6 for me. Soft focus requires good light and simple shapes; things that for other photos are beneficial but not strictly required. Shapes are the composition. The requirement for simple shapes means I don't go crazy with subjects that require high detail. I'm pushing my luck having granite closeups as that has a distinct texture... But snow has a texture too, though the light is more important than the texture. It's about thinking of these qualities in a potential photo that are good qualities to think about for any photo and knowing SF is a little more limting, forcing creativity and analysis of scenes. Really though, talk is not as effective as burning film figuring out what works and doesn't work with soft focus. Russ Young says someone might need to burn 100 sheets of film to get good at a SF lens. I've gone well past that and it's paying off. I go out with the LF camera and 1-2 soft focus lenses and that's it for LF. If I want some sharper photos, I bring my Rolleiflex along.

**Corran** · 3-Jan-2018, 20:52

I definitely just need to practice with it. Surprised that is only f/5.6!

Here's one image I shot with it. I was looking for the dappled light to see what it would do. One thing about the deep forest is there isn't much sky to "balance" the composition like you've got there.

This is the worst of the flare. I really would've liked this image except for that

. I like the dreamy, gauze-like imaging on color film. I think I stopped to f/8.

**esearing** · 4-Jan-2018, 05:23

JP - I like all three of the soft images but they had to grow on me. At first I thought I needed to reach for my glasses, but then I realized the text was sharp below the image.

In addition to the soft focus lenses the Schneider Xenar 135mm barely covers 4x5 and yields soft corners at f11 and below. At f4.7 is almost a Leica like glow with the right light.

**Jimi** · 4-Jan-2018, 12:17

Originally Posted by jp

img142 by Jason Philbrook, on Flickr

This one is so beautiful ... just the right amount of soft and sharp. Every now and then, I circle around the idea of getting an Imagon or a Fujinon SF just to see if I could make something worthwhile.