Convert normal lenses to soft focus?

[Jody_S]

Is that link disabled or obsolete ? I can't get to the document.

I tried several times over the week-end, no luck. This morning it's working, I was able to view the pdf just now.

[Mark Barendt]

Is that link disabled or obsolete ? I can't get to the document.

PM me your e-mail Ken I can send you the complete PDF.

[Mark Barendt]

I appreciate your comment, Mark. If you'd be so kind, I'd appreciate any criticisms as well sent as a PM. Am in the process of rewriting the dissertation to publish as a book - with the addition of about four more chapters and maybe another 200 illustrations. Give me some guidance, please.

Mark Sawyer's earlier post does a great job of summarizing why filters which destroy resolution are not equivalent to a soft focus lens. Perhaps the key issue is that when soft focus is produced by spherical aberration (perhaps in combination with some chromatic aberration), the image formed has a firm core image overlain by a less sharp image. No filter placed in front of a sharp lens can achieve this effect although the original form of DUTO filter is the closest approximation.

Russ

You are welcome Russ. I'm not much of an editor though.

[tgtaylor]

The little known Pentax 67 120mm Soft Focus Lens is excellent and inexpensive (~$250 in mint condition). Here's a print made from a negative shot using it:



I recently purchased a 250mm Imagon and have exposed 18 negatives that look real good - well, they look like what I was hoping for when I shot them. Haven't printed them yet. The Imagon, while costing a little more than the Pengax, is also relatively inexpensive. The 300mm version is optimized for 5x7 format and the 250mm for 4x5.

The Pentax takes a little more practice in learning to use it than the Imagon but both lens are fairly simple to use and offer extensive creative freeedom to experiment with. i own both of these lens and highly recommend them.

Thomas

[Mark Woods]

I have both an Imagon 200 mm & 300 mm that I use on my 8x10. I really like the 200 mm. Amazing!

[tgtaylor]

I'm going to try the 250mm on the 8x10 at first opportunity - within the next few days.

Thomas

[Roger Hesketh]

Hello Sandy
If I might go back to the original question of, convert normal lenses to soft focus? One normal sharp lens that have discovered recently which its maker says is soft focus when used at wide apertures and converted is the Steinheil Unofocal. It is an Anastigmat constructed of four meniscus lenses of equal power. Two either side of a central stop. When used converted the resultant Achromat of double the focal length of the complete lens is soft focus at wide apertures but sharpens up upon stopping down. I was intrigued enough when I first learned of this lens a month or so ago to buy one on a 9x12 German folder In order to try it out.
I have not yet managed to get any 9x12 film in order to use it I have been too busy so can not recommend it for use as a soft focus lens from personal experience but as a suggestion for further investigation. It's maker says it can be used as a soft focus lens.They are or were a reputable maker of high quality lenses so I suspect it is just a question of the form that the soft focus takes. Certainly upon the ground glass the image looks pretty good sharpish not mushy. I am hoping for a soft sharp Verito type look. I did post a question on here asking for peoples experience of using this lens converted as a soft focus lens but nobody who replied seemed to have used it that way. I do hope I have not just blown my chance to get a longer one for sensible money should it turn out to be useful a lens as I hope.

[Jim Galli]

Turner Reich lenses are not thought of as possible soft focus. But if you get one where the balsam has encroached over 50% of the lens area, what you'll find is it's the 2 smaller elements at the rear. The balsam goes bad at that 3rd joint between the larger glass and the smaller glass.

If you put the lens in a lathe and cut it so you take the thing apart, once you've got the glass out, sometimes they'll simply fall apart at that joint. If not, take a 1" end wrench and give it a whack sideways and simply knock the last 2 elements off. Clean the cement residue with some acetone (if you can still buy it in your state ). Re-assemble the lens and you'll have a remarkably subtle soft focus lens. It doesn't seem to matter if you do both ends or only one. Focal length is unchanged.

[cyberjunkie]

I have been told that another option is to use the Goerz Dogmar as convertible, wide open.
It is recommended to use the cell with the longer focal.
I haven't experimented enough with my 12" Dogmar, i have to test it with the right subject/illumination.
Another cheap way to get a mild soft focus lens is to free the front element in lenses with front glass focusing, and unscrew as much as possible to modify the separation between the glasses. There are tessars and triplets (like the Radionar, which should be available with front glass focusing up to 135mm FL, with 9x12 coverage).
Then there are some large format triplets which have a nice amount of softness wide open (B&L Sigmar), or a more controlled, Heliar-like, "plastic" rendition (Meyer Trioplan).
No need to customize the lens with them, just shoot wide open with the right lighting (the closer the better, to separate the planes of in/out of focus).

[Andrew Plume]

Hi Andrew,

I certainly appreciate the kind comments. Along with the arthritis age does impart some wisdom in communicating with others about areas of common interest.

I have owned two Shen-Hao 5X7" cameras and liked both of them, but sold them because I found myself still using most of the time the small and compact 5X7" Nagaoka that I purchased back in the early 1980s. I have also owned some other 5X7" cameras over the years but for one reason or another I keep coming back to the Nagaoka as "the camera of my life." You might not be surprised to know that I have been married to the same woman since 1968!

You are absolutely correct in that soft focus has not been part of my personal photographic vision, but I am fascinated by it in the same way that I am fascinated by Pictorialism, though I don't often make images that would be considered pictorial. At least not in the sense of capital P pictorialism. In any event, for some reason I have reached a point in my life when I would like to experiment more with images that are not necessarily tack sharp so I am definitely looking into the possibility of buying a nice soft focus lens. The only issue is that the small lens board and limited bellows draw of my Nagaoka, which to this point has not been an issue in landscape photography, does limit the choice of soft focus lenses.

BTW, just so you will know that I have not abandoned sharp focus stuff I am attaching a revised image I am currently working on. The original is a 12X20" negative made a decade ago, the final version of which is still pending. I am getting close, having printed the attached file as a 24"X38" inkjet with Cone K7 inks, and as a 16"X 24" carbon transfer. My wife had indicated that she liked the image and would like to have a print in her office. I expected she would want the carbon transfer, but she burst my bubble in asking for the inkjet. I guess it is just we photographers who get process! Curious, it is one of those images that does not look sharp at all when printed small, but once you go big the detail just sings.

Best,

SandyAttachment 87674

thanks Sandy

very grateful (for all of this)

best

andrew