kcnarf Posted March 4, 2012 Share #1 Â Posted March 4, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is the use of a soft filter on an ultra-sharp lens such as the 90mm. apo asph. Summicron conducive to more pleasing portraits? If so, which soft filter is recommended? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Hi kcnarf, Take a look here soft filters & ultra-sharp lenses?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted March 4, 2012 Share #2 Â Posted March 4, 2012 Or do it with software, then you get the best of both worlds and can choose a sharp version or a soft focus version. Â Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #12 Posted March 6, 2012 Share #3 Â Posted March 6, 2012 there is a 55mm B+W Zeiss Softar... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #12 Posted March 6, 2012 Share #4 Â Posted March 6, 2012 (haven't used it). Â try a stocking or some tulle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted March 6, 2012 Share #5 Â Posted March 6, 2012 Try it... only you can decide if you like the effect produced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
likalar Posted March 6, 2012 Share #6 Â Posted March 6, 2012 I got great results applying small 1/16" drops of clear nail polish onto a UV filter. I was trying to imitate an old Hasselblad filter I had years ago. The result is interesting: softness, yet sharpness at the same time, recalling the 50s Hollywood glamor portraits. It might be worth the experiment. Start with a dozen drops, add more if you need. I think I ended up with at least 40% of the glass covered with droplets. A toothpick lays down a decent droplet. Â Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcnarf Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share #7 Â Posted March 7, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The 75mm. Summilux is allegedly, & inalterably, softer at f/1.4-f/2 than the 75mm. Summicron. So if the extreme sharpness of the Summicron even at f/2 can be satisfactorily softened with some inexpensive softening filter device, would it be safe to say that the Summicron is more variably useful than the Summilux? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted March 7, 2012 Share #8 Â Posted March 7, 2012 The 75mm. Summilux is allegedly, & inalterably, softer at f/1.4-f/2 than the 75mm. Summicron. So if the extreme sharpness of the Summicron even at f/2 can be satisfactorily softened with some inexpensive softening filter device, would it be safe to say that the Summicron is more variably useful than the Summilux? Â No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted March 7, 2012 Share #9  Posted March 7, 2012 My view is that it is much better to capture the best photograph with the best lenses. When you develop your photographs you can decide the best way to present what you have caught. I would never use Softar filters or the like initially. Else why would you want to pay for and use modern Leica M lenses in the first place?  There is a lot more to crafting your photograph than what the lens and sensor can resolve or not of course. Thoughtful use of light is vital as it always has been.  With the modern (digital) darkroom you have the same tools (and more) and choices as before, except that they are much more available and repeatable of course. Very much better to develop our photographs from 'too sharp' to flattering than try to sharpen soft originals.  The superb APO Summicron 75 ASPH Isabelle (Izzy) Faith photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com Rebe gets the BW treatment photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com Ruth and Hello Kitty photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com Natascha works the hard sunlight photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com Ruth with fierce eyes photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com  The new Summilux 35 ASPH For her personal project on young women's self images photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted March 7, 2012 Share #10 Â Posted March 7, 2012 Super pictures, Geoff. Especially the last one with the 75mm. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcnarf Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share #11 Â Posted March 7, 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 7, 2012 Share #12 Â Posted March 7, 2012 Depends on the effect you're after. Some portraits work best as 'warts n all' as possible, but if you're trying to flatter the subject then yes, a softer image is generally more forgiving. Â You can use a 'softer' style of lens but a filter is cheaper. Options include a purpose made soft/portrait filter, the nail varnish - or as I've used, a light smearing of vaseline on a UV filter - the stocking method, or breathing on the lens, although that effect is much more unreliable as it differs every shot. Â Try a few options and decide what works best for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 8, 2012 Share #13 Â Posted March 8, 2012 Soft focus is far more variable in differing qualities than pure sharpness. Â IMHO the best soft focus is achieved through the particular lens, and not through filters although Hasselblad's Softar mentioned earlier is good. However, it does not really remove or adequately ignore spherical aberration as just some of us wish - especially those who have used earlier lenses, and by that I mean from the mid-1880s to the modern Imagon, none of which work on a Leica M. Â There's the Leitz/Leica Thambar but I have never used it. Experts can chime in here. Â Now, there is a way to create an unusual "reverse unsharp mask" in Photoshop. Sounds like a terrible contradiction doesn't it? Â Briefly it consists of creating a new layer, changing that layer to monochrome (however you wish, but the adjustments-monochrome is adequate), then run filters-other-high pass over that layer with a setting of 2-3 pixels, then use adjustments-invert to the layer, then set the layer mode to 'overlay'. What might surprise you is that some things remain sharp while the rest become unsharp (but not the swirly type inherent in uncorrected lenses.) Â (If you do not invert the image it becomes a kind of sharpening unsharp filter - and IMHO a good one.) Â If you wish I can post a couple examples through links. (I do not store images here.) Never mind the subject, just look at the outcome and make up your own mind. It is not for everyone. I can also post images posted with early tessars and petzvals but they can't be used on a Leica. Â Basically, filters do not do the same thing as the original soft-focus lenses which, in fact, had adjustable degrees of softness/quality. There is an Asian lens for SLRs that does that but it is way too OT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphlex Posted March 8, 2012 Share #14 Â Posted March 8, 2012 +2 about trying to tame unwelcome fine detail resolution with a filter. I never got used to the Softar on my 90mm asph, which I finally traded though it was superlative for all subjects besides human ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #12 Posted March 9, 2012 Share #15 Â Posted March 9, 2012 ...If you wish I can post a couple examples through links. (I do not store images here.) Never mind the subject, just look at the outcome and make up your own mind. It is not for everyone. I can also post images posted with early tessars and petzvals but they can't be used on a Leica. ... Â that would be great Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted March 9, 2012 Share #16  Posted March 9, 2012 Soft focus is far more variable in differing qualities than pure sharpness. IMHO the best soft focus is achieved through the particular lens, and not through filters although Hasselblad's Softar mentioned earlier is good. However, it does not really remove or adequately ignore spherical aberration as just some of us wish - especially those who have used earlier lenses, and by that I mean from the mid-1880s to the modern Imagon, none of which work on a Leica M.  There's the Leitz/Leica Thambar but I have never used it. Experts can chime in here.  Now, there is a way to create an unusual "reverse unsharp mask" in Photoshop. Sounds like a terrible contradiction doesn't it?  Briefly it consists of creating a new layer, changing that layer to monochrome (however you wish, but the adjustments-monochrome is adequate), then run filters-other-high pass over that layer with a setting of 2-3 pixels, then use adjustments-invert to the layer, then set the layer mode to 'overlay'. What might surprise you is that some things remain sharp while the rest become unsharp (but not the swirly type inherent in uncorrected lenses.)  (If you do not invert the image it becomes a kind of sharpening unsharp filter - and IMHO a good one.)  If you wish I can post a couple examples through links. (I do not store images here.) Never mind the subject, just look at the outcome and make up your own mind. It is not for everyone. I can also post images posted with early tessars and petzvals but they can't be used on a Leica.  Basically, filters do not do the same thing as the original soft-focus lenses which, in fact, had adjustable degrees of softness/quality. There is an Asian lens for SLRs that does that but it is way too OT.  I own and have tried the Thambar as well as the Rodenstock Imagon for 35mm (for use with the Visoflex). The problem lies in the ability to judge the effect, mostly with film, but also with the M9. I have not been able to judge in advance the actual visual effect. When it works, it is - to some tastes - magical. When it does not, it is usually disastrous. The most successful pictures seem to result from shots against the light or with a large proportion of back lighting. I believe that is is mostly a matter of taste and personal preference. I have also used the Softars on the Hasselblad, both with slides and negative color. Here the results are more calculable but less spectacular. I have no idea about post processing, as I have never done it. Teddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted March 9, 2012 Share #17  Posted March 9, 2012 Soft focus is far more variable in differing qualities than pure sharpness. IMHO the best soft focus is achieved through the particular lens, and not through filters although Hasselblad's Softar mentioned earlier is good. However, it does not really remove or adequately ignore spherical aberration as just some of us wish - especially those who have used earlier lenses, and by that I mean from the mid-1880s to the modern Imagon, none of which work on a Leica M.  There's the Leitz/Leica Thambar but I have never used it. Experts can chime in here.  Now, there is a way to create an unusual "reverse unsharp mask" in Photoshop. Sounds like a terrible contradiction doesn't it?  Briefly it consists of creating a new layer, changing that layer to monochrome (however you wish, but the adjustments-monochrome is adequate), then run filters-other-high pass over that layer with a setting of 2-3 pixels, then use adjustments-invert to the layer, then set the layer mode to 'overlay'. What might surprise you is that some things remain sharp while the rest become unsharp (but not the swirly type inherent in uncorrected lenses.)  (If you do not invert the image it becomes a kind of sharpening unsharp filter - and IMHO a good one.)  If you wish I can post a couple examples through links. (I do not store images here.) Never mind the subject, just look at the outcome and make up your own mind. It is not for everyone. I can also post images posted with early tessars and petzvals but they can't be used on a Leica.  Basically, filters do not do the same thing as the original soft-focus lenses which, in fact, had adjustable degrees of softness/quality. There is an Asian lens for SLRs that does that but it is way too OT.  Thank you for this summary. Do you also have any experience of using nets behind the lens, movie-style? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted March 9, 2012 Share #18 Â Posted March 9, 2012 Softar 1 is useful for 35mm. Softar 2 for larger formats where less enlargement is required. Â It is delicate and scratches easily because it is plastic, but the best "filter for SF" Â Remember it does all over softening,eyes,lips,clothing, etc. Â So if you have a digital file, why not confine the softening to skin? Go to you tube and do a search for photoshop skin softening. Photoshop Mama and Ranish 1994 are two good sources. Or just spend the money on ALien skin plugin. Â Back in film days, there were fewer choices and Softar was one of the best. Digital today is better, more controlable, and does a better job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 9, 2012 Share #19 Â Posted March 9, 2012 Could find a younger model. Problem is, that could be expensive... come to think of it, just buy a filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 10, 2012 Share #20 Â Posted March 10, 2012 I own and have tried the Thambar as well as the Rodenstock Imagon for 35mm (for use with the Visoflex). The problem lies in the ability to judge the effect, mostly with film, but also with the M9. Â The Imagon was not made for any formats smaller than 6x6cm and was better for much larger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.