Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,074   Online: 723
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by gandolfi View Post
    gotta love this sentence.

    doesn't Sally Mann use true soft focus lenses all the time....
    Lens or process--you tell me.

  2. #42
    gandolfi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    1,764
    Images
    387
    lens - definitively lens...

    She is a master in a darkroom, but ...

  3. #43
    greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    377
    Images
    6
    2: "easily replicated with PS"...
    well - we're talking analouge photography here, aren't we?
    And even if we were not - the true SF (at least in LF) isn't easily replicated. And if it were, then it just look exactely like that: a replica..

    (I have never seen a SF picture made in PS that looks right....)


    Gandolfi, that's because the PS images weren't done right.

    All you have to do is separate the pixels according to distance from the focal plane and radial distance from the lens axis, then apply a mathematical transform to replicate the effect of each pixel at its particular "depth" being defocused as it would be due to the effects of spherical aberration. Of course, Photoshop has no way of knowing how far from the focal plane a given pixel is, so for a high-resolution digital picture you are going to be at this for a while.

    Or you could just use a soft focus lens in the first place

  4. #44
    gandolfi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    1,764
    Images
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    2: "easily replicated with PS"...
    well - we're talking analouge photography here, aren't we?
    And even if we were not - the true SF (at least in LF) isn't easily replicated. And if it were, then it just look exactely like that: a replica..

    (I have never seen a SF picture made in PS that looks right....)


    Gandolfi, that's because the PS images weren't done right.

    All you have to do is separate the pixels according to distance from the focal plane and radial distance from the lens axis, then apply a mathematical transform to replicate the effect of each pixel at its particular "depth" being defocused as it would be due to the effects of spherical aberration. Of course, Photoshop has no way of knowing how far from the focal plane a given pixel is, so for a high-resolution digital picture you are going to be at this for a while.

    Or you could just use a soft focus lens in the first place

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,259
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    2: "easily replicated with PS"...
    well - we're talking analouge photography here, aren't we?
    And even if we were not - the true SF (at least in LF) isn't easily replicated. And if it were, then it just look exactely like that: a replica..

    (I have never seen a SF picture made in PS that looks right....)


    Gandolfi, that's because the PS images weren't done right.

    All you have to do is separate the pixels according to distance from the focal plane and radial distance from the lens axis, then apply a mathematical transform to replicate the effect of each pixel at its particular "depth" being defocused as it would be due to the effects of spherical aberration. Of course, Photoshop has no way of knowing how far from the focal plane a given pixel is, so for a high-resolution digital picture you are going to be at this for a while.

    Or you could just use a soft focus lens in the first place

  6. #46
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,457
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Whatever. SF lenses are really one trick ponies. The images have a stale look however rendered or manipulated that's worn out its welcome.
    Maybe the look will come back sometime but for now the PS versions trump in camera versions for photo editors.
    Unless you're submitting work to them, who cares what photo editors think?
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Ont, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by gandolfi View Post
    gotta love this sentence.

    doesn't Sally Mann use true soft focus lenses all the time....
    Maybe not. I don't think the lenses she describes here are true soft focus lenses in the way we are talking about them
    http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/mann/clip2.html
    MANN: Well, you know I told you that none of my equipment has ever been any good, I certainly could go out and buy a good, tack-sharp lens that would take the perfect picture that's in focus from end to end. But instead, I spend an awful lot of time at that antique mall looking around for these lenses with just the right amount of decrepitude. The glue has to be peeling off of the lens elements, it’s great if its mildewed and out of whack—a lens is made up of several different pieces of glass which are supposed to stay glued in the right relationship with each other—but my most prized lens has one of the pieces of glass askew, so when the light comes in it it's refulgent. It just bounces all around and does this great sort of luminescent thing on the glass. You can tell a good ruined lens right from the get-go....they are the ones you find in the trash cans of old photo studios, in some ghost town in Iowa. I mean, that's the kind of lens I'm looking for.
    "There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).

    Regards
    Bill

  8. #48
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,090
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Whatever. SF lenses are really one trick ponies. The images have a stale look however rendered or manipulated that's worn out its welcome.
    Maybe the look will come back sometime but for now the PS versions trump in camera versions for photo editors.
    Unless you're submitting work to them, who cares what photo editors think?
    I've never submitted anything to an editor. It never crossed my mind to think about them.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  9. #49
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Information on the Minolta Rokkor 85/2.8 Varisoft, in Minolta SR mount (aka MC/MD mount). Spherical aberration can vary continuously from "0" to a "high value".

    http://www.cameraquest.com/minsoft.htm

    They cost a lot on eBay when you find one. I think collectors are not extraneous to the price tag, those are rare lenses and therefore intrinsically valuable for a collector.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,259
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    2
    is it "good" vs "bad" ?? ..
    like photography in general ( and it doesn't matter F or D ) there is lots of bad and a lot less good ..

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin