Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Spencer Port-Land pictorial soft focus lens - first result
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:07 pm    Post subject: Spencer Port-Land pictorial soft focus lens - first result Reply with quote
I traded some Zeiss glass with a nice guy from "down under" against a Spencer Port-Land 9" soft focus lens from about 1930. It is a cemented Meniscus with adjustable aperture, which also regulates the degree of softness.

It is said to be one of Ansel Adams famous lenses...and some say "she" is quite a diva and wants to be treated a very special way .... well I'm certainly not Ansel, but I like challenges and nevertheless tried my luck today for the first time with the goal to create that romantic "retro look" ... was I successful?



PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, very good picture in it's own genre. Result is surely successful.

I would have perhaps lightened the background but that's my personal taste.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is exactly the effect I like. Details are there (but sharpness isn't disturbing) and the objects are surrounded by subtle soft glow. Very nice Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well done, man!!!

In my taste, dark brownish back and litle, very litle sharper center flower. Only a detail, your pic is a beauty.

Rino.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is indeed a very unique genre.
Congratulations Klaus, I like it very much.
And I would like to see more examples Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks like a fine old painting. I am thinking of sacrificing my $5 super-takumar 50/2 and rubbing its front and back to put a lot of small scratches on the glass - maybe I can achieve a soft/glowing effect that resembles this a bit.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think you've got it just right, I like the darkness.. and wow.. great lens. I'd love to see more.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks guys!

Well about the picture:
- Thanks for the "old painting" remark, exactly that I wanted to achieve!
- I wanted the background dark (since I wanted to use what was availble - simply the drying out rose flower bouquet I bought some days ago on our dinner table and the black background is the high sitting chair)
- I played with various variants of focus and sharpness and yes, "she" is quite sensitive to that. Focusing needs to be done at a set aperture, since focus changes when the aperture changes!
- I would also like to have a bit more center sharpness and I already discussed that with the previous owner to make some imagon like sieve to achieve that - next project
- the "glow" is certainly there (use of CA = chromatic aberration) which so distinctly differentiates that from any filter, vaseline etc.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very elegant like an old painting. It has a special quality to it.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Best result what I seen from soft focus lenses, congrats! Subject selection was excellent.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A GREAT photo kds315*

I like the dark background, I feel it lends to the warmth of the image.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the additional comments!

Somebody asked my if that could be achieved using some "modern" lens - well I had posted pics using my Kenko 2.5/85mm Soft lens before, so here a quick shot for comparision...





...and to be honest, I like the Spencer Port-Land more (although much more complicated to use...), since "she" just has "something" I haven't seen before....


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, your Spenses has subtles tonalities, give a delicate image. I find it more pictorial.

Rino.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Indeed Rino, I guess it must be due to the flatter gamma (= less contrast) of that old, uncoated lens which render finer nuances much better that the harder (= steeper gamma = higher contrast) multicoated modern lens (I even tried to adjust it a bit, it much actually a bigger difference).


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I too prefer your spencer one.

It makes me think about dutch painters, like Rembrandt.

Congrats for that beautiful Art bouquet.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Indeed Rino, I guess it must be due to the flatter gamma (= less contrast) of that old, uncoated lens which render finer nuances much better that the harder (= steeper gamma = higher contrast) multicoated modern lens (I even tried to adjust it a bit, it much actually a bigger difference).


of course flare (diffusion of light) spreads highlights over shadows and reduces contrast.

For this same reason, some landscape photographers put a weak diffuser filter in front of lens when shooting in high contrast situation. At least they used to do with film, probably it's not anymore necessary with digital.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Olivier,

I had his still life works in mind actually, since he worked with dark backgrounds and had the light emanating through it in the highlighted subjects (the classic being the "man with the golden helmet" of course...)


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
kds315* wrote:
Indeed Rino, I guess it must be due to the flatter gamma (= less contrast) of that old, uncoated lens which render finer nuances much better that the harder (= steeper gamma = higher contrast) multicoated modern lens (I even tried to adjust it a bit, it much actually a bigger difference).


of course flare (diffusion of light) spreads highlights over shadows and reduces contrast.

For this same reason, some landscape photographers put a weak diffuser filter in front of lens when shooting in high contrast situation. At least they used to do with film, probably it's not anymore necessary with digital.


Well Orio,
I absolutely agree, this is why too contrasty lenses are sometimes not the best choice, since the contrast range of modern DSLRs is just not enough and you either get burnt out highlights or sunken dark parts (that is why HDR has gotten so popular now)

[I had the same experience with macro lenses, when a friend of mine and I tested ca 100 lenses double blind some time ago - the surprising fact was, that the extemely contrasty lenses were sorted out soon, just because of that]


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
the problem with flaring lenses is that they reduce contrast indeed, but at the same time they can let in also parasite lights, which do not look so good.
With a good LCD display you can detect them, but with film, no way until you have the roll developed - and then it could be too late...

I read that during film era, some professional people had polaroid backs mounted on the same medium format cameras that they used for shooting, exactly to check for this type of possible accidents in real time.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
the problem with flaring lenses is that they reduce contrast indeed, but at the same time they can let in also parasite lights, which do not look so good.
With a good LCD display you can detect them, but with film, no way until you have the roll developed - and then it could be too late...

I read that during film era, some professional people had polaroid backs mounted on the same medium format cameras that they used for shooting, exactly to check for this type of possible accidents in real time.


Well Orio,

now that (flaring lenses) is a completely different story from what we had discussed before! This is a must to avoid since it could indeed render all oyur work useless!

I was talking about the contrast reproduction of very modern lenses which sometimes lead to these harsh and way too contrasty images (I have a very special industrial ultra sharp Rodenstock lens which I cannot use because of that...) which burn out lights or let details disappair in the dark areas.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All of very good quality lens can do the same job in different ways.

In the artistics fine prints, like that píctorial ones, the subtle tones are necesary to ad to the good central resolution. Ansel, before his F/64 times, did lot of jobs in that way.

It's nice to see that kind of images, not only the super contrast and nano resolution ones.

Rino.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:

Well Orio,
now that (flaring lenses) is a completely different story from what we had discussed before! This is a must to avoid since it could indeed render all oyur work useless!
I was talking about the contrast reproduction of very modern lenses which sometimes lead to these harsh and way too contrasty images (I have a very special industrial ultra sharp Rodenstock lens which I cannot use because of that...) which burn out lights or let details disappair in the dark areas.


The thing is the same. The lower contrast rendered by the older lenses (those without good or multiple coating) is precisely caused by the internal flare between glass elements.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry Orio,

but not necessarily so. Old lenses, inparticular this one has one two glass surfaces (since the inner two are cemented) and each uncoated surface (depending a bit on diffrative index) reflects about 4% light only, so the total is 8%. The lower contrast in that soft focus lens case ismainly caused by the "halo" effect around the sharply rendered parts (due to CA) which then softens up (= lowers the contrast + sharpness) of the surrounding image parts. Stray light is a completely different issue. But I don't really want to bother here with lens physics...we should ather concentrate on esthetics I would propose... Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Sorry Orio,

but not necessarily so. Old lenses, inparticular this one has one two glass surfaces (since the inner two are cemented) and each uncoated surface (depending a bit on diffrative index) reflects about 4% light only, so the total is 8%. The lower contrast in that soft focus lens case ismainly caused by the "halo" effect around the sharply rendered parts (due to CA) which then softens up (= lowers the contrast + sharpness) of the surrounding image parts. Stray light is a completely different issue. But I don't really want to bother here with lens physics...we should ather concentrate on esthetics I would propose... Wink


That is true for your lens, but not all lenses are like your lens. There are other lenses, like the Helios-40 for instance (aluminium version), which have a lot of internal flare caused by the many glass-air surfaces, the poor coating, and the reflections inside of the barrel which is bright silver colour.
That was in fact the main reason why the second version was made in black colour.
The same consideration applies to many aluminium barrel lenses of the same era of the Helios-40. Only those with a very good coating like Zeiss present the internal flare problem minimized.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anyway... in first sight you go like "Gosh, that's soft!" but then you see something which is not there in pictures taken with a "soft" as in "bad" lens.

I would love to see a real portait with this lens.
And BTW a portrait of the lens. What does it look like?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2