A case for soft lenses

[dave lackey]

Yikes,

This morning I awoke anticipating a Christmas play at my granddaughter's school and looking forward to using the M3 + Summarit. The Summarit has a lot of character and I cringe at the thought of using the DSLR while everyone else will being using POS (er, point and shoots...is that PAS?) and DSLR's, so, my wife's DSLR will sit on the desk while the M3 is exercised.🙂

Not long after first light this morning, I started the coffee pot and checked some images and I was shocked to see portraits with infinite detail of skin with every imaginable problem, not just wrinkles. How much better would it have been to use a soft lens or softer lighting, or something.

The Summarit is capable of nice detail:

But, it is rare that I shoot the Summarit stopped down.

I prefer the retro look for cars. I prefer the softer look for portraits. And, as LeicaTom has shown so well, the retro look for females works rather well.

So, there is a case where highly detailed imagery is not exactly desirable. Just ask most women if they prefer the softer, romantic portrait versus the highly graphic image.😉

 

[david.elliott]

Sweet words and a sweet photo!

 

[Keith]

Actually this where I find my D700 superior to the M8 I had ... it doesn't have that eye bleeding sharpness that the M8 files exhibited with a modern lens fitted. I shot some portraits of a friend with the D700 and a Zeiss Planar f1.4 and I was impressed at how kind the Nikon's files were to a mid forties female.

 

[ZeissFan]

At the risk of sounding overly sarcastic, it's mostly in Leica la-la land where a poor performing lens becomes "magical" and an image with flare instead has "the Leica glow."

 

[Roger Hicks]

At the risk of sounding overly sarcastic, it's mostly in Leica la-la land where a poor performing lens becomes "magical" and an image with flare instead has "the Leica glow."

Well, it's the only pre-1950 f/1.5 most people will ever have tried, and in those days the choice was mostly Leica (relatively high resolving power, low contrast) or Zeiss (higher contrast, significantly lower resolving power). A "poor performing lens"? Not for its era. And it is hardly surprising that some people like the special look of a particular old lens or lenses. There are even times when a Canon 50/1.2 looks good, for the right shot.

Or am I just feeding a troll?

Cheers,

R.

 

[dave lackey]

At the risk of sounding overly sarcastic, it's mostly in Leica la-la land where a poor performing lens becomes "magical" and an image with flare instead has "the Leica glow."

So, a portrait like this is in Leica-la-la-land?

Disclaimer: This image is not mine but nor is it, to my knowledge, a Leica lens-produced image.
It is shown here merely to demonstrate an excellent example of a "soft portrait" that is similar
to soft portraits produced with various early Leica lenses.

 

[mwooten]

Dave, I hope you'll ride up to this part of i85 next autumn for the annual Euro-Car show. Always lots of vintage autos.

As for lenses, I've been told that "you're showing every wrinkle I have."

--michael

 

[Roger Hicks]

So, a portrait like this is in Leica-la-la-land?

. . .

It is shown here merely to demonstrate an excellent example of a "soft portrait" that is similar
to soft portraits produced with various early Leica lenses.

(Assume the voice of HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey)

I'm sorry, Dave. Your picture is not sharp. I can't let you do this, Dave...

And back in my own voice, there are those who take pictures and those who 'test' lenses without regard for their purpose, age or anything else much.

Coffee cups... cats... fence posts... brick walls... Whaddaya mean, f***in' PORTRAITS?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ted2001]

Years ago I did quite a bit of portrait work using a Nikon F3HP with Dynalite strobes, softboxes, etc. and while I still liked the 105/2.5 AIS lens for it's superior image quality, I began to also like an 85/2 AIS that I'd bought used several years before. I'd never liked the lens since it always seemed to lack the contrast and details available from the 105 - but for portraits (mostly women) it was often more flatterring. The only thing I ever used the lens for was women's and kids portraits, but for that single use, it was a real favorite.

 

[jpfisher]

I shot a beach wedding back in August for two friends of mine -- a lesbian couple, so softening the portraits was definitely my desire. We did the formal portraits of the couple right after the ceremony, as the sun was setting -- east coast, so using the water as the background worked really well.

I was using Kodachrome 25, and shot most of the portraits with a Dual Range Summicron, wide open at f/2 -- we moved down closer to the water towards the end of the roll, and I was losing light fast. Switched to the Summarit for the last few photos.

When I got the slides back, I was really impressed with the Summitar shots -- my reaction was "I wish I had shot the entire portrait session with this lens." I had just gotten the Summitar a few weeks prior and had only shot it on the M8 and a Micro Four Thirds body previously. It just doesn't do well on digital, to my eye, but it shines on film.

When I scanned the slides in to work on them in Lightroom, I used the "Clarity" slider to soften the images from the DR Cron -- but that wasn't necessary with the Summitar shots.

At the end of the day the couple was happy with the photos. I had Mpix make an 8 x 10 of one of the DR Cron shots and one of the Summitar shots -- was really happy with both.

So yes, there are definitely times when I want a softer look -- but I've found that the Summitar doesn't play nice with the M8. Maybe I should give it a bit more of a workout though, I only used it in low light/high ISO situations -- when I get some free time, I'll try it with some portraits at a low ISO.

Jim