90 summicron too harsh for portraits?

My current version 90 summicron is proving itself too sharp and

harsh for any head and shoulder shots. Should I consider a 'softar'

or just use PS to soften things a bit when necessary?

Take a look at a book of portraits by Yousuf Karsh before uou decide that yours are too sharp. If you still want a softer image try using a larger f stop or back off a bit and make a larger enlargement. IMHO there is nothing wrong with a sharp picture.

Jonathan -

 

I have to agree that it is indeed possible for a lens to be so sharp that it becomes unflattering -- there's a reason that sellers of really old and hazy large format lenses call them "perfect for portraits." People don't like / pay for images of themselves showing every wrinkle, zit, and pore -- I use a softar myself and can recommend it highly (personally, I prefer softening a sharp lens when I need it soft to using a soft lens and ever wishing it were sharper). Interestingly, I find women prefer the effects of the Softar II, which I find a little strong. But I can recommend them, and I think they render a nice sharp/soft image -- better than other so-called soft or diffusion filters. I've achieved a similar look with split-diffusion-type work in PS (by doing a multilayered image with sharp and soft layers), but frankly it's a lot easier to filter when I know I'm going to want that look. Add to that the fact that I'm an antiquarian and prefer to do darkroom work to computer work, and there you have it...

I would rather have a sharp shot that I can later soften up using Photoshop or in the darkroom. But by softening when you take the picture, you lose that ability.

It's amazing! Suddenly lenses become too sharp. I think making portraits with a sharp lens is a good opportunity to show people how they look and not how they don't look.

show people how they look and not how they don't look.

 

What a sensible thought.

Diffusion filters used while making the photograph spread the highlights into the shadows. Using diffusion while making a print from a negative spreads the shadows into the brighter areas. Most people find this less appealing. The Zeiss Softars are about the best I've ever used. Another way to add a touch of softness is to shoot through some black mesh. Womens'pantyhose material works well. You'll lose a bit of exposure. Using light colored mesh usually gives too flat a result. At any rate, the stuff is cheap and readily available if there's an adult female in your circle of aquaintances, and experimenting while using up the end of a roll of film will soon have you pretty much knowing what the effect will be. Of course with a RFDR camera it's still a bit of a crap shoot, kind of like exact framing :-)

Most "harsh" portraits look that way because of the lighting. Try using better light. If that doesn't work, try using a long exposure.

I would try a softar. It places a blured glow over your sharp images.

I have some for my Hasselblad and they are great.

 

Or for the same/less amount of money of a Softar you could pick up an older Elmar 90/4, which may be perfect for what you need.

 

Unless you are shooting with the new 90 Cron ASPH, you could try to shoot wide open at f2. The last pre-ASPH 90 Cron is very, very sharp at f5.6 but a lot smoother wide open.

 

Use a softlight.

 

 

Cheers,

 

feli

If you're doing portraits for money, and the clients are women

over the age of 20, AND you listen to these purist...you'll be

sitting in an empty studio wondering why the phone isn't ringing

from referrals.

 

First and foremost, do as Jeff says..."soften the light". Don't use

PS unless you are a master at it. It can, an often does, look fake.

The best filter I've seen for a natural look with womens portraits

is the "flesh net". The Softar is very effective, with the Softar I

offering just enough relief from the pin sharp, "Oh my, do I really

look that old?", Leica optics. Cripes, even men are getting as

bad these days.

Leica Thambar 2.2, a lens from late 30´s, used a spot filter to soft the image, it was a regular clear filter with a dark spot at the center, about 13mm, it gets the sharpest ligth of the lens off, you also miss some ligth here. It may worth for you to have a try.

Thank you for your suggestions, looks like a softar will solve the problem for the over 20 crowd.

Just how sharp is the new 90 Summicron? Out of curiosity can anyone point out a resolution test done on this lens? I have the older version and it is pretty darn sharp starting from f/4.

 

Thanks,

vahe

One thing that bears mentioning (again) is to NEVER use a Softar I, II, or III with a lens opening of f.8 or smaller.

 

Doing so, especially in strong to moderate side or backlight will result in the famous "Softar Floating Snotballs", a nasty condition where you get sharp areas with dots of unfocused areas. Sure way to ruin the shoots results.

I also thought the 90 Apo Asph was a bit too sharp for closed portraits; some kind guys on the Leica forum gave me advice to use Fuji 400 NPH permitting softer pictures. Seems to be better with it, or I accept the lens particularities.

Alain

Personally, I prefer to have the sharpest lens possible. For portraits, you can always tone it down with filters. However, if you have a soft lens to start with, then when the opportunity arrives that you bagged a once in a lifetime photography and you want to enlarge it, you are limited to what the lens' resolution can achieve.

Put a piece of womens black stocking over the lens, held by a rubber band. Excellent results.