Recreate Thambar look?

[xcapekey.com]

all these recent thambar posts have got me interested in it....such a neat look!!! i won't be

buying one anytime soon, so i was wondering how i could emulate the way the highlights

bleed and the cool softness?

 

any thoughts or suggestions?

[terry_rory]

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/secondary/ps945

[terry_rory]

B+W Zeiss Softar I (or II) Filter

[alexander_nichols]

The Zeiss Softars I and II are don't give that kind of extreme "glow." The Sima soft focus lens is closer - or you can make your own: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/soft.html

[ronald_moravec1]

Tiffin Soft FX. But nothing is exactly the same except a lens with the right amounts of spherical and chromatic aberations left in.

 

Mamiya made 150 and 180 soft lenses for the RB67. Fuji made some. Rodenstock Imagons. Verito and Veritar by Wollensak.

 

For 35mm, there is the Dreamagon Lens currently available, but it is not exactly the same. The was a 120mm Imagon in T-mount for slr`s about 15 years ago. That will match close enough. It is one of my prized possessions. Use a plain ground glass focus screen on the R.

 

I will tell you all Soft lenses are a pain to use. You need to focus stopped down to working aperture as they all have a focus shift. I have owned just about all I mentioned at one time or another.

 

The Cooke 239mm is very nice for 4x5.

 

Any photo in photoshop can be made pretty close too. Make a duplicate layer. In the top layer, go to filter, gausian blurr and apply it. Now adjust the opacity of the soft layer so you see the correct amount of sharp photo in the layer under it. Now save it.

You can send it over the internet to a photofinisher or put it on a CD and take it to most photofinishers. If you go to a non pro shop that prints on commercial, not profesional portrait, paper, desaturate and lower the contrast as they will jack it up a ruin your work like they do with every photo they print. I use a Kodak qualified C41 lab, and get back what matches what I sent. Fuji Frontiers are all high contrast commercial junk. Do the contrast lowering trick for best results with them. All the qualified C41 and E6 labs are listed on the Kodak site. There are not many, but you are assured of good work.

[andrew robertson]

You can get adjustable soft focus from Canon and Minolta these days.

[ronald_moravec1]

Not a Canon or Minolta up to date expert, however the 135mm Canon I`m thinking of just has a way of adjusting the forground or background blurr. Not sure what it does to the main subject.

 

Minolta made a nice true soft lens 20 years ago. Kevin Camera had one for sale a few weeks ago for $600. Not at all sure of current products.

 

Fuji made one in 42mm screw mount 25 years ago. I gave mine away.

 

Also have a set of Minolta Portrayer filters. The 1 and 2 are ok. #3 is overdone. I have never seen a set for sale other than mine and it 25 years old. They are designed to soften flesh tones, but not blur other colors.

 

Photoshop is the way to go to start. Go from there if you can`t get what you want. You are not limited to certain focal lengths and it is the cheapest method. Photoshop Elements has what you need at $100.

And you have the ability to preview and change. Without lots of experience, results from a true lens may not get you what you want.

 

After you create the soft portrait, add another layer and apply a canvas or burlap texture. Adjust the opacity and scaling to around 50% so it is just there and doesn`t stand out. It will look like the $500 portraits where they strip off the emulsion from the print and apply it to real canvas.

 

For more creative fun, add some brush strokes on a fourth layer. Again it is all in Elements. You do not need the very expensive Photoshop CS2.

 

Now there is a product that looks like what is found in high end portrait studios.

[vivek iyer]

Get the current 105/2 or 135/2 DC Nikkors. They have DC (defocus control) elements built in to control fore/background mushing.

 

Yield more reliable results.

[jsc1]

The first solution we need is a consensus definition of the "Thambar-look."

 

If the lens is simply a variably soft/variably sharp, uncoated short telephoto, then using

PS, and possibly lots of work, one should be able to duplicate Thambar results. If, on the

other hand, the results are a consequence of unusual lens design, then duplication in PS

will be more difficult at least until the consequences of the design peculiarities are

understood.

 

Here's my best idea so far. (I'll ignore the spot filter.)

 

The Thambar seems to be critically sharp when stopped down and very soft opened all the

way. And as an uncoated lens, it is predisposed to "flare." I agree with John Charles

Goodman when he writes that it seems to be two lens, a soft and a sharp lens. The

transition seems to be relatively abrupt and somewhere in the mid-aperture range... and I

wonder if this characteristic isn't a significant contribution to the "Thambar-look." Soft or

sharp with coincident changes in the depth of focus, depth of field. Does any other lens

behave similarly?

 

In this regard, I also have a Dreamagon. It seems to be difficult to control and quite touchy

in the soft to sharp transition. And I also have a 105/2 DC Nikkor but it's new to me and

my experience is limited, to date... but I won't have to develop negatives as it's on my

DSLR. I also have the two Nikon soft filters for convenience.

 

I do like dreamy, soft photos.

[vivek iyer]

It will be very difficult to make any "definitions". It is simply because of the scanner (its hardware, software, etc) coming into the equation.

 

When I look at the images on slides from fuzzy lenses and anything that I have scanned, there is no comparison at all.

[dan flanders]

The complete Thambar effect was achieved with the central spot "filter" which obliterated the central rays and exagerated the peripheral rays. I experimented with a similat central spot on the 125mm Hektor and was able to approximate the result. I suppose it might be approximated with a similar spot; particularly on the 2.5/50 Hektor. Why not try it, there's nothing to lose?

[jsc1]

Dan Flanders...

 

The Thambar is different by design. Spherical abberation was deliberately left uncorrected

in the periphery of the lens and highly corrected in the central area of the lens. You might

imagine that the central spot covers the highly corrected area but I don't know that.

Without the spot there does seem to be a sharpness/softness gradient as one opens or

closes the aperture. I do know that the images I made with my Thambar with the central

spot in place, at apertures more open than f/6.3, were too soft for my taste. They were

"OK," but nothing remarkable.

 

The opaque spot on the filter is about 1/2" in diameter. I would not expect the effect of

applying such a filter to a lens "globally" corrected for spherical abberation to resemble

the "Thambar-look." I would imagine the negatives would simply be under-exposed. Do

you have any examples to share?

[andrew robertson]

The Canon 135 SF has a deeply curved aspherical lens, the position of which you can vary to

create spherical distortion.

 

It may work differently than the Thambar. I'm not sure - I haven't really read much about

the Thambar. However, the Canon's effect is far more adjustable which suits my purposes

better.

[gary_lagnese1]

I did a quick experiment with y noctilux. I made a black dot on the filter with a sharpie,

then shot at f1.. It gave a nice effect. I am going to try it on the 85 f1.5 summarex when I

can find my 58mm filter. It gives in my opinion a nice soft look at full apeture.

[dan flanders]

J CARBERRY: My remarks concerned experiments made many years ago with the 125/2.5 Hektor which though not a corrolary to the Thambar, had a similar mixture of aberations (originally a projection lens). I was suggesting similar experimentation. In many of the older lenses the central rays were often better corrected than the peripheral. The 125 Hektor in particular had a reputation for the Leica "glow" when used wide open. I am sorry but I cannot provide any examples.

[jsc1]

Gary Lagnese...

 

Whoa. Now that's an experiment that would not have occurred to me. Would you post an

example? [... unless, of course, you are a big kidder... ;-)) ]

 

Dan Flanders...

 

We can probably agree that uncorrected spherical aberration is sufficient for "softness."

Do you recall if the Hektor had the capacity to "sharpen up?" By all reports that I have

read, the Thambar sharpens substantially by f/9. Nee Sung, in another but related thread,

noted similar experience. John Charles Goodman has also noted that the Thambar seems

to be two lenses "joined at the hip." Essentially, it seems to be an unusual lens.

 

I'll be able to report on my experience, without the spot filter, in a couple of days. My

experience with the Thambar with the spot filter is less than distinguished and less than

satisfactory.

[gary_lagnese1]

I dont have a scanner, but I can have my printer put them on a cd and try it that way.. but I

kid you not.

[dan flanders]

The 125 Hektor, used wide open often had the reputed "Leica glow", but stopping down to 5.6 or so modulated the peripheral rays which contributed to that effect. I was not successful in replicating the Thambar character but varying the size of the spot evoked some interesting results. The big Hektor was heavy and useable only with a Visoflex which limited its flexibility, but used within its limitations yielded exemplary images. I regret succumbing to an extravagant offer and letting it go. If I ever run across another at an affordable price I will again be sorely tempted.

[jsc1]

Russ Roca...

 

I want to acknowledge that you query has hardly been answered. Moreover, I apologize

for usurping your thread.

 

Perhaps you might find more success if you presented your question to a "digital forum."

 

Regards.