Soft Focus: Dinosaur?

[mbbrown]

<p>I've had the same Zeiss Softar 1 for years now. Pulled it out for an engagement session after having it in storage for a while, and kinda thought..."hmmm, is this thing still relevant?"</p>

<p>And, likewise, I've been toying more and more with the Portraiture 2 plug-in from Imagenomic and, while I like it, I really reserve it for portraits intended to be portraits. I don't just apply it willy-nilly to every wedding image.</p>

<p>I even like the effects I get from tweaking the Gaussian Blur effect in PS.</p>

<p>This has all become a bigger issue when I got a Nikon D700 and the Nikkor 85mm 1.4. VERY unforgiving in terms of hiding imperfections in the skin.</p>

<p>How much, if any, do you use soft focus and/or skin smoothing in an average wedding?</p>

<p>But, wow...do I ever still love that Zeiss Softar.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>Rarely post edit ---almost always pull out the Softar 1 for portraits --it just works. I do have a action GlamBlur but, usually unnecessary........</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I don't enjoy digital editing, so my opinions are biased. To me, it's an unpleasant but necessary chore. Odd, because I don't mind using special effects in the b&w darkroom, such as split-filter printing with a homebrewed diffusion filter during the yellow filter stage (typically a sheet of acetate coated with hairspray).</p>

<p>But I actually like the Softar effect, which cannot be easily mimicked with digital editing. Ditto the effects of soft focus lenses like the Lensbabies and my Spiratone Portragon. It's not easy to convincingly duplicate genuine spherical aberration with digital editing. At least not with any one-click fixes. And most Gaussian blur applications I see look like... Gaussian blur, not spherical aberration, not like the Softar's odd optical design that combines sharpness with a glow. Nothing wrong with the digital fx, but they don't often duplicate optical "flaws" convincingly.</p>

<p>I suppose that, at least in part, it's because in the hands of a skilled photographer these optical effects are used as an integral part of the original composition, not just an effect applied later. Occasionally I've seen convincing digital fx applied, but only by photographers who planned it that way from the start, rather than slapping it on to "fix" a problem such as a cluttered background.</p>

<p>Being lazy or uncomfortable with some digital editing fx, I tend to rely on two or three favorite lenses for optical softness or romantic looks. I've used a couple of old favorite T-mount lenses through four or five different systems now. I've spent more on adapters than the lenses themselves cost to begin with.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I still have my three soft focus filters in my bag but can't recall the last time I actually used them. Back in the days of film you absolutely needed them from time to time for portraits because airbrushing or similar post work was cost-prohibitive. Most of the time the soft focus can be covered in post without blur using the healing brush or cloning tool. By using the filter, the effect was applied uniformly and completely over the entire image. With digital you have complete control of how much or how little effect to apply and can pinpoint problem spots. I can get nostalgic over the film days when we would make our own selective blur filters using a UV filter, a dime, and some hairspray or did double exposures by "stacking" the film, etc...but good PS post work has opened up a whole new world of creativity.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I too have not used an oprtical effect filter (excluding polarizers/ND's) since beginning the digital transition. I did not plan to quit using them, it just sort of happened. However the softar 1 is about the best at its intended job if you know that is what you want.</p>

<p>Unlike Lex, I find that the after capture digi filters are convincing when the are globally applied to an image (not all, but lots of them) and done well. The thing I don't care for is when they are used to mask poorly shot images, hide flaws or to simply make a dull image have some interest (presumed by the one applying it I would guess).</p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>I had a custom adapter made for my Zeiss Softar (Hasselblad) so that I could use it on my Canon lenses. I still keep the filter and adapter in my bag but don't use it a lot--certainly not as much as before. I don't actually use any skin smoothing (computer) on my images unless someone asks.</p>

<p>I will, however, still keep the filter in my bag as you can't really replicate it (as far as I know now) in Photoshop.</p>

[betty_lowrey2]

<p>A great tool is TRA's "pro retouch" action. It's not as noticable as the Portraiture filter but still smooths out lines, etc. Plus it includes an awesome eye enhancer.</p>

[savagesax]

I still you my softar 1 at every wedding! Beats post processing

[fotografz]

<p>I've yet to see any post processing match the Zeiss Softar effect.</p>

<p>I keep forgetting to use it on certain bitingly sharp lenses and then pay the penelty in post later. </p>

<p>I frequently use Jeff Acough's "Dream" action which is a well thought out multiple step action that does a pretty good job with one click.</p>

<p>But nothing matches the Softar for a more natural "optical" look IMO. </p>

[russ_butner___portland__or]

<p>Does anyone have any Zeiss Softar sample pics? I've been using the Nikon Soft 1 and Tiffen Black Softnets.</p>

<p>Russ</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Remember this thread, Russ? You're in it.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00JGL6">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00JGL6</a></p>

[russ_butner___portland__or]

<p>Nadine</p>

<p> Thanks. I forgot about that one.</p>

<p>Russ</p>

[savagesax]

By the way HELIOPAN makes the Zeiss softar filters, so you can get them in pretty much any filter size. I suggest taking a peak on Ebay, before you buy a new one, Retail is about $250 and up, depending on the filter size. I picked up a 77mm on ebay in new condition for $65.

 

Notice how the filter takes the edge off, but doesn't turn the people soft.<div></div>