Looking more deeply ~ Four

Taking my time and looking more deeply at photographs (see part 1, part 2, and parts 3.[1, 2, 3]) I've come to re-realize, re-appreciate the value of study, observation, and experience.

When it comes to study I used to live in a culture where people would often say things like study is for school children.  Only nerds do that.  Besides, it's boring.  Observation is for astronomers and bird watchers.  Experience is what we get from watching Disney movies where we learn important life lessons and are left with a feel good positive uplifting ending after an hour and a half.

Certainly not all of US culture is like that.  Some of the best philosophers, scientists, and thinkers come from there.  Though you'd never know it from what passes as public conversation.  You seldom hear anything accurate or correct about these kinds of people if you hear anything about them at all.

I experience this when I compare the content of media content in the US to, say, something like LCI here in France.  Even if you don't understand French a person can hear the tone of the presentation and know it's not stressed and pressed and out of breath in its delivery.  It's calm, centered, and well-reasoned.  It's not a passionate plea for attention.  It's a sharing of knowledge and information. For me LCI is like returning to the days of Walter Cronkite in the US.

Photography can be like that in the US, too.  Looking at social media feeds what do we see?  Billions and billions of selfies.  It seems like it's feeding a never ending insatiable narcissistic need.  I find the vast majority of images to be badly composed, badly lit, badly processed and completely banal.

Have none of the contributors to the World of Narcissism ever studied (!!!) how to make a good portrait?  Have they never looked at art history to observe the eye level of the viewer in relation to the subject and what it "means"?  Do people not understand the human psyche and how we interpret these kinds of things?  

If you want to make a person look good, intelligent, beautiful or strong, you place the point of view lower than the subjects eye level.  Sure, this is classic art, but it's classic for a reason. If your point of view is higher than the subjects eye level the subject will feel subservient, weak, vicitimized, and incapable.  Standing over someone implies very different things than looking up to someone.  Our reactions are built into us.

To understand this and to apply a decent solution might require education, study, observation, and experience.  Perhaps this is why so much of what passes for photography these days feels to me to be so damned insipid and banal.  People refuse to help themselves to freely, widely available knowledge.

It was something of a surprise, then, when I stumbled across a video about a NY-based street photographer.  His name is Reuben Radding.  Listening to him helped me realize there are some rather deep thinkers on the subject of photography in the US.  The first 10 minutes or so of the above linked video was like the heavens had parted and a seriously strong light had cast through.  It's inspiring to me to see what this guy does and how he's reacted to various cultural and societal challenges of photographic interpretation and experience.

There are similar voices of knowledge and understanding in all aspects of image making.  There are people like Reuben Radding in the fields of portraiture, still life, landscape, nude, and sports photography.  Depending on ones temperament and thirst for understanding, these photographers can be well worth seeking out and listening to.

I've found it helps me understand what I do photographically and why.

Looking more deeply ~ Three.Three

The history of the reclining nude in art is long and often honored.  Or, depending on the time and place, dishonored and denigrated as pornography.

 

 

In previous posts I followed a little of history and shared details surrounding one famous work.  

With this post I would like to look at the reclining nude as a subject in photography in four distinctly different styles.  I'll begin with the Pictorlialists.

In the early days of the 20th century USA censorship boards managed what the public could see and read.  This had an important impact on how the reclining nude was treated in photography.  It came down to this - if an image of a nude was clear and sharp, it would be censored.  If an image looked like "art", if it was shot with a soft focus lens, then the chances were that such a photograph would remain uncensored.

Clarence White and his friends and colleagues photographed reclining nudes.  The images made using a soft focus lens were shown publicly.  Sharp images were privately held until surprisingly recently.

Those photographers who made sharp images often disfigured or scratched away the face.  A prime example being the surviving works of E.J.Bellocq.  Many of his negatives have removed the models faces.  They are clearly scratched.  His images were censored.

So it's unsurprising to me that even now, images of the reclining nude are difficult for critics and viewers in the US.

Sally Mann's "Venus after school" is particularly problematic for the gatekeepers of morals in the public space.  In her autobiography "Hold Still" Mme Mann writes of her relief to learn the FBI wasn't going to treat her the way they had Jock Sturgess and raid her home to remove any and all "offending" materials.

For a couple decades there was a photographer who had quite an impact on nude photography around the world.  He was very famous, sold lots of books, made a few movies, and photographed ad campaigns for some of the biggest luxury goods houses on the Continent. David Hamilton is said to have been inspired by the works of Lucas Cranach the Elder, which indicates his approach and style were based in part on well established art forms.

 

Each time I visit the Galleria Borghese in Rome I climb the stairs and head to a room that's far away from just about everything.  It's there that one particular Cranach is found.  Displayed next to it are paintings in a similar style by other artists.  But it's the Cranach that holds my attention.  Every single time.  It's called "Venus and Cupid with a honeycomb."

It's now impossible for me not to see the parallels between the Cranach paintings and M. Hamilton's photographs.  Art informing photography.  And yet, that's not at all what the photographer is presently remembered for.

David Hamilton's choice of subject acted like a lightening rod for bad things to happen.  In 2005 in the UK a man was arrested for having a collection of images that included those made by the famous photographer.   In 2016 the photographer was accused of inappropriate behavior by four of his previous models.  He was shortly after found dead in his apartment in the 15eme Arrondissement in Paris.

The drama continued after M.Hamilton's death.  Olivier Mathieu wrote on his blog, in Defense of David Hamilton (a site that has recently been taken down) that it might have been a case of murder, not suicide.  Conversations about the merits of Hamilton's work as art have stopped, to be supplanted by many public figures taking a strong moralist stance against the dead photographer.

While David Hamilton's works from the 1970's and 1980's played a strong role in the conversation of "is it art or is it pornography", there was seldom any question about which side Playboy centerfolds came down on.

And yet, if we look at these images from the perspective of history, craft, lighting, and composition, I'm not so sure some of these works shouldn't be considered full blooded honest to gawd geez this is beautiful art.   

Ken Marcus, one of many now famous Playboy photographers, spoke about what it took to light, compose a scene, and expose a piece of film.  He talked about the importance of 1/3rd an f-stop and getting everything exactly correct.  Here is just one definitely NSFW image that illustrates how, as a photographer, Ken got everything, every detail, every nuance "correct."

Which brings me to something I hadn't fully considered before.  That is that I find myself living during a time of self-censorship.  I've said it before and I'll say it again; the subject of the reclining nude, while being a well-found, well-respected art form for at least 3 thousand years, it is something I could never bring myself to explore photographically.

I grew up in a time with the censorship boards were being shut down, but their influence remained strong.  I grew up in a time when a photo-lab would call the police if they found nude images on a roll of film you brought in to have developed.   I grew up in a time when American culture was calling into question any and all restrictions, limits, barriers, only to live to see the social pendulum swing in recent decades to the far right with the re-installation of restrictions, re-setting of hard limits, and the rebuilding of social and cultural barriers to artistic expression and appreciation.

Meanwhile, here in Europe things haven't (yet?) gone so hard right.  I have the opportunity to see, appreciate, and research some of the best expressions of any art form the world has ever seen.  One of the things that strikes me most these days is that history and time have a way of leeching away details that might be important at the time a work is created.

I'll give a couple examples of what I mean by that.

When we look at a work by Caravaggio, do we know, and if we do, do we care that he was a pimp and murderer?  Writing this exactly the way I just did exposes the moral, ethical, and cultural conditioning that I find myself subjected to.

Do we know and care that Fransisco Goya heard voices and was mentally ill?  Was his craziness a "good" thing or a "bad" thing?  Or is there "something" about his art that makes us feel as if he were actually and after all a great artist?

Much more recently, do we know or do we care that Salvador Dali supported the Spanish Fascist Franco?  Well, actually, I do.  It's partly due to the fact that Spanish Fascism still lays just below the cultural and political surfaces of Spain.  It's impossible to ignore, actually.  When Catalunya has the power to make kings (figuratively speaking) I have the opportunity to remember the role Franco played in murdering tens of thousands of people in and around Barcelona.  The wounds have not healed.

Similarly, do we know or do we care about how poorly Picasso treated the women in his life?  Or do we stress his "goodness" in remembering the role he played in saving the fabulous Prado art collection from certain destruction by advancing Franco Fascist and German Nazi forces in 1939?  Perhaps these two examples are too recent for time to have leeched away the disturbing sub-text of two large artistic bodies of work?

One last example and then I'll call an end to my ramblings on the topic.  This underscores how the ethics and morals of a time set the tone for how art is viewed, discussed, and appreciated.  Renoir's canonical work is receiving a lot of criticism for his nudes.  I don't understand it.  Why Renoir?  Why now?  Am I too dense to understand?  What's going on here?  And if people have "serious" problems with Renoir, why aren't they taking to task the works of Luis Ricardo Falero?

All this gives me some idea of what might happen to currently controversial photographic works.  I am certain that society and culture will do what society and culture has often done.  It will sift through the social-cultural dramas of the present time and get to the essence of what will by then be (perhaps dramatically) different socially and culturally views.  

I hope that someone, sometime, somewhere will see it good to rise the photographic reclining nude above the demeaning word of "pornography" to more fully appreciate excellence and stunningly beautiful images as an artistic expression that paintings already can be.

Looking more deeply ~ Three.Two

In the previous post I said... to illustrate the vastness of the treasure trove of art that I contend set the foundation for the reclining nude in photography, here is an extremely short list of works.

Mesopotamia 1800bc works depicting the human body

Ancient Greece 750-300BC works depicting the human body

Giorgione 1510 "Dresden Venus", Titian's teacher

Titian 1538 "Venus of Urbino" (aka Reclining Venus)

Bouchet 1743 "Pan et Syrinx"

Canova 1805 "Venus Cictrix"

Manet 1865 "Olympia"

Cabanel 1863 "Birth of Venus"

Modigliani 1917 "Reclining Nude"

There are more than a few interesting historical notes about this art.  I am choosing just one work to talk about, and that is "Olympia" by Eduard Manet.

 

 

Here's an easy one to begin my comments and observations.

I've read that "Olympia" is bold because this was the first painting in the history of reclining nude art where the primary subject is looking directly at the viewer.  

Um.  No.

For "boldness" of gaze, how do we evaluate Titian's earlier work?  Am I blind or is Titians model not looking directly as us, the viewers?

 

 

Another story I've read about Manet's famous painting is that no one would buy it.  The first sale of one of his paintings was celebrated as a good beginning.  Except it wasn't. He sold rather few paintings during his lifetime.

Manet came from a wealthy family and did what he wanted.  He painted.  Economically his art was pretty much a failure.  His mother gave him a enough money he could rent and outfit a large place in Paris.  After she tired of waiting for Manet's career to develop so he could support himself she cut him off and had him move himself and his family in with her.

"Olympia" never sold and the Manet estate gave the painting to the France.  This is why it hangs in the musée d'Orsay and is not squirreled away in some private collection somewhere for no one to see.  There was something not quite right about it.  But yet it's now famous.  Why?

The painting was, in fact, shown at the 1865 Paris Salon.  The curators of the Salon hung it way up high so as to make it very difficult to see.  Though, from the sounds of things, this didn't prevent people from bringing binoculars to have a better look at things (as was common practice at the time for just about any controversial work).

This is where the myth of the poor oppressed "Impressionist" painters comes in.

When needing a special wine for a special occasion people often visit a specialist who purports to be able to help them untangle the mysterious web of tastes, choices, regions, and the broadcasting and impressing others with the subtle refinement tof "your" choice of beverage.  Seldom to people know for themselves which wines go "best" with whichever dish.  It takes time and desire to learn to reach the point of being able to comfortably select the "right" wine for the occasion.

Something similar happens in art.  We are _told_ what is famous.  The tellers are the supposed specialists and "know things" that we often don't.

With this in mind, it was easy for me to get caught up in the "myth" of Impressionists being outcasts from Parisian art circles. For the way the story is commonly told, it is difficult not to feel sorry for them.  

I think this is what the art specialists intend that I feel.  Oh those Bad Boy Academician snooty-patooty École des Beaux Arts Paris Salon curators kept the brilliant as of yet unsupported and definitely under-appreciated "Impressionnistes" from receiving their just accolades.  Or some such rot.  Many modern critiques tend to crow that the "Impressionnistes" won in the end.  

Yet... after looking not particularly deeply at the topic, I see where there was much more at play than what this rather simple-minded history retelling might suggest.

To begin with "Olympia" is that it's actually a very flat painting.  The skin treatment isn't anything near what I'd expected to see.  When I first looked at it in person I couldn't come to grips with its fame.  Why was this work promoted so strongly?  The skin tones and rendition are not all that appealing to me.

Could it be that by the standards of the day that the works of Manet, Renoir, Monet, and many others were simply not good?  Or do we not understand the influences that Manet and others were under?

Art critics tend to wax poetic when attempting to explain that Manet was influenced by Diego Velázquez or perhaps  Jusepe de Ribera.  Well, I've seen a fair amount of work by these two famous painters and Manet's "Olympia" might look something like what is described, but I remain unconvinced.

Perhaps more direct to the point was the influence of Japanese wood cut art.  Manet had studied then newly available wood cuts and adopted the style for his "Olympia."  If you have a close look, there is a subtle but obvious black outline around the primary subject.  This comes from his studies of Japanese woodcuts.  Further, the flatness of the subject's skin mirrors wood cut tone flatness, too.  

When viewed as a French adaptation of a Japanese wood cut, "Olympia" begins to reveal herself in unexpected ways.  I can see where subsequent artists, too, adopted the Japanese woodcut approach.  The list of these artists is long, that's just how strongly the Japanese art form impacted 19th century European art.  And yet, even knowing this, the Manet work falls far short of my expectations.

Am I such an art snob that no one can meet my expectations?  Am I such a dolt as to not appreciate what the specialists have worked so hard to teach me?

Up to the following point I felt that Renoir's skin tone renderings were the best of the best.  Manet's "Olympia" wasn't all that bad.  Japanese wood cut art was a "good thing."  

My appreciation and understanding of art changed in an instant when we visited a large, beautiful exhibition of Vigee le Brun's art at the Grand Palais some years back.  

Seeing le Brun's work showed how wrong I was, and seeing her art set me on a more informed and hopefully more enlightened path.  Suddenly the "Impressionnistes" failed to impress.

"Olympia" is currently hung on a wall all by herself at the Orsay.  She's the star of the show in the room.  She used to be upstairs near the east clock, but she's since been moved downstairs to the first level just off the main path that passes between sculptures.  The works around her are muted and she really stands out against everything else in the area.  People flock to see her and often stand for many minutes considering her.

I find it a curious fact that on the other side of the sculpture main aisle are a series of cramped, nearly private chapel-like rooms.  The entry to one is labeled "l'Academy."  Therein are found a small collection of paintings by William-Adolphe Bourguereau and Alexandre Cabanel.  Several paintings are hung side by side.  They are poorly lit.  There is little space to stand back and take in what is presented.  The whole experience, for me, is rather like trying to see something in a storage-room, it's that cramped.  This clearly is not art meant to be stars in the show.

Very interestingly, M.Bourguereau was a primary "gate-keeper" curator of the Paris Salon and in the current telling of "Impressionniste" history.  He was the one who, history tells us, tormented them the most.  Perhaps this is why his works are given so little space and encourage so little attention.

I try to visit the little room whenever we go to the Orsay (which is surprisingly often).  I try to find the time and space to take in the works on display.  I think they are absolutely glorious.  The two that grab my attention more than the others are the two "Venus" paintings.  One by Cabanel and the other by Bougurereau.

The little jpgs just linked fail to express the beauty and subtly of the skin renditions.  The poses and compositions are classic.  There is a balance in these paintings that is almost boring.  Seen in person, they are not boring at all.

Considering Bougurereau's other works showed me why he didn't understand the "Impressionistes."  How could he?  His own work is beyond reproach.  Any yet, history has forgotten him and many others for the work they did.  History has cast Bougurereau in an unkind light.

Photography is no different.  Certain people are lionized while others are forgotten.  I'll finally have a closer look at this in the next blog post.

Looking more deeply ~ Three.One

In two recent blog posts I've commented at length on my reactions to two photographs made by Jacques-Henri Lartigue.  I did this as an exercise in deepening my looking at and appreciation of photographs.  I've been catching myself skimming through images on the internet and not really taking any time to look at them.

Living where I do I get to see a lot of art.  Paris (!), Nice, Lyon, Lisbon, Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Florence (!!), and perhaps the greatest of them all, Rome (!!!).  After awhile I feel I can begin to make sense of art, history, and my field of particular interest, photography.

One artistic theme in particular is seen everywhere.  It's the nude, or more specifically the reclining nude.  Often a subject of controversy in the US I was at first taken a little aback by the ubiquity of this artistic expression.  

 

 

While painting are more or less accepted, photographs of the reclining nude have generated more than a fair amount of controversy in America.  I'm thinking of Sally Mann's 1992 "Venus after school", Jock Sturges and his many images taken in France, David Hamilton and his work from the south of France, to the three or four decades worth of centerfold photography in Playboy magazine.

I remember in my lifetime when photo-processing folks could and would turn a photographer into the police if they found images of nudes on the film brought to a lab to be processed.  It is a potential subject I still steer clear of in my own work due to that early imprinting of fear, police, and moral judgment.

If feels to me that instead of thinking of works as art, the thought of a reclining nude in painting, sculpture, or photography is considered at best boarder line pornography.  Yet, if the Catholic Church herself in Europe can condone such imagery, what's wrong with the US that the nude has been for so long a taboo subject of artistic expression?  

 

 

To see the point I'm trying to make, walk into any church or museum in Rome where Gian Lorenzo Bernini's works are on display, particularly the three works found in the Galleria Borghese, and tell me what you think of the intersection of art, culture, and religion.

It made me smile to learn that recently the mayor of Florence had invited a former school principal to see David.  The principal had gotten into trouble with parents over the teaching of art history.  The subject was David by Michelangelo and from the press it seems the famous statue was unfit for certain human eyes without first passing it by their conservative snowflake parents.

 

 

Such is the contrast between (some) American moral judgments and the artistic values of Europe.

To illustrate the vastness of the European treasure trove of art that I contend set the foundation for the reclining nude in photography, here is a terribly short list of works. 

Mesopotamia 1800bc works depicting the human body

Ancient Greece 750-300BC works depicting the human body

Giorgione 1510 "Dresden Venus", Titian's teacher

Titian 1538 "Venus of Urbino" (aka Reclining Venus)

Bouchet 1743 "Pan et Syrinx"

Canova 1805 "Venus Cictrix"

Manet 1865 "Olympia"

Cabanel 1863 "Birth of Venus"

Modigliani 1917 "Reclining Nude" 

 

With the exception of Girgione's painting, I've seen much of the art on this list.  It's been quite an education.  I feel like my US-side education was seriously lacking.  The histories behind these works can be as fascinating as the art itself.  

In the next post I'll have a look at just one of the works, it's history, context, and current place in culture.  This I hope could be a decent lead-in to considering the reclining nude in photography.  There's a point I'd like to make and it will require me slogging through a bit more background before I get there.

Looking more deeply ~ Two

In a previous post I talked about a famous image that Jacques-Henri Lartigue first took in 1913, and then started promoting in 1954.  

In the same Reporters Sans Frontier journal #66 as the bolide is a photo of Florette's hand.

The history of this photo is much less dramatic than the racecar.  Yet I read something interesting about how people react to the image that I would like to explore just a little in this post.

Considering the photograph itself, the gesture of hands of the "Lady Christian" model are mimicked by Florette.  There are obvious similarities in style, preparation, and beauty of the finger nails.  They are perfect. 

What I find interesting is how two people reacted to M.Lartigue's photograph.

In one case a woman said she hated it because it was a symbol of everything she would never have.  She came from a family of modest means and it was evident to her that the richer classes of people were, to her way of thinking, frivolously pampered.

A younger woman had a different response.  To her the photograph of Florette's hand represented an ideal and hope that she too could afford something as simple and beautiful as pretty finger nails.

In the US we don't often consider economic class status as being a defining element of art or photography response nor evaluation.  In Europe it most definitely can be _the_ defining element.  

In America we might feel that Jacques-Henri Lartigue was a great photographer and that we, too, might, if we work hard enough, emulate his style and success.  In Europe the democratization of various aspects of life and living is many times non-existant.  To some Europeans, M.Lartigue was born into the life he led.

I'll give an example of automobiles.  

I grew up thinking that if I worked hard enough that I might be able to afford an Italian supercar of some kind or other.  In Paris, the only people seen driving the streets in these kinds of toys are rich boys from the middle east who appear to be trying to impress strangers.  On my side it was for the enjoyment and appreciation of the design, engineering, and manufacturing.  On the middle eastern side it is more about being seen in a status symbol.

Not, certainly, that people in America don't try to impress strangers by showing off.  They often do.  I'm simply trying to point out that the barriers to acquisition are different in Europe and mean different things than they do to Americans.

This is what I believe Florette's hands can do for viewers.  It can expose our social, economic, and ideological differences.  Such is the power of a photograph if we look more closely at ourselves while viewing an image.

Looking more deeply ~ One

The other day I caught myself skimming through hundreds of images online. I stopped and felt it was useless.  My eyes were "consuming" images at a hellatious rate, and for what?  What was I actually seeing?  What was I doing?  Why was I doing it?  

I'd caught myself as a mindless, insensitive consumer.

Shortly afterward I was skimming through the Reporters Sans Frontieres journal #66 which contains 100 photos by Jacques-Henri Lartigue.  The images look good but I couldn't tell you what I'd looked.

I'd caught myself as a mindless, insensitive consumer.  Again.

Stuck in my mind was an interesting article written by someone named Sroyon on the site 35mmc.  The article talked about how to look more deeply at an image and to appreciate it for all the things that it is and all the things we bring with us as we try to look more deeply.

Taking a deep breath, I returned to the journal and a famous photograph that was made many years ago by Jacques-Henri Lartigue.  It is a unique image (or so I thought) in the way the subject is distorted one direction, and the background is distorted in another direction.

It was easy to wonder about how M.Lartigue had created the image.  Using the Force, I Duck Duck Go'd (I'm no longer using Google) and found something rather fun.  There is a lengthy discussion on the effect.  The discussion thread details what was done and how the effect was achieved. 

M. Lartique used an early focal-plane shuttered large format camera.  The shutter was slow to travel in front of the film plane giving time for the subject and background distortions to be generated. The photographer himself at first felt the image had "failed" because of the unintended distortions.  He hadn't panned the "bolide" (racecar to us 'mericans) at the proper rate.  It didn't look "right" and the image was set aside.

There was a 40+ year span of time between when the M.Lartigue photo was taken and when it was first widely shared.  The image was made in 1913 of the "bolide" of Rene Croquet but wasn't distributed in the wider world until 1954.  

What changed his M.Lartigue's mind?  It seems that a certain photo made by the American Paris-based photographer, Man Ray, was gaining a lot of attention. So M.Lartigue went back through his old negatives to retrieve his own version of a distorted racecar.

Further, this kind of distorted early racecar image is not the only image in this style.  It turns out that there are many examples of this kind of distortion.  Some show light distortions.  Other photographs show a stronger effect.  Photographers were having a difficult time panning with their subjects.  Their technique wasn't "perfect."

The attention Man Ray's image was receiving must have been significant enough to rise above the other distorted images to have ultimately captured the attention of M.Lartigue.

What makes the Lartigue image so remarkable is that the early part of the 20th century is it comes from a time preceding the industrialization and mass commercialization of cameras and film.  Photography as a craft was in the process of exiting a time when a good photographer was also a very good alchemist.  

Early photographers had to either understand or happen upon solutions to photographic problems  Lenses were still ground by hand.  Cameras were still somewhat unique.  Dry plate film could still struggle with batch to batch variations.  Photography had yet to be democratized across the upper and middle classes.

As icing on this exercise of looking more deeply at something, I never knew that the photographer wasn't actually a photographer.  He made his way through the world for many years primarily as an artist.  His paintings were exhibited and sold in galleries in Europe. 

It was after John Szarkowski at MoMA presented M.Lartigue's works in 1963 and after the enthusiastic Richard Avedon helped put on a show of the Frenchman's images that the world came to see Jacques-Henri as a photographer.

The shift from artist to photographer is by now complete.  Searching the name "Jacques-Henri Lartigue" produces links to only his photography.  I've tried this various ways using search engines and I've yet to come across a link to paintings by the artist.

This was fun and educational.  I got to learn about a photographer who wasn't really a photographer.  I got to learn about early photographic tools and their application.  I got to re-experience looking at a famous image.  I got to appreciate how the bolide's lines, including the brake handle, point one direction and the background sliding in the other.  

What a fascinating image.

I think I'll have to try this out on other works in the near future.

I am reminded...

[I'm boosting this post to the top of the heap - 29 May, 2023]

Photography isn't about lenses and cameras and test results and preparing and then photographing situations and events.  No.  The more important things related to photography are our sometimes shared human experiences.  All that other technical stuff is just understanding, preparing, and to getting ready to make something.

People.  Experiences.  They are what count.  Camera or no.  Am I right?

I learned yesterday that a creative person my wife and I worked with passed away 7 years ago.  We never knew.

 

Like so many creative people we've worked with, Sean360X was a wonderful person.  

I'm not sure how we found each other.  It could've been in response to some of the work I posted on-line.  Or it could've come word of mouth.  I just can't remember.  

The photo-session was fun, interesting, and it quickly and easily unrolled.  Everyone knew their role and everything just *clicked*.

We worked with Sean360X for only a few hours.  Yet, our paths had crossed and we left strong impressions on each others lives.  A friend of his confirms this.

It's difficult to accept the fact there is one less creative person in the world.  Sean360X died so young.

 

Soft Focus Pictorialist Effects ~ part Ten

If I bend the self-imposed rule about being done, finished, over with talking about soft images just a little I can sneak in another little missive about soft focus pictorialist effects, this on that does not involve optics nor filters.

I know I've written about this before, but in light of what I've recently learned about soft focus lenses, soft filters, and image processing, it might be good to make a clear comparison between the various approaches.

What if there was a way to create a "convincing" soft image from a sharp one?  I could avoid having to carry a soft focus lens or a soft filter.  I might have very good image processing flexibility, right?  Color.  Black and white.  Sharp.  Soft.  All from a single RAW digital image.

Back in the film days someone popularized an image softening technique that is known as the "Orton Effect."  Micheal Orton is the photographer.  His film technique is easily adaptable to digital image processing.

Though the previous links talk about the effect as it applies to landscape photography.  I'll take a short look at how it might work in portraiture.

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A7 100ISO, 2sec timer, "A" mode
  
• Lens - 
• Nikon Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• Image Processing - 
• RawTherapee - to generate a low contrast image that is fed into...
  
• The Gimp
• Gaussian Blur - 
• Open image copy in a new layer
• 2 pixel radius
• Hard Light blend mode
• Opacity set by taste by balancing the effect against...

• Gaussian Blur - 
• Open image 2 copies in 2 new layers
• 10 pixel radius
• Soft Light blend mode
• Opacity set by taste
  

• RawTherapee - to add final imaging tones
  

Note: The image processing choices I made here are to my taste and are based on trial and error.  It's easy to add or subtract "softness" by varying the Gaussian Blur settings.  It's a little more difficult to balance the contrast, but I found that varying the Opacity gives me flexibility in this regard.  There is no specific "magic" in the fact I used Hard Light and Soft Light blend modes, except they add contrast (sometimes very quickly) at the same time they soften the scene.  I could just as easily have added a Normal blend mode layer that was Gaussian Blur'd to help manage the contrast.

Image Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

Here is the original sharp image -

 

Here is the Orton Effect processed image -

 

For additional comparison purposes, here are two more images.  The first is soft filtered and the second is using the Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft lens.

 

It should be pretty obvious that each softening technique has it's own "signature" and are each unique in their own way.  I'm not sure there's any one "good" nor "correct" nor "proper" way of doing this.  It's good to have choices and flexibility in image making, isn't it?

I've enjoyed exploring this topic again.  It's something that I've tried to come to grips with over the years and it feels like I'm getting close to being able to fully control an outcome based on a more complete understanding of the underlying materials, science, options, and effects.

I imagine a person could choose an approach and stick with it until they'd mastered their chosen path.

Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft ~ Instruction Manual in English

Chetworth del Gato sent me a link to an instruction manual in English for the Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft.

This was the very thing I recently groused about not being able to find.  Indeed, it contains rather interesting guidance.  Concerning the use of the 85mm Soft -

"... The picture taken with the Rear Converter combined is more uniform, better in quality and has a greater soft focus degree than that taken with the soft-focus lens only.  Combining the Rear Converter varies the focal length and speed..."

The Rear Converters are the Pentax 1.4x and 2x tele-converters.  Four of them are listed in a table found just below the quoted guidance.

I'm not sure what "a greater soft focus degree" means.  After having dug into the topic and trying a 1.4x teleconverter with the Pentax Soft perhaps what they were trying to say is that the degree of softness across the field of view is more evenly distributed than when the lens is used without a teleconverter.  That, at least, is what I found.

Have a look at the following image.  The softness of the scene at f/4.8 is quite nicely distributed.  When used without a teleconverter, the scene shows a strong sharp to soft transition zone.  It's something that I called a "resolution hole" in the series of nine blog entries I posted on the topic of soft focus Pictorialism starting here.

Using the Pentax 85mm f/2.2 with a teleconverter seems to do the trick.  It behaves rather nicely and reminds me a lot of the results that can be achieved using a Wollensak Verito on large format film.

 

Pentax 85mm f2.2 Soft at f4.8
+ Sigma 1.4x Extender ~ USM
RawTherapee Image Processing:
Contrast Curves
+ Toned
+ 100 Micro Contrast
+ Red filter Channel Mix
+ Noise Reduction -1

Soft Focus Pictorialist Effects ~ part Nine

Here is my last blog entry on this topic, I promise.  I know.  I know.  There are so many things to be looked at, but enough is enough.  For now, at least.

It seems strange to me how I vacillate between extremes.  I recently sold most of my Nikon manual focus lenses because I'm reaching that age where AF isn't just a luxury.  My Nikkors were getting to be too difficult to use in fast changing situations.  So I now have three wonderful fixed focal length lenses for the Sony A7, three for my APS-C Sonys, and two zooms for the APS-C for when I'm out photographing motorsports.  I'm keeping several old Nikkors "just in case" I might wake up one day and find I "need" them.

One of the lenses I've had forsale for several years is a Nikon F mount Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft.  Recently I got frustrated at the lack of interest in the optic and decided to try and sort out how to use it once and for all time before I let it go.  Hence the Prime Mover of this entire series of blog entries.

Pictorialist Photo-Sessionist style images are sometimes built on soft focus lenses and their "interesting" properties.  So I thought it might be interesting to take one more look at this Pentax Soft from the perspective of Pictorialism.  Of course the style is just as importantly built on lighting, composition, subject, image processing and printing techniques.  I had the lens and that seemed the most reasonable place to start.

I have said little to nothing about lighting, composition, and printing techniques in this series.  But I was able to explore a little of what might be possible using image modifiers (lenses and filters) and current digital image processing tools.  The three tools I used were to try and reveal underlying sharpness of a soft lens.  The tools are global contrast, local contrast, and micro-contrast.

With softening filters (Cinebloom, Nikkor Soft, nose grease, hairspray, etc.) as well as with Soft Focus lenses I believe an image can benefit from carefully controlling global and local contrast.

In these ways, I believe from a technical, commercially available camera equipment perspective that current practitioners of the craft can rather closely emulate the Pictorialist style. 

What I would like to do with this one final blog entry is to look at completely piercing the "resolution hole" that meniscus lenses are prone to.  To do this I will now try a smaller format Sony A6000 APS-C camera and combine it with the Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft and the Sigma APO 1.4x teleconverter.  This makes it a rather long focal length setup, but this seems on some levels to be in keeping with the use of long Soft Focus lenses in large format film work.

Was you may recall, my Full Frame digital camera still showed a bit of uncontrollable sharp/soft transition zone effects near the edges of the frame.  With luck the narrower APS-C field of view might fit _inside_ the "resolution hole" and render scenes at any distance more easily controllable.

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A6000 APS-C, 100ISO, 2sec timer, "A" mode
  
• Lens - 
• Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft
• Sigma APO 1.4x teleconverter
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee - 
• Global contrast increased by image to taste
  
• Local Contrast increased by image to taste

 

Image Processing Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

I now present two scenes.  Each scene was shot at multiple apertures - f/2.2, f/2.8, f/4, f/4.8, and f/5.6.  We can see how the veiling softness changes with aperture settings.  I tried to keep the image processing results similar to better evaluate the aperture, "resolution hole", scene rendering effects.  For this reason I used slightly different processing (heavier local contrast and different brightness settings) at f/2.2 and f/2.8 than I did with the other images.  The aperture progression should be fairly obvious.

Without further ado, and starting with f/2.2 down to f/5.6 -

Scene One
Light Pears against
a Black Background

 

Scene two
Light Kitchen Utensils backlit
against a Bright Background

What was important for me to verify is that the table front edge in both scenes remain "believable" toward the edges of the frame.  This it does.

After I'd run this series of images I realized I hadn't captured a landscape scene.  So I used the A6000's "magnifier" functions, put the focus point at the edge of the frame, and focused the Pentax/Sigma setup at infinity.  I was able to prove to myself that the edges of the frame remain optically correct and that the "resolution hole" has finally and completely been pierced.

To recap how I see best using a Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft and in believing the following also can apply to just about any meniscus-based soft focus lens of any focal length and any imaging format, here is what I found -

• Control ~ subject matter distances
  
• Close-up ~  
• NOTE: put the subject dead center in the frame and crop accordingly in processing so as to avoid any "resolution hole" transition area effects as the aperture is stopped down
• Portraiture ~  
• NOTE: put the head of the subject dead center in the frame and crop accordingly in processing so as to avoid any "resolution hole" transition area effects as the aperture is stopped down
  
• Control ~ aperture
  
• Maximum under-corrected spherical aberration (veiling softness) is seen at f/2.2
• Decreasing under-corrected spherical aberration in the center of the frame as the aperture is stopped down
• Opening of a "resolution hole" in the center of the frame from f/4 thru f/5.6 - with attendant edge softness and harsh sharp/soft transition zone effects
  
• Control ~ telextender/teleconverter
• Enlarge the center of the field of view...
• ... thus pushing the harsh sharp/soft transition zone to the edges of the frame
  
• Useful for landscape work
  
• Prediction has been proven to my satisfaction that a 2x telextender does indeed completely pierce the "resolution hole".  The behaviour is very similar to a designed for whole plate 11.5inch (292mm) Wollensak Verito f/4 shot on 4x5 inch film that completely avoids the "resolution hole" effect in that large format case.
  
  
• Note: Nothing is being said about city scapes, street photography, large man-made objects, or technical applications were accuracy and clarity tend to be preferred.  I believe that people and nature may be the areas where soft focus lenses succeed most easily. YMWV.

I'm now satisfied that I'm able to control this previously nearly impossible to come to grips with Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft.  I'm happy to learn that controlling contrast can have a "improving" effect on soft focus images.  And I'm happy to have experienced a little more deeply the possibilities that lay in nose-greased/hairsprayed UV filters as image softeners.

My next project?  After a little "time out", I may try and buy a Pentax 85mm f/2.8 AF Soft to see how the extra lens elements modifies that soft focus lens' behavior.  Until then, have fun.  Go out and photograph.  Enjoy life.

Soft Focus Pictorialist Effects ~ part Eight

I'll admit it up front.  I lied.  I decided I needed to have two more blog entries.  Part Eight is not, repeat, not the last in the series.  There.  Truth in Advertising.  And all that.  Now that I've gotten that out of the way, onward.

Years ago I learned that soft focus photography tried to make images look more "artistic."  One of the challenges in the US back in the early days of photography was that "straight", "sharp" figure photography was unlawful.  In fact, in my lifetime a person could go to jail for making and having such works in their collection.

To get around this, late-1800's/early-1900's American photographers used soft focus lenses.  They were able to successfully claim that these kinds of images were "art."  I learned this interesting historical tidbit from reading "Clarence White and his world."

Sometime in the mid to late-1960's an English photographer built an enormous body of work and quite a career that was partly based on soft imaging effects.  In the case of David Hamilton he used light dustings of hairspray on otherwise clear lens filters (think UV filters). Certainly he didn't use these DIY filters on every image he ever made, but when he used them, something rather special was possible.  The approach predates by several decades the current Cinebloom/Tiffen Pro-Mist filter approach.

The soft filter images are different than those made using deliberately designed soft focus lenses.  In general, "soft" filters in front of a fully corrected optic can give a "glow" effect, while retaining the basic optical corrections of the lens.  Have a look at the lit signage in this Wes Anderson video short to see how this might be seen.  These kinds of "glowy" filters appear to be popular with film photographers these days as well.

I happen to have an old Nikon Nikkor Soft filter set. The Nikkor Soft filters come in #1 and #2 strength.  I find the #2 filter to be a bit to over the top strong for my tastes.  So I tend to stick with the still somewhat strong #1.

If you'll recall, I posted something on image processing and using global, local, and sometimes micro-contrast controls to try a reveal any sense of underlying sharpness.  That post talked only about pulling sharpness out of a Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft.  

For this blog entry I would like to try the same image processing approach on a Nikon Nikkor Soft #1 filter.  I put the filter in front of an early Nikon Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 pre-Ai that was shot wide open.  I thought it might be interesting to see what happened when I coupled the Nikkor Soft #1 with a narrow depth of field and to use the power of digital image processing.

Just for grins, I also made a nose-greased image.  I applied a little nose grease to a UV filter to see how that might compare to the Nikkor Soft #1.

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A7, 100ISO, 2sec timer, "A" mode
  
• Lens - 
• Nikon Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.4
• Nikon Nikkor Soft #1 filter
• UV filter + nose grease (lightly applied)
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee - 
• Global Contrast increased to taste
  
• Local Contrast increased to taste
• Micro Contrast set to maximum when used
  

 

Comparison

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

Base Image
No filter

From wide open I can see that the old Nikon Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 is a fine optic.  Image rendition is consistent across the field.  There are no obvious optical defects.

 

Base Image +
Nose Greased UV filter

It is clear that nose grease works to soften the contrast and make the highlights "glow."  The process of smearing nose grease on a UV filter is easily controllable.  This can be used to control the "strength" of the effect.

For image processing I increased the global contrast, and I set the local contrast sliders to something that I felt balanced the tones without making the processed image look too "artificial."

Base Image +
Nikon Nikkor Soft #1 filter

It's interesting to compare the Nikkor Soft filtered image to the UV nose-greased photo.  I modified the global and local contrast to make what I felt looked like a decent image.  I'm sure I could increase the local contrast, particularly around the eyes, to make the image *pop* a bit more.  As a starting point to compare softening filters and unfiltered images, I think this is sufficient.

It's interesting to see how managing contrast effects softened images.  This is the control David Hamilton used, though he might not have fully appreciated it at the time.  It's been written that M.Hamilton had his slide film push processed.  This increased grain (which also enhances an "artistic" effect) and increased contrast (which I've tried to emulate here).

Nikon Nikkor-S filtered images lack the optical deformities of a true soft focus lens.  Of course the softening effect is controlled differently.  I can imagine that a photographer might choose one approach over another, filtered over optical soft focus, depending on subject, lighting, and composition.  

I have to admit, though, that in this series of blog entries I might be over-thinking the whole thing a little too much.  Most of us react emotionally to a scene, don't we?  Maybe it's a Gud Thing(tm) that I'm considering this from a rational perspective outside live photography situations.  Can I apply rational experience in an emotional setting?  Hmmm... now there's yet another dimension to all this softness to consider...

Soft Focus Pictorial Effects - part Seven

After confirming that Pentax's 85mm f/2.2 Soft instruction manual provided good guidance on how to use this lens, I thought I'd like to see how the lens plus the 1.4x teleconverter worked at portraiture distances.

The reason for this is that as the Pentax is stopped down to f/4 and beyond, a "resolution hole" starts to open and the edges of the frame a strangely rendered.  At portraiture distances the effect is fairly well hidden (which I will illustrate below), but if I stare at a photo long enough I find I might not be entirely happy with the result.

Hence this blog entry.

Before I get to the comparisons I'd like to say that this has been a very interesting exercise.  I have learned a tremendous amount by listening, reading, looking, and considering the many details.  This is such a complex area of photographic practice that I can see why some people might feel these lenses are simply too difficult to use.

Heretical Thought: The parameters for sorting out how best to use this Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft likely (or most certainly) apply to other meniscus design soft focus lenses, regardless of focal length or film emulsion dimensions or digital sensor size.

In typing the previous paragraph I realize I'm going against the grain of conventional wisdom.  I would really enjoy having a conversation about this to see if I can improve my understanding, particularly with people who might have a deeper understanding of optical physics and lens design than I.

To once again express my current understanding of the areas this Pentax Soft operates in and the effects lens controls have -

• Control ~ subject matter distances
  
• Close-up ~  
• NOTE: put the subject dead center in the frame and crop accordingly in processing so as to avoid any "resolution hole" transition area effects as the aperture is stopped down
• Portraiture ~  
• NOTE: put head of the subject dead center in the frame and crop accordingly in processing so as to avoid any "resolution hole" transition area effects as the aperture is stopped down
  
• Control ~ aperture
  
• Maximum under-corrected spherical aberration (veiling softness) is seen at f/2.2
• Decreasing under-corrected spherical aberration in the center of the frame as the aperture is stopped down
• Opening of a "resolution hole" in the center of the frame from f/4 thru f/5.6 - with attendant edge softness and harsh sharp/soft transition zone effects
  
• Control ~ telextender/teleconverter
• Enlarge the center of the field of view...
• ... thus pushing the harsh sharp/soft transition zone to the edges of the frame
  
• Potentially useful for landscape work
  
• Prediction that a 2x telextender might completely pierce the "resolution hole", much like a designed for whole plate 11.5inch (292mm) Wollensak Verito f/4 would completely avoid the "resolution hole" effect when shooting the lens on 4x5inch film
  
• Note: Nothing is being said about city scapes, street photography, large man-made objects, or technical applications were accuracy and clarity tend to be preferred.  I believe that people and nature may be the areas where soft focus lenses succeed most easily. YMMWV.
  

Another Heretical Thought: If I pay attention to completely controlling the lens, if I pay attention to the colors of the scene to emulate early light sensitive emulsions, and if I pay attention to expressing the dynamic range to emulate early film and print characteristics, I'm now of the opinion that the earlier Pictorialist effects are achievable using current day digital equipment.

That's a lot to bite off, I know.  Please challenge me if you don't think I'm right.  Again, I would invite the conversation.  I love talking about this stuff, particularly over a proper pint of Belgium beer.

Continuing to abusing myself as a subject and so as to not scare the women and horses, viewer discretion is advised.

It's darned difficult to find or hire decent help these days.  The modeling industry has changed significantly since moving to Europe eleven years ago.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that cell-phones, CGI, and now AI have taken their toll on the old practice of model photography.

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A7, 100ISO, 2sec timer, "A" mode, +1EV
  
• Lens - 
• Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft at f/4, f/4.8 (see comments under each photo)
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee - 
• Global contrast increased by image to taste
  
• Local Contrast increased by image to taste
• In one image B&W Channel Mixer red filter

 

Image Processing Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft at f/4
B&W Channel Mixed Blue-Green Filter
Local Contrast enhanced

Using a prior image as an example of what happens in portraiture when the lens is stopped down to f/4 and below, have a close look at the image starting just under my arm and down to the very edges of the scene.  The belt area shows quite well the effect I'm thinking about here.

 

The soft effect of the lens is not consistant across the frame.  What I see is the image becoming much softer than the center of the frame.  The soft effect might not be "bad" and the subject might be rendered exactly as one would prefer.

 

Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft at f/4.8
+ Sigma 1.4x APO telextender/teleconverter
B&W Channel Mixed Red Filter
Local Contrast enhanced

Considering the effect of using the Pentax Soft with a telextender/teleconverter at portraiture distances, I see that the level of softness is quite even across the field.  When rendered in this manner, I feel digital sensor images look remarkably similar to early soft focus lens images when longer lenses are used.  This is where my prior comment about using an 11.5inch Verito whole plate lens on 4x5inch format is a good example.  In both cases the focal lengths are long enough to pierce the "resolution hole" in the center of the frame, thus giving a photographer greater control over the harsh sharp/soft transition zones that can form around the edges of the frame.

 

Considering image processing, I used a red filter found in the B&W Channel Mixer.  It's my "beauty filter."  The skin tones are raised and skin imperfections disappear in a seemingly magical way.  

 

Of course I have to keep in mind that old film never could see red in this way, so there's no way that this could be considered a good match to Pictorialist images.  If there is any merit in using the red filter, the image would have to stand on its own for other reasons.

Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft at f/4.8
+ Sigma 1.4x APO telextender/teleconverter
B&W Channel Mixed Blue-Green Filter
Local Contrast enhanced

Reprocessing the prior image, this time using the Blue-Green Channel Mixer filter, reveals an image that more closely matches the Pictorialist era works.  Local Contrast is increased as well.  This has the effect of making the "sharp" areas of the scene appear sharper, which can be an interesting technique to help dig out the hidden behind veiling softness resolution.

 

Lastly, as with the prior image, the f/4.8 veiling softness is even across the field.  The telextender/teleconverter has indeed enlarged the subject to the point that the "resolution hole" sharp/soft transition zones are moved to or beyond the edges of the frame.

 

I realize this has been a lot of words to say something that might easily have been said in a couple of sentences.  What I've been trying to do is throughway understand what exact nature of this lens.  I feel I've confirmed what Pentax said (in Japanese, at least) that mating the Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft with a telextender is useful for more than just landscapes.  It seems to me that this setup can work quite well in making portraits as well.

 

Soft Focus Pictorialist Effects - part Six

In an earlier post I shared that two people have helped me immensely to increase my understanding of how soft focus lenses are best used.

For years the eminent Chetworth delGato has guided my thoughts.  His thesis is the only one I've encountered that takes a serious academic look at Pictorialist era photography and the soft focus lenses that were often used.  I am forever indebted to him for his wise insight and deep knowledge on the topic.

In a conversation about an image I'd made using a Mamiya 150mm f/4 SF, Bonzo Din provided a brief translation of a Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft instruction manual from the original Japanese.  From this I learned several things -

• The Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft was designed for -
• Closeup photography
• Portrait photography
  
• The lens is not recommended for landscape photography
•  Except when used with a telextender/teleconverter
  

That last bit caught my attention.  Pentax knew that this lens had certain limitations and they tried to guide users to get the best possible results.  The only problem is, I've yet to see an instruction manual of any kind for this f/2.2 Soft.  As I've found out, the 85mm lens is really difficult to come to grips with and perhaps it is simply too complex a lens that many photographers have ended up shying away from it.  

I'm only guessing here, but if others have experienced what I have, I'm sure we'd all be tempted to convert this optic into a paper weight or something more useful.

One of the many problems I've encountered include figuring if it is possible to make a nice landscape image using this Pentax.  The problem is I see that as the lens is stopped down what I've been calling a "resolution hole" opens up in the center of the frame.  The center becomes sharper than the edges of the frame, where the effect is like looking through the bottom of a bottle.  Edges swirl and go soft, where the transition from sharp to soft is dramatic and obvious.

I've been thinking that this "resolution hole" effect was limited to this specific difficult to understand lens.  Then, just the other day when I was looking for Wollensak Verito inspiration I came across something interesting.  See that?  Right there.  That's what I found with the small Pentax, too.  A very similar phenomenon.  Here's another Verito example.  The effect appears to exist in others of the earliest soft focus lenses as well.  A quick Flickr search confirms this.

Armed with new insight I'm now thinking that meniscus lenses (new and old) have a region where sharpness over rides softness as the lens is stopped down.  This region, or "resolution hole", is a simple fact of optical physics life.

Interestingly, photographers who shoot meniscus optics wide open to get the maximum softness effect might never ever see a "resolution hole" in their work.  It certainly doesn't appear in the smaller lens until around f/4.

That's the other thing that makes these lenses complex to use, variable rendition based on aperture.  And this is why I'm sure that when people find something that "works", they stick with it.  Don't mess with success.  If it's working for you, don't "fix it" by changing things up.

One more thing comes to me.  In early large format Pictorialist photography, lenses could be matched to film size.  Longer focal length lenses relative to film size could be shot all the time in the middle of the "resolution hole."  With a longer focal lengths comes bigger the fields of coverage in terms of absolute dimension.  In this situation a practioner could shoot smack-dab in the middle of the field of coverage and avoid the sharp/soft transition zone entirely, regardless of aperture.

With this in mind I could begin to see that by using a telextender on the small format Pentax 85mm Soft that the telextender would enlarge the center of the field of view.  It might enlarge the image to just the center of the "resolution hole."  

Conversely, I could also use a smaller format camera, such as an APS-C Sony instead of a Sony full frame device.  That might crop the field of view to include just the "resolution hole."  Though I have to say that I've fallen under the spell of the Sony full frame A7 (early/original) for the way it renders down at the pixel level.  It feels rather "film like" to me.

So, I picked up as good a telextender/teleconverter as I could afford to see how it might change the Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft's landscape rendition.  A Sigma APO 1.4x off That Auction Site happened to meet the price/quality trade-off I was looking for.

This post has a very brief look at how a telextender mated to the Pentax Soft on full frame deals with the meniscus lens' "resolution hole."

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A7, 100ISO, handheld, "A" mode, +1EV
  
• Lens - 
• Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft at f/4, f/4.5, and f/5.6
  

• RawTherapee - 
• EV increased to increase the highlight tones
• Global contrast increased by image to taste
  
• Local Contrast increased by image to taste
  

Image Processing Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

Full Frame Uncropped
Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft at f/5.6
+ Sigma 1.4x telextender
Global and Local Contrast enhanced

Looking around the corners of the frame I see the transition zone that forms the edges of what I've been calling the "resolution hole."  Does it remind you of anything?  Like, say, a Wollensak Verito stopped down?  Hmmm...

 

Even though the transition zone has been moved toward the edges of the frame, I still don't like it.  Though I do like how the center of the frame renders.

 

Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft at f/4
+ Sigma 1.4x telextender
Global and Local Contrast enhanced

Starting at f/4, I cropped to the center of the telextended Pentax and, well, for me it does the trick.  The "resolution hole" transition effect has been cropped away and I'm left with a more or less usable image.  The telextender does what Pentax' instruction manual hinted that it would do.  The Soft becomes usable for landscape work.

 

Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft at f/4.8
+ Sigma 1.4x telextender
Global and Local Contrast enhanced

I have to say that having explored the limits of what this lens is capable of, I rather like this exact aperture for just about every subject I photograph at closeup, portrait, and now telextended landscape distances.  F/4.8 is a "sweet spot" for me.  It tickles my funny bone like no other aperture on this optic does.

Though, me being me, maybe next week I'll find another "magic" aperture that I prefer.  Anyways, the point being, shooting/practicing/processing/thinking-about/retrying seems to be the best way to come to grips with soft focus lenses.

 

Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft at f/5.6
+ Sigma 1.4x telextender
Global and Local Contrast enhanced

Yes, I just said that my favorite aperture on this lens is f/4.8.  Um, but have a good look at this f/5.6 image.  It's not half bad, either, right?  

 

Gack.  So many possibilities.  So many complexities.  So many subtleties. So little time.