Soft Focus Photography ~ Lenses as Tools of Art

Understanding soft focus lenses in photography has not been easy for me.  Things didn't start well, either, what with being under the influence of Group f/64's proclamations of "pure" photography and the cult-like obsession with "sharpness".  There seemed to be only subjective means of considering soft focus lens qualities.  It seemed to come down to simply asking "does this look good?"

 

Sony A7
Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/2.8
Nikon Nikkor Soft 1 

The soft effect is strong compared
with early Expressionist/Pictorialist
work, but it gave impetus to looking
deeper into soft focus work
in miniature formats 

Things started to change after many failed attempts at coming to grips with soft focus optics in film large format work.  I've owned more than a few specialty soft lenses over the years and really only met with success once, and that was with a Mamiya RB 150mm f/4 SF. I'd completely failed to come to grips with PortLand, Wollensak, Fuji SF, Rodenstock Imagon optics.

During decades of stumbling around in the darkness of ignorance and confusion, several influences were quietly at work.

Pictorialist images can be wonderful to look at.  The Taschen book of the whole series of Stieglitz's  "Camera Work" is on the bookshelf next to a large show catalogue of Clarence White's work and a smaller show catalogue of Celine Leguarde's magnificent images.  From time to time I take them down, look, and wonder "how did they do that?"

One of the Last Great Masters of Pictorialist photography taught me more than a few things.  One, Expressionist/Pictorialist photography did not die when the "official" histories tell us it did.  He'd been the editor of the "New Pictorialist" magazine well into the 1970's, decades after the "official" records had declared the movement dead, buried and gone.  Further, the Last Great Master would suggest from time to time that "there is another way.  It might appeal to you.  It's uniquely French."

Only recently did it occur to me that I'd been looking at this all the wrong way and my understanding could quickly improve if only I knew how to better write my questions: What were Pictorialists really after?  Why and how did they do what they did?

The Why ~ 

"... Faire de la Photographie avec art est une chose; faire de l'Art par le moyen de la
Photographie en est, sans doute, une autre... aux définitions diverses de l’oeuvre d’art :
Expression d’un tempérament, — Interprétation de la nature, — Déformation systématique et voulue du réel..."

Translated -

"...  Making a photograph with artistry is one thing. Making art through the medium of photography is, undoubtedly, another... given the various definitions of a work of art: the expression of a temperament—the interpretation of nature—the systematic and deliberate distortion of reality..." [emphasis mine]

From   Biblioteque de la Revue de Photographie by L. de Pullignyt - C. Puyo "Objectifs d'Artiste Practique et Theorie des Objectifs et Teleobjectifs Anachromatique" -

To make a photograph with artistry is described as the classic approach. The art is applied up front in the process with subject, light, and composition.  The materials then follow the processes required to make a print with minimal to no further intervention.  The chemical and materials magic unfolds and a print approximating reality is the finished product.

To make art with photography is described as the Expressionist/Pictorialist approach. The art is applied in the process of creating a print.  There can be quite a bit of intervention after a negative is processed.  Paper internegatives, drawing scenes/details, dodging/burning using pencil, Pt/Pd applied to both sides of print paper, gum over Pt/Pd (gum bichromate), carbon tissues of varying tints, and oil stipple (bromoil) were the common intervention methods used to make a photograph into art.

With making art with photography placing emphasis on print manipulation, it's reasonable to wonder what the role of lenses was.  Why use a soft focus lens instead of a sharp one (as in classic photography)?

Expressionists/Pictorialists, it turns out, were looking for a good starting point for their manipulations.  They used art as their guide and example, primarily looking at a line drawn by a pencil to paper.  The edges of the line are soft and rounded, not typically abrupt and sharp.

Making art with photography looked to begin in the same way.  Lenses of varying line softness qualities were deployed in the same way an artist uses pencils of differing line weights (#2... #9), line opacity (hard... bold), and edge transition (the width of the line softness).

In short: Expressionists/Pictorialists looked for lenses with artists pencil-like drawing qualities. 

The How ~

The French text provides a method and means of calculating and measuring the width of edge transition (softness).  Without translating the text (the reader can certainly refer to the text for a fuller comprehension - something I would strongly encourage) here are a few key points in design and optical choices.

The available glass types were crown and flint, and heavy crown was chosen for its refractive index.

For the French, chromatic aberration (CA) was chosen as the softening agent over spherical aberration (SA).  CA in heavy crown was well understood with blur radii that could be accurately calculated.

Blur radii varied based on lens design, focal length and aperture.  The longer the focal length the larger the blur radius.  The smaller the aperture, the smaller the blur radius.  

Meniscus (single element), Semi-achromat (Crown/Flint doublet - requiring a different blur radius calculation), and Rectilinear (two element Crown facing each other on opposite sides of an aperture) were the lens designs of choice. 

The center of the field of view was described as preferable as it avoided aberrations at the edges of the field. Expressionists/Pictorialists could balance lens "drawing" in these three dimensions.

Coming back to my earlier angst, what's appealing to me about this text is the way blur radius can be calculated and managed.  There are, in fact, and after all, ways of defining optical "softness."

Readers following my wayward adventures of trying to duplicate the "look" and "feel" of early large format soft focus lenses in miniature formats (35mm Full Frame digital, to be specific) will not be surprised when I write - Alerted to this ancient knowledge and armed with a  touch of math I will now set off to see how any of this might be adaptable to non-chemical light weight good on aging bodies handy potentially cheap small format digital photography.  

This is what I will pursue in subsequent posts. 

 

----------- Resources ------------

An illustrated guide to early soft focus lenses

Are you a softie?

Biblioteque de la Revue de Photographie -  L. de Pullignyt - C. Puyo "Objectifs d'Artiste Practique et Theorie des Objectifs et Teleobjectifs Anachromatique" - Biblioteque national de France (BnF) (in French)

Frederick H. Evans was actually a soft focus photographer 

History of Dallmeyer optics (on the Dallmeyer 3b in use)

Neo-Pictorialism by Guy Tal 

Objectifs de flou artistique (in French) 

When did Photography of Soft? 

 

Links to more soft focus lens resources...

 

I've been adding links since first posting this. A bit more Philosophy and more on Dallmeyer. In no particular order...

Dallmeyer -

An interesting overview -  https://deltalenses.com/the-dallmeyer-story/

Dallmeyer site entry point - http://thedallmeyerarchive.com/index2.html

 Portrait 2B settings - http://thedallmeyerarchive.com/Records/lensident/portrait.html

 Serial numbers starting from 1863 - http://www.thedallmeyerarchive.com/Records/Identification.html

3B -  https://negativnacestach.cz/en/dallmeyer-3b/

https://antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses.html 

http://thedallmeyerarchive.com/Records/biog.html 

https://timlaytonfineart.com/dallmeyer-bergheim/ 

An image made using a 3b - https://blog.markus-hofstaetter.at/2025/11/the-white-rabbit-make-your-choice/

 

Philosophy -

Pulligny/Puyo - Les Objectifs d'Artistes - Photo Club de Paris 1906 - Dr Russell Young turned me on to this text and it's really outstanding.  Well worth a reading for comprehension.  https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1091147q.texteImage 

https://galerie-photo.com/soft-focus-objectif-portrait-flou.html in French

https://grisebouille.net/lhdg35-pourquoi-je-fais-de-lart-libre/ in French 

https://negativnacestach.cz/en/when-did-photography-go-soft/

This and that -

Hermagis Eidoscope interview - https://negativnacestach.cz/en/eidoscope/

Hermagis Eidoscope -  https://apenasimagens.com/en/eidoscope-hermagis-som-berthiot/

Hermagis landscape-  https://apenasimagens.com/en/landscape-lens-hermagis/

Nice history of soft focus lenses -  https://antiquecameras.net/cameralensinformation/softfocuslenses.html

Did you know he did excellent soft focus work? - https://spenceralley.blogspot.com/2019/11/soft-focus-photography-by-frederick-h.html

 https://timlaytonfineart.com/ps-vs-verito/

https://timlaytonfineart.com/2025/06/30/why-i-kept-these-soft-focus-lenses/

 https://1library.net/article/development-soft-focus-lens-focus-anglo-american-pictorialism.qvl3n5dy

https://timlaytonfineart.com/hermagis/ 

https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0051/ 

This isn't pretty, but I'm on a mobile device until further notice. However , these should do the needful.  

Flickr - how to downrev mobile app to something useful

Just this week Flickr updated their Android mobile app.  It's what I use when on the road. The latest version, v5, however, is half baked and lack functions I rely on.  The new version does not (yet?) ...

• Allow image selections that then upload through Flickrs app
• Name multiple images on import
• Add images to groups from the uploader
• Tag multiple images on import 

The v5 app is very clumsy and forces a user to deal with one image at a time for naming, tagging, and group submissions.

Frustration breeds solutions, but only after I calm down.  Here's one way to downrev the Flickr mobile Android app to the last known good state.

• Uninstall Flickr
• Download the last known good version - I use APKmirror
• Go to Play Store and install APKmirror Installer
• Run APKmirror Installer 
• Select the older Flickr version 
• Follow the directions
• Go to PlayStore - settings - manage and disable Flickr auto-update

I've left out certain details as I'm typing this on a mobile device. But this is a decent outline of how to get around Flickrs latest mobile app version deficiencies. 

 If further clarification is useful,  let me know and I will update this when I get in Big Computer range. 

 

Lenses ~ soft focus on miniature formats - Cosina Cosinon 55mm f2.8

Taking a Pictorialist photo with a tonal range and color tint I like, I ran a quick comparison between sharp optical rendition and soft focus.

I though it might be interesting to illustrate how first element focusing lenses can behave in the field.  Walking around I came across a modern motorcycle and thought I'd use it as the demonstration. 

Setup ~

• Sony A7
• Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/2.8
• One photo taken at f/8
• Lens focusing ring set to infinity
• Helicoid m42 to Sony E adapter used to focus on the bike 
• One photo taken at f/2.8
• Lens focusing ring set to closest focus
• Helicoid m42 to Sony E adapter used to focus on the bike

I picked up the Cosina for very little money.  The trick is it is a first element focusing lens.  I have several Cooke triplets that offer first element focusing, but no Tessar formula.  Until now.  The Cosina Cosinon m42 mount is a Tessar formula optic and I had to have it.  In the interests, of course, of furthering my research into soft focus lenses on small formats.  Right. 

Processing ~

• Using a reference image
• measure the highlights
• measure the shadows
• measure the mid-tones 
• Transfer measurements to the motorcycle image
• Sample colorize the reference image's tints onto the motorcycle image

Quick.  Easy.  Here's what I see -

 

 

Et voila!  Controllable soft focus work in miniature formats using first element focusing SLR-era lenses. 

Lenses ~ MORE soft focus in miniature format optics

There must be a support group out there somewhere for un-repentant Soft Focus lens junkies.  Perhaps I could use a bit of support?  Or perhaps not.  Either way, the Madness continues unabated.

I've been looking specifically for first element focusing lenses.

Covering old ground, opticians designing and manufacturing "pictorialist" era lenses sometimes made them with configurable gaps between lens elements.  This capability provided softness controls for when softness was desired.  

I often stop and drool a bit when I see a full, original Dallmeyer casket set at local camera swaps or when I see a gorgeous Hermagis Eidoscope sitting on a vendors table.  There's Serious Wonderfulness in those that I wish I had the time and tools to explore.  These days I'm limited to miniature formats with digital sensors - ie: APS-C and Full Frame mirrorless.

Looking at SLR special purpose lenses, I find 35mm SLR specialty Soft Focus optics to be too strong and nearly uncontrollable.  That certainly was the case of a Pentax 85mm f/2.2 where it was so difficult to control that I traded off against something else.

What I've been looking for, instead, are lenses with potentially gentler, more easily controlled levels of softness.  Enter the first element focusers.

Normally, I've thought of lenses moving as a block or "unit" when effectuating a good focus.  Until very recently, every single G. D. 35mm SLR manual focus lens I'd ever used were unit focusers.  Moving the focusing ring moved the lens elements together and there was no convenient way of altering the gap between various element. 

Only recently, as in the past couple years, I've stumbled upon first element focusing lenses.  I found one, talked a bit about it with friends, who then turned me on to another, and another, and as I continued my research, yes, I found yet another. 

Here's my current list of Miniature Format not made purposely as Soft Focus optics that actually could work well as in-camera Soft Focus photo-makers. 

• Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/2.8 - m42 Tessar formula
• ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8 - m42 Cooke Triplet
• Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2 - Pentax K 4 element 4 group _not_ Dylite/APO Artar/203mm Ektar
• Steinheil Auto-Cassaron 50mm f/2.8 - m42 Cooke Triplet

To turn these into controllable soft focus lenses, here's the setup -

• Note the ffd (flange focalplane distance) of the lens, destination camera, and calculate the gap to be filled by a...
• Helicoid close focusing adapter this the shortest length measuring at or smaller than the gap calculated above

For instance, Sony E ffd is 18mm.  M42 ffd is 45.5mm.  The gap is 27.5mm.  There's 17mm to 30mm close focus helicoid on the market that works well enough.  If 17mm on the short length of the helicoid is intellectually un-inspiring, add a short m42 extension tube and you'll get closer to the correct combined 45.5mm ffd.  No worries, though, as I've used m42 lenses on the helicoid I have without an extension tube and have been able to focus at infinity as well as get a little closer focus as a bonus.

Here's how to use the setup -

• For sharp work - first case
• Set the m42 focus ring on infinity
• Use the helicoid to focus the subject
• For soft work - second case
• Set the lens' focus ring at its closest setting
• Use the helicoid to focus on the subject

When using first element focusing lenses, in the first case the lens elements will be "squashed" together.  It seems, based on what I've observed so far, that this is the designed point of maximum sharpness.  The helicoid has turned the first element focuser into a unit focuser hereby.

In the second case, sticking with first element focusers, the first element is moved as far away from the other elements as the mechanical design (focus ring) allows.  This introduces optical imperfections in both Cooke Triplet and Zeiss Tessar design lenses from what I can see.

What this means is that a first element focusing lens, used in concert with a helicoid adapter can be used in two ways - as a unit focusing sharp lens, or as a soft focus optic. In both cases the helicoid is being used to set the focus and the lens' traditional focusing ring is being used to define overall scene "sharpness."

Adding a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 (early) and a Steinheil 45mm f/2.8 m39 Paxette to the mix, here's what I see -

 

Sony A7 - Steinheil 45mm f/2.8 at f11 

Comments ~

It should be obvious that focusing rings can be used as softness control on first element focusers when a helicoid adapter is deployed to effectuate the overall focus.  The closer the lens focus, the more optical imperfections are introduced.

Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 - Unit Focuser

This lenses is nearly "modern lens" sharp from wide open in the center.  It takes going to f/8 and below to clean a scene up across the field, as expected.  If I were to gripe about anything, it's that the extreme corners never fully clean up, even at smallest apertures.  Overall, the Tessar is gently lower contrasted compared to a modern optic, which I feel adds to a sense of beauty to an image.

It comes with a nice multi-bladed round aperture.  The out of focus rendition is creamy smooth, even stopped down. 

I think the copy I have is the "cat's meow", as _all_ the other 50mm Tessars I've owned over the years (nearly a dozen) weren't worth holding onto.  This one's a "keeper."  I finally begin to see what people have been trying to tell me for decades about Zeiss optics. 

Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/2.8 - First Element Focuser

This has a Soviet-era "industrial" feel to the aperture ring, even coming from Japan.  Having nothing to do with the aperture ring, I re-lubed the focusing threads and that part of the lens now moves "smooth as butter." 

It comes with 5 aperture blades, so caution needs be exercised when considering out of focus rendition and specular highlights.  Stopped down a scene can feel "choppy" in the out of focus regions compared with, say, the Tessar or Steinheil Paxette. 

More contrast than the CZJTessar stopped down.  Like the Ricoh 55mm, this Cheap as Chips lens is shockingly sharp when stopped down and could easily be a dual purpose soft/sharp daily carry lens. Yields a "modern" looking image at f/8 and f/11.  

Quite lovely "pictorialist" qualities at f/2.8, f/4, and leaning perhaps toward f/5.6.  This becomes an interesting option for creating "pictorialist" effects in-camera on miniature formats.

Nearly give-away priced in the marketplace.  Pretty interesting "find", this one.    The optic was also sold under the Porst, Casenar, and Reuvenon labels.  I wouldn't pay more than 10Euro/12USD for any of the branded versions.

ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8 - First Element Focuser

Not many aperture blades, so I need to be careful with specular highlights when stopped down.  Sharpens up across most of the field as the aperture drops, but never really cleans up the extreme edges. 

Wide open and at f/4 the lens could work well in rendering young skin in a "pictorialist" manner. Focus on infinity, however, shows the intrusion of the first element as a strong circle of distortion about 3/4s the way out on the field.  

Widely available in the marketplace for not a lot of money.  Overall, an interesting lens, perhaps, but not the most flexible optic in the Toy Box.  I wouldn't pay more than 20Euro/25USD for one.

Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2 - First Element Focuser

This is in Pentax K-mount.  I can't use it on my little helicoid setup, even though this is first element focuser.  Fortunately, there are optical imperfections at f2.2, f2.8, and f4 which can be useful at any subject distance.  This lens can be used in a "pictorialist" manner for portraiture all the way out to landscape.  

Not many aperture blades, so there's the usual caution of watching the specular highlights when stopped down.  However, however, however... from f/5.6 and below the lens shows a surprising (to me, at least) level of sharpness that, frankly, bowled me over when I first saw it.  Like the Cosina Cosinon 55mm Tessar, this 4 element 4 group Strange Design lens is sharp enough when used properly for me to consider using it as a dual purpose soft/sharp optic.  It's really that good.

I find these widely available in the marketplace for around 20Euro/25USD.  For the kind of soft focus work I'm looking to implement, this is really quite a good lens.

Steinheil Auto-Cassaron 50mm f/2.8 - First Element Focuser

Typical of the Steinheil I've experienced, there's softness and then there's a beautiful underlying sharpness.  The softness is more prominent in the optic at wider apertures. 

Stopping down sort of/kind of cleans up the veiling softness in the Auto-Cassaron, but never in a modern sense.  So I'll put this down to having been designed as a lower contrast, sharp at the point of focus optic.  I've seen this in other Steinheil lenses, which is why I mention the potential purpose design aspect to the veiling/lower contrast.  

Having written all that, I have two friends who say their Steinheil give crisp/clear images.  One even says his is the sharpest lens he's ever seen in the format he wants covered.  Makes me wonder if there's something about the Steinheil I own.  Or perhaps there's a certain variability in Steinheil optics, which I would doubt, knowing the long history of optics design and manufacturing the company had.  Frankly, I'm stumped. 

One caution, however, is that like with the ISCO, using the focusing ring to control softness level can lead to a dreaded distortion circle for subjects nearer to infinity than not when using the softest setting.

OK.  I lied.  Another caution is that there are fewer aperture blades in this lens than in its sister 45mm m39 Paxette.  Specular highlights quickly go wonky, so care needs be taken to avoid the ick. 

 
Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f/2.8 - Unit Focuser

There's Steinheil veiling softness and then there's the beautiful Steinheil underlying sharpness, which never really subsides at lower multi-bladed very round apertures.  As I wrote somewhere above, friends' Steinheils are sharp sharp sharp.  Not sure what's going on with the Steinheil I have, but this 45mm, the 50mm Auto-Cassaron, and a 135mm Culminar f/4.5 all show similar behavior.

Still, even with the discrepancies in different people's experiences, I LOVE this lens.  Gorgeous round aperture.  Super light.  Super small.  I took this lens to Italy with me last winter for it's Soft Focus "pictorialist" qualities (see: Napoli and Rome).  I can feel the infinity energies of the "pictorialist" potential pushing outward into the cosmos beyond the moon of the fantastic sky... er... I'd better stop now...

 

Summary ~

If I were to "grade" the lenses, I'd say the Steinheil are like Hermagis Eidoscope-like smooth in the way they render.  The Ricoh and Cosina are Dallmeyer-Bergheim-like gorgeous.  For soft focus work I just wish these two, Ricoh and Cosina, had round apertures, then things would be perfect.  But, there's little perfection in life, right?  The Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar... on the other hand... ah... that CZJT... even though it has zero soft focus capability...  I must be in heaven... I'm up to my armpits in lenses I never thought I'd find for miniature formats...

In-camera black and white image processing ~ Sony A7

After tone mapping Creative Style Black and White where Contrast [0..-3] a Sony A7RII, I applied a setting to a Sony A7 and went to an exhibition of automobiles.  The event was the avant depart of the Tour Auto 2026.

My setup was the aforementioned Sony A7 plus one of my garbage/trash/crap lenses - Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2 in Pentax K mount.  

I wanted to see if the wide open magik the lens comes with could translate well to cars.  I already knew it would be outstanding at f/8 and f/11.  To confirm the tone map findings I shot RAW + jpg with the following in-camera settings  -

• Creative Style Black and White
• Contrast -1
• DRO 

This recipe matches the in-camera black and white default jpg processing of a Fuji GFX100RF.  I like that "look."

The event was interesting and I had a wonderful time.

Once back home and without reviewing the in-camera output I moved all the jpgs into a separate folder and processed the RAW.  There were a few images I liked in BW and processed those RAWs using my Digital Zone System 0EV as Zone 5 recipe.

On a lark I compared a RAW processed black and white against the in-camera jpg.  Here is what I found -

 

Sony A7 - shutter speed 1/200th sec
Ricoh 55mm f/2.2 at f/2.2 - highlight glow galore

Matrix metering - no Digital Zone System 
spot metering required 

 

To me, all the thinking, wondering, measuring and futzing about is well worth the effort.  Understanding and knowledge is unbeatable.

Onward. 

In-camera black and white image processing ~ Sony A7RII

I enjoy learning about how Sony processes black and white images in-camera.

Using an A7RII I mapped the tonal response as a matrix of settings with tone patches that express the numeric value measured.  

Selecting Contrast [0...-3] and DRO [Off...3] and normal jpg, and then adding as reference points two different tone mappings, which are outlined in 18percent gray - 

• 1EV steps from -2EV to +7EV and letting the highlights linearly roll off to +4EV pure white and shadows to linearly toe to -5EV as pure black (which Sony has chosen as the bottom end of the processing range) - maximum tonal separation by luminance (not color)
• Fuji GFX100RF tonal response mapping - which I particularly like

Here is the (rather giant) map -

Comments -

Looking carefully at the map I see why our visit to Vienna and my use of Contrast -3 "worked" as well as it did.  The shadow tones are fairly decent compared with any of the three references.

If I want the whites to "sparkle", Contrast -1 + DRO1 is quite nice.

If I want "creamier" highlights, Contrast -2 + DRO1 does the trick

 

Image Processing ~ matching tones black and white

Lets say there's a reference image with tones we'd like to match.  In black and white it's as simple as loading that image into an image processing software and measuring the tonal values.

It's then an easy matter of taking those tonal values and processing a different image where shadow, highlight, and various mid-tones match the reference.

To prove this works, I took an image that I like that was made by Clarence White of Eugene Debs.

As can be seen, this is a Pictorialist era work.

For the exercise I'm embarking on here, there are three things to note from the above photo.

• Tonal placement
• Image softness
• Image tint 

For tonal placement I measured portions of this reference image (desaturated to eliminate the tint making it easier to directly note the tonal values).  The dark areas raise up off pure black to 2Bhex/43dec.  The light tones are suppressed with a maximum value of ADhex/173dec.  This is a rather narrow tonal range by modern visual practices/expectations and I find the old Clarence White image to be quite beautiful.

To emulate the sense of softness I used an ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8, racked the focusing ring on the lens to it's closest point, then used a focusing helicoid to effectuate the final focus.  The ISCO is a Cooke triplet first element focusing optic.  The first element focusing introduces aberrations as it's focused on close subjects.  In miniature formats this lens and the effect of the first element focusing is an approximation of how soft focus lenses behaved on larger formats.

Borrowing the tint of the reference image is as easy as opening two images in the Gimp and using the Sample Colorize tool. 

As for the subject matter I guess I should apologize.  He's not the best of models, but I take what I can get.

Here are the steps used to mimic the reference image of Eugene Debs.

Load the new image into image processing software - enabling demosaicing (of course), auto-select camera color management - turning OFF tone curve - which leaves the image looking very flat.

 

Using Channel Mix, turn the image into black and white.  It looks gawd-awful, right?

 

Continuing with Channel Mix, emulate a late-1800's emulsion sensitivity filter - 0% red channel, 25% green channel, 75% blue channel.  It still looks gawd-awful.  I know, there's zero helping the model.

 

Find the lightest tone and move curves until that tone measures ADhex/173dec.  Maybe if one squints real hard things might be looking a bit better.

 

Find the darkest tone and move the curve until it measures 2Bhex/43dec.  OK, now we're beginning to see the full disaster the model brought to imaging.

 

By inspection, move the bottom of the curve until the dark tones look like the reference and add a slight vignette (if the lens hasn't already done that itself).

 

Tone the image by sampling the reference and... well... pretty close but no cigar.  It's too sharp.

 

Nice, but too sharp 

 

Comparison to reference 

Using the fact that soft focus lens spherical aberration returns a depth of field that anastigmat optics don't, I slightly defocused myself by moving behind the optimal point of focus.  In doing this there is still an underlying "sharpness", but diffusion that comes from spherical aberration transforms the images into something that more closely matches the Clarence White, Eugene Debs reference.  In fact, if one reads Kodak's instructions on how to use the 12inch Portrait lens they made in the late 1940's it clearly states that focusing on the tip of the nose and letting the depth of field build from there will yield better results.  Rather like the Heinrich Kuhn "Tiffenbuilder" - aka: Depth of Field Builder lenses of earlier era and design.

Here are a couple examples of letting the depth of field build itself.

 

Pretty decent sense of softness, eh? 

 Now 'er cook'n with gas!

OK.  I'm done.  Enough is enough already.  Again, sorry 'bout the model.  Some things just can't be helped.