Blur Radius vs Blur Falloff ~ APS-C ~ Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.8 at three apertures

Up to now I've been measuring things out of a Full Frame Sony.  As a spot-check I had a look at how things measured up on Sony APS-C. 

It's my hope that I've described things clearly enough that anyone can do this.  It takes no special equipment.  No fancy anything.  Just a few photos with understanding of how/where to measure blur.  The method was described in 1906 in Biblioteque de la Revue de Photographie -  L. de Pulligny - C. Puyo "Objectifs d'Artiste Practique et Theorie des Objectifs et Teleobjectifs Anachromatique" found at the Biblioteque national de France (BnF).

Now, to revisit a cheap Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.8 four element four group strange design first element focusing lens, the optic is very flexible.  Wide open it's soft.  Stopped down it is very well-corrected across the field.  It's very easy to use first and second element separation to induce and control softness and the aperture to define sharpness.  This is the lens where I learned about first element focusers.  This is a "do it all" kind of lens.

Here's how to read the following graphs. Please keep in mind that these are for Full Frame digital.  APS-C is slightly different from Full Frame, as we will now see.  I checked lens/filter combinations for three aperture settings.

 

 

 

Comments ~

As with the Ricoh Auto-Rikenon 50mm f/2.8, there are (at least) two things I note.

First, Blur Falloff tracks between Full Frame and APS-C, but, as expected, Blur Radius does not.  APS-C measures as larger than Full Frame.  The Blur Radius difference is easily calculated based on the physical sensor size differences and is verified in practice (direct measurement). 

Second, Blur Radius vs Blur Falloff slide left as the aperture is stopped down.  This, too, is to be expected.  The scene sharpens up and the depth of field increases, thus reducing optical imperfections and soft filter contribution. 

This is fun.  Knowledge.  It can be useful. 

 

Blur Radius vs Blur Falloff ~ APS-C ~ Ricoh Auto-Rikenon 50mm f/2.8

I haven't said much about the importance of digital sensor size in my little look-see into soft focus lenses and filters.  I've been measuring everything up to this point using a Full Frame Sony.  As a spot-check I had a look at how things measured up on Sony APS-C. 

Returning to a pretty little Ricoh Auto-Rikenon 50mm f/2.8 four element three group tessar design first element focusing lens for a moment, I find the optic is sharp from wide open and is well-corrected across the field.  It's really difficult to use first and second element separation to induce and control softness in this one.  I believe it to be a Cosina re-badge as it appears to be found under any number of 3rd names.  If you can't afford a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8, try one of these.  It's simply brilliant for normal work.

Here's how to read the following graphs. Please keep in mind that these are for Full Frame digital.  APS-C is slightly different from Full Frame, as we will now see.

 

 

Comments ~

There are (at least) two things I note.

First, Blur Falloff tracks between Full Frame and APS-C, but, as expected, Blur Radius does not.  APS-C Blur Radii measure larger than Full Frame.  The radius difference is easily calculated based on the physical sensor size differences and is verified in practice (direct measurement). 

Second, Blur Radius vs Blur Falloff slide left on my graphs as the aperture is stopped down.  This, too, is to be expected.  The scene sharpens up and the depth of field increases, reducing optical imperfections and changes soft filter contribution. 

This lens is perhaps a little too well corrected for trying to match early Pictorialist era print softness. 

 

Blur Radius vs Blur Falloff ~ Steinheil Auto-Cassaron 50mm f/2.8

A friend pointed me to the Steinheil Auto-Cassaron 50mm f/2.8.  It's a Cooke triplet first element focusing 35mm SLR m42 mount lens and it's rather special.  It positively glows at all apertures and all subject distances.  These first element focusers can work magic by gently introducing optical imperfections as the first and second element distance changes.

Here's how to read the following graphs. Please keep in mind that these are for Full Frame digital.  APS-C is slightly different, as we may see in future posts.

 

 

Comments ~

The lens is soft overlaying sharpness.  At all apertures.  This seems to be Steinheil's design tendency.  

ISCO (the budget design house of Jos Schneider), Schacht, Roeschlein, Staeble, and of course Zeiss by comparison, are contrastier than Steinheil from wide open.

The Steinheil 45mm f/2.8 Cassarit and 135mm f/4.5 Cassar all show similar levels of softness that veil over a distinct sharpness.  Because of the rendition I feel Steinheil can be quite useful for working small format digital into early Pictorialist-like images. 

At this point I'm finding I have many good options from which to choose.  German.  Japanese.  Cooke triplet.  Zeiss tessar.  Steinheil Antiplanet (I have a Staeble 85mm that is of this formula).  All of these are good in one way or another.  I just have to work with them to see where I can go from here. 

Blur Radius vs Blur Falloff ~ Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2

The first first element focusing lens I stumbled on was a Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.8 four element 4 group design lens.  It's a strange beasty in terms of lens design, but these seem eminently useful for soft focus work near wide open.    Stopped down the lens is as sharp as anything in the Toy Bin.  Versatility is strong in this one.

Since this is a Pentax K-mount I can't use the first element separation to manage softness level the way I do the m42 thread mount Cosina, Steinheil, and ISCO lenses.  I don't have a helicoid for K-mount.  However, at wide apertures there are plenty of optical imperfections no matter the focus distance.

Here's how to read the following graphs. Please keep in mind that these are for Full Frame digital.  APS-C is slightly different, as we may see in future posts.

 

 

Comments ~

To me it's interesting to see how aperture effects blur.  Bare lens or filtered, aperture can help manage softness levels.

Many of the Ricoh lens/filter combinations are well within old brass-era soft focus lens ranges.  This helps explain why, intuitively, I've felt this was a good Soft Focus lens on Full Frame digital formats.

While there may never be one lens "to rule them all", this little Ricoh seems well up to the task. 

Blur Radius vs Blur Falloff ~ Nikon Nikkor 85mm f/2 Ai

The following is on the heals of looking at another very well corrected, very sharp lens, the ISCO Westromat 50mm f/1.9.  My sweet little Nikon Nikkor 85mm f/2 is a unit focusing ernostar 5 element, 5 group formula lens and is the subject of today's investigation.

Reading the Minolta Portrayer filter instruction manual led me to understand that longer lenses (85mm to 135mm) could respond better to certain kinds of filtration. 

Here's how to read the following graph. 

 

Comments ~

There are several lens/filter combinations that fall into the old brass soft focus lens blur ranges.  This is rather exciting to see and it makes me wonder if soft focus filter designers knew/know more about their craft than I've in the past given them credit for?

One aspect of using a well-corrected lens for soft focus work is that the edges of the field may behave differently than they did in early optics.  

However, as is carefully noted in many journals and writings of the day, including  Biblioteque de la Revue de Photographie -  L. de Pulligny - C. Puyo "Objectifs d'Artiste Practique et Theorie des Objectifs et Teleobjectifs Anachromatique" - Biblioteque national de France (BnF), longer lenses were often the focal lengths of choice to very specifically avoid field edge aberrations at wide apertures (ie: portraiture).

In fact, the only photographer I know of who has succeeded, to my way of thinking, of leveraging field edge problems to outstanding effect is Alex Timmons.  Which means the Nikkor 85mm may be just perfect when used with soft focus filters in the more traditional way.  The time has come for me to validate this in the "real" world.

Blur Radius vs Blur Falloff ~ ISCO Westromat 50mm f/1.9

The ISCO Westromat 50mm f/1.9 is a unit focusing plasmat 6 element, 4 group formula lens. 

I've been looking at adapting certain kinds of somewhat difficult to find lenses to miniature format for soft focus work in using the first and second element separation control of the focusing ring to manage softness level.  However, I also have quite a stack of unit focusing normal 35mm SLR style lenses, and the brilliant little ISCO Westromat is one of them.  

While I am "on a roll" what better time to check two things about unit focusers with regards to potential soft focus work.  First, look at the bare lens wide open (I expect it to be sharp - it takes a lot to design a "bad" lens).  Second, look at what the effect of the filters might be on a very well corrected, sharp, not-at-all-bad lens.

Here's how to read the following graph. 

 

Comments ~

Only the Westromat/Nikon Nikkor Soft 1 combination falls within one of the two old soft focus lens zones.  All other combinations give varying blur radii outside of the old brass lens softness.

Looking at the Blur Falloff tells me that this will give a "fat" blur rendition (40% to 50% luminance measured half way between the leading and trailing edges of blur), even as the Blur Radii measured small compared with first element focusing lenses.  Wherefore I expect this lens used with Soft Focus Filters to deliver a different from Pictorialist softness "look." 

I'll have to spend some time with the ISCO Westromat to see how it behaves in the "real world." It may be just another excellent, sharp, boring 'ol 50mm plasmat that is indistinguishable from fully modern AF.  If that turns out to be the case, there'd be nothing wrong with that, right?

Blur Radius vs Blur Falloff ~ ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8

The ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8 is a Cooke formula, first element focusing, triplet lens.  I'm adapting these kinds of lenses to miniature format for soft focus work by using the first and second element separation control of the focusing ring to manage softness level.  Mated to a helicoid and setting the softness level on the focusing ring, the helicoid is used to effectuate the focus itself.

To show how first and second element separation effects softness level, I graphed Blur Radius against Blur Falloff.  Further, to control highlight "softness", I added a number of different Soft Focus filters to the investigation see to what degree they do their job. 

Here's how to read the following graphs. 

 

Comments ~

These illustrate how the focus ring on the ISCO 50mm can effect the level of softness in an image.  And we can see how Soft Focus filters add softness over the base optics.

Cooke triplets are bog simple, but very well corrected lenses.  I wondered if the German 35mm SLR triplets were derived from the same detailed design specifications, but they are not.  The ISCO is contrasty where the Steinheil is lower contrast but sharper.  

There are other German Cooke triplets, but they are unit focusers and it might be difficult to adapt them to soft focus work.  At this point I'm unable to find any Japanese Cooke triplets.  The closest I can find in first element focusers are tessar formula lenses (such as the Cosina 55mm f/2.8).  If someone knows of a cheap Japanese triplet first element focuser let me know, please.

Blur Radius vs Blur Falloff ~ Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/2.8

The Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/2.8 is a tessar formula, first element focusing lens.  I'm trying to adapt is to miniature format soft focus work by using the first and second element separation control of the focusing ring to manage softness level.  Mated to a helicoid and setting the softness level on the focusing ring, the helicoid is used to effectuate the focus itself.

To show how first and second element separation effects softness level, I graphed Blur Radius against Blur Falloff.  Further, to control highlight "softness", I added a number of different Soft Focus filters to the investigation see to what degree they do their job. 

Here's how to read the following graphs. 

Comments ~

It should be easy to see how the focus ring on the Cosina 55mm can effect the level of softness in an image.  And it should be easy to see how Soft Focus filters add softness over the base optics.

While not shown here, but illustrated earlier, the Cosina tessar formula lens is better corrected for closer focused subjects when the lens is shot wide open.  Stopped down, infinity cleans up nicely. 

I believe this proves the concept of using first element focusing lenses on miniature formats in Soft Focus work.

Soft Focus Photography ~ Visualizing Blur Radius vs Blur Dropoff Measurements

I realize that a lot of what I've written about Soft Focus lenses and filters is diagnostic and perhaps difficult to grasp.  So I went back and measured the rate of falloff and plotted it against blur radius to see if I can't illustrate better what I'm finding.

How to read the graph ~

X axis = Blur Radius - as a percentage of the width of an image

Y axis = Blur Falloff = Luminance Value Measured 1/2 way between leading and trailing edges of blur with potential values of 0 to 255

The smaller the Blur Radius (X axis) the sharper an image will be.  The higher the Blur Radius, the softer an image will be.

The higher the Blur Falloff value (Y axis) the "thicker" blur will look.  The lower the Blur Falloff value the sharper the underlying image will be with a more subtle overlaying veil of softness.

I've included two regions in yellow.  These illustrate the approximate ranges of "softness" achieved by early 1800's/1900's Soft Focus lenses for large format plate and film.

How I came up with these ranges is important.  First, I calculated the blur radius of chromatic aberration of several lenses using the formula found in Biblioteque de la Revue de Photographie -  L. de Pulligny - C. Puyo "Objectifs d'Artiste Practique et Theorie des Objectifs et Teleobjectifs Anachromatique".  

Then I inspected and measure the blur radius of early Pictorialist images.  I found that the Dallmeyer Bergheim Models 1 and 3 are, indeed, quite soft.  Other lenses, such as Pinkham Smith, Darlot, Wollensak, etc appear to return half the blur radius of the earlier Dallmeyer-Bergheim, so I broke my ranges of softness of lenses into two.

Old Soft Focus lenses would vary their levels of softness using focal length, aperture, and/or marginal light controls (such as those found on Heinrich Kuhn's Tiffenbuilder/Imagon and Mamiya RB 150mm SF).  So exact Blur Radius is variable.  Additionally, without being able to inspect old lenses directly, I'm unable to measure Blur Falloff.  Hence the use of these rather vague approximations.  

However, I surmise that the amount of blur seen in early prints was pleasing to practitioners and therefore useful to measure and understand as a target for adapting miniature format lenses and filters in the present time.

I keep in mind, in addition to all the above, that this look at image softness fails to include flare, astigmatism, coma, emulsion and print technologies and techniques.  In this way, adapting miniature format lenses and filters to the Pictorialist Task may, at best, be an approximation of the original style and, really, can only be a First Step.  It's my hope that considering Blur Radius and Blur Falloff may yet prove to have been a useful starting point. 

Here's what a graph looks like.  In future blog posts I will present what I've measured for specific lens, first element separation (where applicable), and Soft Focus filters. 

 

Soft Focus Photography ~ Then vs Now ~ Materials and Process Comparison

Working in miniature formats, specifically 35mm digital Full Frame and APS-C, I've been trying to understand, then look for a way of matching the Expressionist/Pictorialist as a starting point for art that uses photography.  My choice of lenses as a starting point is because it seemed obvious to me.  However, there are other starting points that might be useful as well.  

 

Sony A7, Ricoh 50mm f/2.8, Zeiss Softar 1 

The following is one way to consider and compare image making materials and processes for Expressionist/Pictorialist, and their adaptation to miniature digital work.  Keeping in mind these are very broad generalizations and that there are a great many details that I'm now glossing over.

Original Expressionist/Pictorialist materials ~

Large format cameras - typically 6.5inch x 8.5inch Whole Plate, sometimes larger formats used for landscape work

Lenses - The base glass types were heavy crown and flint.  They had certain properties that were well understood at the time where designers had to work within the limits of the materials.  Two types of lenses were commonly designed.  One type was as well corrected for sharpness across the field as the technologies of the time would allow.  Classic Sharp Photographers as well as Expressionist/Pictorialists used this kind of optic.  The other lens type was designed for a specific soft focus "look" which took advantage of specific optical imperfections.  A lot of attention is paid to just this one area of Expressionist/Pictorialist images (including by me with all the little things that I've written over the years and somehow insist on continuing here).

Light Sensitive Plates - Wet Plate Collodion, then dry plate isochromatic moving into orthochromatic were the only options.  These "saw" UV/blue light only for the earliest emulsions, and started to "see" into green light with orthochromatic emulsions later.

Original Expressionist/Pictorialist processes ~

Image Taking - Lenses of any type projected the whole spectrum of light onto a focusing ground glass, with emphasis on the yellow portion.  There was a problem, however, in that lenses were under-corrected for chromatic and spherical aberrations.  What the eye "saw" on the ground glass was not what the light sensitive emulsion "saw" as the point of focus.  The phenomenon is called "chemical focus" and much was written on this very specific topic to help photographers of any kind correct for the point of focus offset between what the photographer saw and what the lens/emulsion delivered.

Image Making - Classic Photographers let the materials dictate the outcome and they did little to nothing to intervene after composition/lighting/exposure on the way to making a print.  These were the "sharp" image makers.

Expressionist/Pictorialist Photographers started where the Classic Photographer left off.

After processing a negative, paper internegatives could be used to (literally) draw on.  Background scene creation, retouching, dodging/burning, multiple image overlays were the things artists used on their way towards making a final print.

The materials for the final image could minimally be platinum/palladium, carbon tissue, gum bichromate, or bromoil.

How much character of a lens that made it into a final print depended on how much rework had been done and how much texture was added.  Anything was possible, from a nearly "straight" print where a lens' full character might come through, all the way to bromoil where an image is brushed on photo print paper where a lens' character might be completely lost.  In this way, lenses might have been used for making sketches over which an artist might impose their art. 

This is where the idea of "lenses that draw" comes from. 

Digital Expressionist/Pictorialist materials ~

Cameras and Sensors - To take advantage of certain lenses it is best to have a camera with interchangeable lenses. Sensors typically cut off UV and IR.  It's the UV that could be useful if the goal is to precisely match isochromatic or orthochromatic emulsions from the 1800s.  For this a user can use a "full spectrum" sensor coupled with specific filters that allow UV and blue wet plate spectrum, or UV, blue and green as in the case of orthochromatic emulsion light sensitivities.

Lenses - Modern lenses are very well corrected for just about any optical defect, due, in part, to the need to "hold onto sharpness" when an image is enlarged.  

To implement this narrow area of Expressionist/Pictorialist image expression it can be helpful to seek out specific lenses and, possibly, certain soft focus filter types.

• Find lenses used perhaps with filters that give between 0.35% and 0.60% blur radii as calculated on the narrow target image dimension.  Solutions include, but are no means limited to - 
• First element focusing lenses 
• Ricoh 50mm f/2.8 m42 tessar design
• Cosina Cosinon/Reveunon/etc 50mm f/2.8 tessar design 
• ISCO Iscotar/Iscovitar 50mm f/2.8 m42 Cooke triplet design
• Steinheil Auto-Cassaron 50mm f/2.8 m42 Cooke triplet design 
• Ricoh 55mm f/2.2 Pentax K four element four group design 
• Soft Focus filters - potentially used with the above listed lenses
• Duto concentric circle
• Heliopan Duto concentric circle 
• Zeiss Softar 1
• Hoya/Kenko/Hama Softener "A" 
• NOTE:  I use blur percentage here as it frees up considerations for image print/viewing size and camera format.  The calculation is simple.  
  Percent Blur Radius = ( Measured Blur Radius / Width of Image ) x 100 - where units for radius and image are equal (ie: millimeters or pixels or inches)
  NOTE 2: First element focusers show the most blur when shot wide open.  Sometimes good blur can be had one stop down, but it depends on the lens, so it's worth checking and measuring before proceeding.
  NOTE 3: Duto and micro-lens filters can show their diffusion patterns when a lens is stopped too far down.  So these are best used with the lens shot wide open, which fits nicely with NOTE 2.
  NOTE 4: Frosted soft focus filter types tend to blur beyond the 0.35% to 0.60% target radii.  So I'm learning to avoid them.  Similarly number 2 Softar and Softener B filters.
  NOTE 5: SLR lenses that give user control over element separation may be worth examining.  The Minolta Varisoft 85mm is well known, but the Sigma YS and XQ series with macro rings might be worth a visit to measure blur radii. 
•  Expressionst/Pictorialist landscape photography typically deployed focal lengths where the edges of the field were well corrected with as minimal optical distortion (coma, astimatism, spherical aberration) as possible, while still achieving a certain level of softness (in French terms, chromatic aberration, though in modern optical implementations can be controllable spherical aberration with a touch of chromatic aberration - depending upon the lens deployed).  Potential optical solutions include, but are certainly not limited to -
• First element focusing lenses 
• Ricoh 50mm f/2.8 m42 tessar design
• Cosina Cosinon/Reveunon/etc 50mm f/2.8 tessar design  
• Ricoh 55mm f/2.2 Pentax K four element four group design 
• Soft Focus filters - potentially used with the above listed lenses
• Zeiss Softar 1
• Hoya/Kenko/Hama Softener "A" 
• Expressionst/Pictorialist portrait and still life photography typically deployed lenses of sufficient speed to keep exposures to a minimum, and accepted optical defects towards the edges of the field as a compromise, and what they found back in the day to be pleasing.  For current day practitioners it can be a real task to find lenses that exhibit these kinds of imperfections near the edges of the field.  Here are potential, but by no means the only, solutions -
• First element focusing lenses 
• ISCO Iscotar/Iscovitar 50mm f/2.8 m42 Cooke triplet design
• Steinheil Auto-Cassaron 50mm f/2.8 m42 Cooke triplet design 
• Soft Focus filters - potentially used with the above listed lenses
• Hoya/Kenko/Hama Duto concentric circle
• Heliopan Duto concentric circle 

Adapting First Element Focusing Lenses - When adapted to a helicoid focusing device, first element focusing lenses can vary blur radii based on focusing ring position.  Set the lens' focusing ring to the desired position that defines a blur radius of interest, then use a helicoid adapter between the lens and digital mirrorless camera to effectuate the actual focus.  This is why I've found it useful/important to measure blur radii for each lens.  Radii vary be implementation.  Some lenses are better corrected at infinity than close up.  Some are better corrected close up.

Japanese SLR Soft Focus Lenses - Special purpose Soft Focus lenses for 35mm and 120 tend to deliver blur radii well beyond the 0.35% to 0.60% blur radii of early soft focus lenses. However, aperture can help tame blur, so it's worth testing and measuring.

I once owned a Pentax 85mm f/2.2 SF that I could never come to grips with and nearly gave it away out of frustration.  This is not to mean they are unworkable.  Certainly photographers more talented than I have made them work the treat.  It's just that they're not workable for me, and certainly in the narrow environment I'm exploring here. 

However, the Last Great Pictorialist has hinted that a Minolta Varisoft 85mm can be pressed into proper service.  The secret I'm told is to set the softness ring between "0" and "1".  Anything more than that becomes too "soft."

Digital Expressionist/Pictorialist processes ~

Digital image processing software, particularly those adapted to graphics use (the Gimp, Photoshop, etc) provide a nearly limitless landscape of possibilities.  There's not much more to be said.  The only thing I can think is just how much early practitioners might have appreciated what we have today to work with.

Comments ~

There is no magic in choosing blur radii of 0.35% to 0.60%.  It is simply the balance point between sharp and soft that practitioners of the era seemed to appreciate the most.

Not all Expressionist/Pictorialist work is soft focus.  There is beauty to be found in sharp images and I'm of the increasing opinion that this is related to the tonal relationships, which are easy to mimic in digital work. 

----------- Essential Reading --------------

Dr. Russell Young's thesis paper on soft focus photography

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

Robert Demachy. Impressions de Normandie (photographies du Calvados, 1880-1920) [2016] - Julien Faure-Conorton (this paper and M. Faure-Conorton's other works are very insightful and worth the time to read through - particularly his thesis paper)

----------- Notable Practitioners of Art through Photography ------------

Robert Demachy

Celine Leguarde

Hugo Henneberg 

Hans Watzek

----------- On Soft Filters -------------- 

Soft Filters in Cinematography 

M. David Mullen, ASC

M. David Mullen, ASC on cinema and photography 

Soft filtration options 

A question of diffusion  

----------- Additional Resources ------------

An illustrated guide to early soft focus lenses

Are you a softie?

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) 

Portraiture - Franz Xaver Setzer

Portraiture - Leonard Misonne 

When did Photography of Soft? 

Wollensak Velostigmat Series II as a first element focuser Expressionist/Pictorialist optic 

Tessar design - with scatter plots that show chromatic aberration distributions 

 

Soft Focus Photography ~ Comments

Can we, in the present day, appreciate just how much opticians, photographers (some, probably not all), as well as former artillery and naval officers knew when they designed lenses, classic and soft, in the early days of photography (1800's)?

  

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

The soft effect is too strong compared
with early Expressionist/Pictorialist work 

 

The field of lens development for photography was not based on feelings nor emotions nor misunderstandings.  No.  Not at all.  Instead, early designers were able to apply knowledge of material science and math in a way that produced informed, repeatable, accurate solutions.  They did this including as it was applied to soft focus photography.

Remember that Herren Petzval und Voigtlander hired naval officers to calculate lens element shapes from the very beginning.  Herr Steinheil's optical designs were all based on calculations he'd made.  Monsieurs Pulligny et Puyo calculated the chromatic aberration diffusion disk at the point of focus which ultimately led to the les objectifs d'Ariste et le Hermagis Eidoscope.  And these guys were not at all unique.  

Anyone who ground lenses knew the math and the limitations and opportunities afforded by the materials at hand.  Knowledge diffused through the community such that people like Herr Kuhn and Mr. Taylor of Cooke Triplet fame all knew what each-other were doing and why.  Letters sent between opticians and interested parties as well as photography club proceedings, lectures, and articles show this was very much the case.

It came as little surprise to me when I recently stumbled across a calculation for optical "softness." The formula came after a long exploration of Expressionist/Pictorialist photography  possibilities through the use of lens imperfections.  "Softness" designed with purpose.

On Spherical Aberration ~

The primary optical "softening" agent that I've been familiar with is spherical aberration.  It came as a surprise to read where the French did not like to use this optical fault. 

Biblioteque de la Revue de Photographie by L. de Pulligny - C. Puyo "Objectifs d'Artiste Practique et Theorie des Objectifs et Teleobjectifs Anachromatique", page 20

[Aberration spherique] résulte un épaississement cotonneux du trait qui n’est pas agréable, et on ne peut admettre cette aberration que pour une très petite part à 1 oeuvre de simplification que nous poursuivons. En diaphragmant suffisamment, on peut atténuer a volonté l'aberration sphérique et en laisser juste assez pour qu’elle soit utile dans certains cas où cette réduction du diaphragme est admissible : par exemple, dans
la photographie du paysage...

In English... 

[Spherical aberration] results in an unpleasant, cottony thickening of the lines; in the simplification process we are pursuing, we can tolerate this aberration only to a very limited extent. By stopping down sufficiently, one can attenuate spherical aberration at will, retaining just enough to be useful in certain cases where such a reduction in aperture is acceptable—for example, in landscape photography. 

So, scratch spherical aberration off the list as being largely uncontrollable as far as the French were concerned.  There is a "however" to this that I'll talk about later, perhaps in a separate post since the topic is rather interesting, but will require more than a few words to work through.  

On other optical aberrations ~

Of the other optical imperfections, field curvature (sharpness variation across a flat field), coma (insect shaped highlights off-axis), and field distortion (pincushion, barrel) are mostly of little use in soft focus photography.  Only field curvature can be of some interest and then only in portraiture where we might accept increased image diffusion toward the edges of a scene.

On Chromatic Aberration as the preferred optical "softening" agent ~

From Biblioteque de la Revue de Photographie by L. de Pulligny - C. Puyo "Objectifs d'Artiste Practique et Theorie des Objectifs et Teleobjectifs Anachromatique", page 29

Simplification des surfaces sans altération du trait, ce que nous cherchions, l’aberration chromatique tend à nous le donner. C’est donc un agent utile ; c’est, de plus, un agent docile, puisque nous possédons deux moyens simples et surs de régler l’énergie de son action.

In English...

Chromatic aberration tends to provide exactly what we were seeking: a simplification of surfaces without altering the outlines. It is therefore a useful agent; moreover, it is a controllable one, since we possess two simple, reliable ways to regulate the intensity of its effect. 

The authors then state that the use of Chromatic Aberration as an optical "softening" agent can help render a photograph in the sfumato style of many Jean-Jacques Henner paintings.  This is the painting technique first used by Leonard da Vinci and the effect can be stunningly gorgeous.  Just recently I was explaining to someone how I felt how Expressionist/Pictorialist soft focus images in photography can be as sfumato is to painting.  Of course I am very pleased to read that the French beat me to this observation by 120+ years!

Miniature Format Lens Selection -

I am interested in applying this as best I can to current materials and processes since I no longer have access to a darkroom, film, nor large format camera/lens gear.  I wanted to see if I can somehow duplicate the old Expressionist/Pictorialist soft focus "look" to digital 35mm/Full Frame/APS-C formats. 

The first step was to look at lenses.  I'd noticed that Wollensak's Velostigmat Series II is an old Tessar formula lens that came with a special feature.  It allows for the unscrewing/extending of the first element to introduce and control the level of "softness" in a photograph.  This was an important clue as to how I could proceed.  If moving the first element of an old lens design did as claimed, then something similar for miniature formats might duplicate the "look."

There are several Cooke Triplet and Zeiss Tessar design lenses that use this focusing technique.  To bend first element focusers to the Expressionist/Pictorialist task, the idea is to repurpose the traditional focusing ring to manage "softness." Then, use a separate focusing helicoid to do the actual focusing.  

The idea works on 35mm/Full Frame/APS-C digital formats just as anticipated (see: this chart from a prior post on this site). 

On Soft Focus Filters - 

Relatedly, I spent this summer trying to come to grips with the only soft focus filters I had at the time, which were one each Nikon Nikkor Soft 1 and 2.  I used these on both fully corrected lenses as well as a couple first element focuser "softies."  

It was a fruitful exercise in learning to view images small. But for viewing at Whole Plate size (on a 10inch tablet, for instance) the images nearly always "fell apart" and appeared to be too soft compared with Expressionist/Pictorlialist works.

What I wanted was a way to gently soften the highlights (to make them "glow") while expanding the blur radius in a way that adhered to the old brass lens Chromatic Aberration French formula. 

In a stroke of excellent timing, the Last Great Pictorialist Master pointed friends to the writings and comments of Dave Mullen ASC.  A buying spree ensued and the following are my thoughts on filtered introduction of blur and their radii.

• Nikon Nikkor Soft 1 - Frosted glass diffusion.  Blur at all apertures with no additional artifacts when stopped down.  However, very strong diffusion with blur radii well beyond (2x - 4x) the old heavy crown meniscus Whole Plate optics.
• Zeiss Softar 1 - Micro-lens of variable shape/dimension diffusion pattern.  Usable only at wider apertures without showing the "softener" pattern.  Strong diffusion with blur radii beyond (1.5x depending on the lens) the old heavy crown meniscus Whole Plate optics.
• Minolta Portrayer 1, 2, 3 -  Flat micro-shapes of variable color/dimension diffusion pattern.  Interesting filters, these.  Need to verify, but I'm thinking the Hoya/Kenko/Hama Softener "A" series may be of similar design. The Minolta filters don't add much blur around the edges, but they do soften broad areas of similar luminosities.  If there is a filter that most closely matches sfumato in painting on top of any optical imperfections introduced by a base lens, it would be these.
• Heliopan Duto - Usable only at wider apertures or on longer lenses (85mm - 135mm according to the marketing lit) without showing the "softener" concentric ring pattern.  Beautiful blur is possible in the center of the field, with gently increasing "softness" toward the edges.
• Hoya/Kenko Duto - Usable only at wider apertures or on longer lenses (85mm - 135mm according to the marketing lit) without showing the "softener" concentric ring pattern.  Beautiful blur is possible in the center of the field, with gently increasing "softness" toward the edges.  The "softening" effect is not as strong as the Heliopan.

Expressionist/Pictorialist Blur ~ 

Remembering the "why" of soft focus lenses...

"... 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"

 Using art and drawing as a guide, I think of it this way.  When a line is drawn by pencil to paper, the edges of the line are soft and rounded, and are not commonly abrupt and sharp.

One way of making art with photography is to use lenses of varying line softness qualities. This, 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). 

To verify the level of blur "scales" correctly between old chemical processes and the digital domain I had a close look at old Expressionist/Pictorialist prints and chose images where blur could be more or less accurately measured.  The blur radius is 0.60mm to 0.90mm when the image dimensions are 6.5inches x 8.5inches Whole Plate.  Thus proving L. de Pulligny et C. Puyo correct.

Now have a look at the sample chart I generated using miniature format lenses and softening filters. 

With this I feel the concept of equivalency between old and new is proven and a digital Expressionsit/Pictorialist path forward based on optics and optical effects is possible.

 

----------- Essential Reading --------------

Dr. Russell Young's thesis paper on soft focus photography

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

----------- On Soft Filters -------------- 

Soft Filters in Cinematography 

M. David Mullen, ASC

M. David Mullen, ASC on cinema and photography 

Soft filtration options 

A question of diffusion  

----------- Additional Resources ------------

An illustrated guide to early soft focus lenses

Are you a softie?

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? 

Wollensak Velostigmat Series II as a first element focuser Expressionist/Pictorialist optic 

Tessar design - with scatter plots that show chromatic aberration distributions 

Soft Focus Photography ~ Blur Field Shapes

In looking at adapting a 1906 photographic lens blur calculations to small format lenses I came across something I feel worth mentioning.

At equivalent blur radii, all blur is not created equal.

I shared a couple 18pixel blur radius images with friends.  They noted that one looked softer than the other.  So I went back and reviewed images I made when calculating blur radius under varying conditions.

Consider the following photographs.  Both were calculated to have 18pixel blur radius using a 24mpixel digital sensor enlarged to 6.5inch x 8.5inch Whole Plate format.  

Recall that 18pixel blur radius is what an old brass 450mm f/6 meniscus "portrait" lens is calculated to have.  See: 1906 Biblioteque de la Revue de Photographie by L. de Pulligny - C. Puyo "Objectifs d'Artiste Practique et Theorie des Objectifs et Teleobjectifs Anachromatique", pages 26 and 90.

Upon closer examination of blur widths I found the "strength" of the blur fall-off varied by lens implementation.  While I'm not certain that was the case in old brass lenses, it is with the lenses I'm attempting to yoke to the Expressionist/Pictorialist Task.

Using extreme examples, here's an ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8 Cooke Triplet with the first element fully extended (as the softness controler) and focused using an adapter helicoid.

Here's a Steinheil Auto-Cassarit 50mm f/2.8, _also_ a Cooke Triplet, and _also_ with the first element fully extended (as softness controler) and focused using an adapter helcoid.

Examine the left most garlic bulb and notice how the ISCO blur strength is greater than the Steinheil's. Which led to the following understanding. 

 

Comments ~

While it is possible to measure and graph the fall-off rate in a blur radius, the effect is readily apparent and I feel little would be gained by knowing _exactly_ the shape of the fall-off curve.  Instead, the examples should clearly illustrate and sufficiently describe the effect.

As a first quick pass, calculating blur radius of any lens might not be sufficient to fully describe just "softness" as an optical phenomenon and feel that adding the blur radius fall-off shape will help firm up my understanding of optical softness expression.

Blur radius and blur fall-off are, of course, not the only things that contribute to "softness"in a photograph.  To get to the meat of the matter I've ignored the roles of spherical aberration, coma, field distortion, and astigmatism, while only briefly glancing at the role of field of view.  I will cover these in a future post.

 

----------- Essential Reading --------------

Dr. Russell Young's thesis paper on soft focus photography

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

----------- On Soft Filters -------------- 

Soft Filters in Cinematography 

M. David Mullen, ASC

M. David Mullen, ASC on cinema and photography 

Soft filtration options 

A question of diffusion  

----------- Additional Resources ------------

An illustrated guide to early soft focus lenses

Are you a softie?

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? 

 

Soft Focus Photography ~ Calculating Blur Radius

Using the blur radius calculations and test setup from 1906 in Biblioteque de la Revue de Photographie by L. de Pullignyt - C. Puyo "Objectifs d'Artiste Practique et Theorie des Objectifs et Teleobjectifs Anachromatique" I would like to begin to apply a bit of objectivity and rigor to Soft Focus lens evaluations.  Recognizing, of course, that this is _not_ the only evaluation important in understanding how old lenses worked.  If done correctly, an objectif/measurable outcome would be excellent for better understanding what would, hopefully, be adaptable using more modern miniature format optics.

Goal ~

To see if it is possible to mimic old brass lens blur/softness using optics designed for miniature formats. 

Methods ~

Selecting Whole Plate 6.5inch by 8.5inch print size as the target viewing framework...  

• Calculate the blur radius of two meniscus "portrait" heavy crown lenses
• Using a sharp white to black line, measure the blur radius of more recently designed lenses in various configurations using...
• Unit focusing lenses
• First element focusing lenses at various first element separation distances
• Several varieties of soft focus filters 

Calculation -

Pulligny/Puyo calculate the radius of blur as -

    ( Focal Length / Aperture ) / 100

The formula is very simple, but is based on several other formulas that aren't quite so simple.  Reading "Objectifs d'Artiste Practique et Theorie..." is helpful to understand what's going on.

Selecting 300mm f/5 and 450mm f/6 as the old brass lens soft focus lens reference focal lengths, we see that...

• 300mm f/5 blur radius = 0.6mm
• 450mm f/6 blur radius = 0.75mm

To measure the sample lenses in the digital domain, it is helpful to convert the mm measurement of these old lenses to pixels.  In this case I've chosen a 24mpixel sensor and its 4,000pixel narrow dimension.

Number of pixels per mm is calculated as -
    ( Pixel Width of Digital Sensor ) / ( Whole Plate Width inches x 25.4 mm/inch )

Therefore, the reference lens blur radius is calculated as -

    (( Pixel Width of Digital Sensor ) / ( Whole Plate Width x 25.4 mm/inch )) x (( Focal Length / Aperture ) / 100 )

Reference lenses -

• 300mm f/5 blur radius in pixels = 14pixels = 4000 / ((6.5inches x 25.4mm/inch) x (300mm / f5 ) / 100 ))
• 450mm f/6 blur radius in pixels = 18pixels = 4000 / ((6.5inches x 25.4mm/inch) x (450mm / f6 ) / 100 ))

Recap of the calculations - 

- Blur radii in millimeters
    - 450mm f/6 = 0.75mm
    - 300mm f/5 = 0.6mm

- Blur radii converted to 24mpixel sensor pixels in whole frame size
    - 450mm f/6 = 18 pixels
    - 300mm f/5 = 14 pixels

Measuring blur radius of more recent optics ~ Test Setup

Using a simple, empirical approach...

• Place a white sheet of paper on a black background 
• Photograph it an import it into, in this case, the Gimp
• Enlarge to 200percent
• Viewing the center of the image
• Using the measurement tool
• Note the radius of blur from pure white to black

Repeat for as many lens setups/configurations/etc as there are on hand. 

 

Results ~

Comment ~ 

This sets an interesting foundation for understanding how lenses behave.  However, this is not all.  If I carefully study prints/images made with old lenses it's easy to note that the transition from light to dark in blur is not always/often equal between lenses.  

To develop a more complete understanding of what's going on with soft focus lenses I will address blur transition in the next post.  Further, recognizing that I'm moving very quickly on this topic and not explaining things in my haste to get to the bottom of all this, I will address the "why" of my choice of lenses and filters in an analysis that will come after looking at blur falloff.

 

----------- Essential Reading --------------

Dr. Russell Young's thesis paper on soft focus photography

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

 

----------- Additional Resources ------------

An illustrated guide to early soft focus lenses

Are you a softie?

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? 

 

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 -

A SHORT comment on the Mutac - https://largeformatphotography.info/soft-focus.html  - It's a triple convertible.  Given the elements involved, users can select one or more lenses for varying effects. 

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

[Update 1 September, 2026] - I just read a Flickr page where they've backrev'd their application to a previous known good state. 

"... Thank you for your patience and feedback about the recent app update... we're rolling the app back to the previous version while we address the issues you've been experiencing..." 29 July, 2026

---------------------------------------- 

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...