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" it's 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..."
"... 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 closely 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 the text for 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 is, 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
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)
