|
||||
|
This more of a real world photography "review", so pixel peepers steer clear  Ok, coming from the 40D, I'm gonna compare this to that... When I went from 350D to 40D, the transition was nice but nothing spectacular... This time though, from 40D to this, I keep getting the "WOW!" feeling all the time. It's mostly probably because of the full frame. I'm just gonna concentrate on things that are worth mentioning, aka things that I would have wanted to know before buying... Viewfinder & focusing The viewfinder is so much bigger and brighter, I can finally reliably use manual focus.. Now it's more like I don't use the auto-focus because using manual is such a joy. That is not to say the autofocus would not work, because it does. I didn't really notice any differences between the 40 and the 5DmkII. Well, I don't do birding, sp that could be a tougher situation for the AF. But eventually when summer hits, I will be shooting some racing and other sports... So maybe then I can see if there are any differences... It's just so different when you can keep your eye on the VF and see everything. The whole experience of shooting just got more natural and easy flowing. Lens calibration I calibrated the lenses using the supplied EOS utility, with the camera on tripod. I was astounded how big a difference it made. I kept thinking how much sharper my pictures would have been before on previous cameras if user controlled calibration existed before. It was easy to do with the camera tethered on a laptop, and I think it is one of the biggest reasons to upgrade from older cameras (the 50D and current 1D's have the calibration option also). The Screen Finally the picture preview is from the big picture and not the small thumbnail. I can actually see if the picture is in focus or not. This is for me, in top 3 of the reasons why I bought this camera.And the screen is fabulous anyway. It makes a world of difference. Handling It's a brick. In a positive way. The buttons are in the right places, and it was very intuitive to use. Finally the "direct print" button can be used for other stuff too. When you have it in your hand, it just oozes with the fun factor. It makes you want to keep on shooting. Only thing I wished was they had the vertical grip built in, but I suppose some want to keep it smaller. I myself opted for the grip right away... Picture quality This is one of the most subjective things in photography. From my point of view though, it is just amazing. The amount of detail at my disposal with this camera is so overwhelming. Looking at the raw files I think, wow, the sky is the limit. For some reason getting the exposures spot on seems so much easier with this camera. The tonal range one can get is great. You really have a lot of material to work with from the files. High ISO Well, I knew it was gonna blow me away. But I was still in awe when I opened the first shots above 1600. I think the possibilities this camera (or any other of the new breed that can deliver the goods, Nikon or Sony or whatever) is beyond comprehension. My band, wedding and street photography are going to get boosted to new heights from now on. Full-frame It was clear to me before going full-frame that it was gonna look different, but how much different was still a huge surprise. The bokeh got so much creamier, and the depth-of-field became more apparent... It really made a difference. Even the non-L cheaper lenses lost most of the smutty bokeh they used to have... Conclusion Highly recommended. Hands down. If I knew exactly what I was gonna get, I could have easily paid a 1000 € more for it. It is just so good. It's like falling in love with photography again. It's rare I get to use a piece of equipment that I just have no complaints about. Canon really delivered the goods this time. Go out and buy it! |
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Remember the Canon 5D Mk II
Remember when the Canon 5D Mk II was the greatest new camera to hit the planet? Remember these comments?
Soft Focus Photography
Here is some good information on doing soft focus photography, which is sometimes a lost art that most of today's photographers do not take, but they can make nice and artistic photo for some people...
When ever the subject of soft focus photography comes up, all the urban legends, technical myths, misconceptions and strange improvisations seem to come alive as if resurrected from the dead. Yes- I know people use Vaseline, KY products, and Vicks Vapo-O-Rub on old skylight filters and this works to some degree. Black plastic screening, nylon stockings and clear nail polish on the edges of filter ain’t half bad but those methods can be both messy and inconsistent. For me, breathing on my lens is not an option, I like my garlic pizza and my breath may take the coating off my lenses. Besides, I’m in Canada- if I breath on my lens while shooting out of doors in the winter, the lens may crack and fall of the camera.
It is interesting to note that the entire motion picture of “Fiddler on the Roof” was shot through a pair of pantyhose stretched across the mat box of a Panavison Camera. What with all the technology available to the motion picture industry and all the top talent involved with that production, one would think that some specialized filter or post production technique would have imparted that old world warm look on the film but the pantyhose did the trick and beat out all the others as far as what the producers and the DOP were looking for.
Nonetheless, here is the real story about the soft focus imagery as to how it works and how to use in effectively.
The basic classical soft focus effect is not based on interfereing with the performance of a perfectly sharp lens, shooting out of focus or degrading the image in any way. It is, however, based on optics and lighting technology and a fine lens which is especially designed to accommodate the effect. In the paragraphs below, I will explain some of the optical phenomena but for now, I want to start with the “look”. If you look at a well executed soft focus image you will see two images, firstly the primary image which is relatively sharp. The secondary image seems to place “glow” alongside the primary image almost it was emanating from the sharper image thus, creating the classical ethereal effect and mood of great soft focus work. This effect is common to a number readily available selection of lenses and is based on the Rodenstock Imagon formula. There is the Mamiya Sekor 150mm SF lens for the Mamiya RZ line of cameras, the Fugi SF created for their medium format system and the Imagon adaptation model for the Hasselblad system. This effect, surprisingly enough, is beautifully simulated by the Zeiss series of Softar filters- all of the other aforementioned lenses are prime lenses produced specifically for the camera bodies of the same manufacture.
I am into soft focus lenses for the retro and theatrical looks. The basic lighting for this kind of photography is rather hard lighting. The hard lighting creates a sufficient degree of specular and diffuse highlights to enable the aforementioned glowing effect. I have adapted old Imagon and other such lenses first to my medium format cameras and now to my DSLRs. I do quite a bit of analog black and white on with theses lenses but I also like soft colors as well- reminiscent of the old color film and hand tinting.
Before we get into some practical applications, I though it would be a good idea to talk about some of the technical aspects the optic involved, the famous soft focus lenses themselves and other informational details. I have been researching the subject for a lot of years. I have used only a hand full of some of the lenses mentioned but I have tested others for friends and seen some of them in use by some of my collogues. Many of theses lenses require the use of large or medium format equipment and film. Some medium format and large format cameras can be fitted with digital backs. Presently Canon produces a 135mm SF lens for its current line of digital cameras and the results are outstanding. That lens works on the same principle as the Mamiya Sekor 150mm SF- with the interchangeable grills. I have listed the others in some of the following paragraphs incase anyone out there runs in to one of those old rare models or wants to hunt one down for their own use.
Over the years there has been some controversy, among photographers as to the making of soft focus images altogether. This goes back a long way to Ansil Adams and his f/64 Group which insisted that every photograph should be tack sharp with a plethora of detail and the opposing school of though which seems to have been led by William Mortensen and his followers who applied a fantasy and (early Hollywood) theatrical mood to their photography. In the art and photographic world there have always been opposing philosophies between the realists, the and the a style of photography, popular at the turn of the 20th century, using soft-focus techniques to imitate academic painting.
Critic A: "This image has a certain ethereal quality.
Critic B: "It's a fuzzy picture."
The use of soft-focus lenses has always been somewhat controversial as well as rather difficult. To me, they are a rather specialized tool, something like the fish-eye lenses. I have seen many fish-eye pictures I didn't care for at all, but a few I found wonderful. Similarly, there are awful soft-focus images, but some of the all-time great photographs are soft. The names Stieglitz and Steichen jump into mind. Many think of these lenses as merely a way to "erase wrinkles", but in the right hands they can help in creating beautiful landscapes and provide a mood that strengthens other photographs. Soft-focus lenses are tools. Like other tools they can provide results that are good or bad. At one point in my career, I decided to harness all the craziness of the strange and exotic glass so that I cold have tools at my disposal with repeatable and consistent controllability. I was pleased to find that the nice folks and Rodenstock, Mamiya, Fugi. Minolta and canon had done most of the work for me in their design and production of soft focus lenses that actually were not “wild and crazy” as some of their ancestors. Yet in most cases, you can not pop one of theses lenses on your camera and have success right of the bat. Some of theses lenses do not even come with instruction manuals that go into any great detail. The one that came with my first Imagon said something to this effect- I paraphrase: Thank you for dropping nearly 2 grand for this lens. What you have purchased is the photographer’s equivalent if an artist’s paint brush- we can tell you how wide or narrow it is what kinds of bristles are in it and how long the handle is but we can’t REALLY tell you how to use it for the exact effect you are looking for. So now that you have this diamond in the rough you will probably invest (waste) another 2 grand in time and materials to “get it”. If you have no talent, may the Lord have mercy on you soul when your wife finds the invoice. Well- they do have good resale value so if you can’t use it, just stash it away for a few years and you will probably get back what you paid for it and perhaps then some.
No lens is perfect. All lenses have defects known as aberrations that cause the image to be less than perfect. Softness of focus is the result of one or more of these aberrations being strong enough to be noticeable. One aberration is the "spherical". It is comparatively easy to grind a lens surface which is a segment of a sphere, but a surface like that can't quite put an image into correct focus. Lens designers have to use several surfaces working together to reduce spherical aberration to useful levels. The most common means of producing a soft-focus lens is to allow some spherical aberration to remain. A caution; some very early soft focus lenses also had significant amounts of chromatic aberration; they couldn't focus different colors onto the same plane. Unless you intend to use only blue-sensitive film, no longer readily available, these would not be a good idea. The tip for identifying these lenses is that they will not contain an achromatic component - two or more glasses together. Two examples are the Dallmeyer-Bergheim a telephoto soft-focus lens, and the Puligny-Puyo.
Many photographers still alive, and perhaps still working, today, started off with a soft-focus lens, although they probably have never thought of it that way. During the 1920's and 30's, Box Brownies and other simple cameras were apt to be fitted with a single meniscus lens - one piece of glass with convex curves on both surfaces, thicker in the middle than the edges. These exhibited most every aberration in the book, but had a small enough aperture that images were usable.
There are two categories of people. Those who divide into categories and those who do not. There are two categories of soft-focus lens. Those which provide selection of softness without changing the aperture, and those which do not. Let’s discuss the latter first. The smaller the aperture, the less spherical aberration affects the image. This provides the basis for making the simpler forms of soft-focus lenses. You need only two pieces of glass to make a basic achromat, a lens which will focus different colors of light together well enough to provide a usable image, but which has too much spherical aberration to produce a sharp image at larger apertures. Put a diaphragm in front of this lens, stop it down to f16, and you can make a fairly sharp photograph. This is the construction of two of the four soft-focus lenses that I am aware of being made today. These are the Rodenstock Imagon and the current version of the Fujinon soft-focus lenses. (Earlier Fujinon SF lenses were triplets.) These lenses have peculiar diaphragms - removable discs with central holes surrounded by a ring of smaller holes which can be opened or closed. Buyers of used lenses should be sure that all the discs are present. Imagon lenses are made in 250 and 300mm focal lengths as well as versions for medium format cameras. The Fujinons come in 180 and 250mm lengths. There can be an occasional problem with these lenses. Strong highlights can be surrounded by a ring of little lights - an image of the diaphragm.
The other two current soft-focus lenses are made by Yamasaki and Cooke. Under the "Congo" name, soft focus triplets are made by Yamasaki in 150mm and 200mm lengths. To date, Cooke produces only one size, the 9" (229mm) PS945. The Cooke design is based on a very old lens, the Pinkham-Smith, which, along with the Busch Nicola Perscheid, has become something of a cult item, particularly in Japan, receiving very high prices on the used market. There were several series of P& S lenses, later sold under the Smith name only, which differed in their characteristics. I don't know which was used as a design basis by Cooke.
Speaking of used items, most are quite old, but there is less reason to reject a soft-focus lens because of age than there is when searching for a normal lens. O.K., it won't be as sharp as a new lens. You don't want it to be. It won't be coated, and it won't have the contrast of later designs. Most of your subjects will not want high contrast treatment. Flare could be a problem, but that's what lens shades and lighting control are for. Many soft-focus lenses have rather narrow coverage for their focal lengths and this can be helpful where flare is concerned.
Still speaking of lenses which control the amount of softness only by the aperture, there are many different designs which may be available at least occasionally. One of the more common is the Wollensak Veritar. They have an achromat pair at the back and a large meniscus lens at the front. The combination gives a peculiar result in stopping down. All the gain in depth of field is behind the plane of sharp focus, so instead of focusing on an eye when making a portrait, you need to focus on the tip of the nose. They are among the few older soft-focus lenses which came in (large) synchronized shutters. A still earlier Wollensak product was the Verito. Except for the two smallest sizes, this was an f4 lens, the back group of which could be used by itself. It may have been a Rapid Rectilinear type, but more likely a Petzval.
The Kodak Portrait Lens is an achromat like those of the Imagon and Fujinon lenses, but has a normal diaphragm instead of removable discs. The Spencer Port-Land, the Hanovia "Kalosat" and the Cooke Achromatic Portrait are of similar construction. The same description would also apply to early "landscape lenses”. The basic difference is that those intended as soft-focus lenses have larger apertures.
Some Dallmeyer lenses fall into this grouping. One type was just called the "Dallmeyer Soft Focus. It appears to be similar to the Kodak. Another was the "Mutac", unusual in that it was a triple convertible. You could use the lens complete or with either of the cells by itself.
The Petzval Portrait was a special case, not really a soft-focus lens, since it is very sharp in the center. The very first mathematically computed lens, it goes back to within a year of the public introduction of photography and the aim was to produce a lens fast enough to take people pictures. Softness in the outer areas was not intentional, but was accepted in order to attain the desired speed. It also has an inward curving field. Aside from wide-angles, most of the Darlot lenses found today are modified Petzval types, some, the Ross, for example, offering a flatter field. Burke & James were still offering new modified Petzval type portrait lenses into the 1970's.
The other category consists of a normal lens, as far as the glass is concerned, with a means of varying the lens elements so as to produce a controllable amount of spherical aberration, thus giving you some measure of control independent of the aperture. Stopping down will, of course, still create a sharper image, but you have a degree of control over depth of field in addition to amount of diffusion.
Here we go with categories again. Some of these lenses are based on anastigmat designs, some are not. Those which are not are mostly Petzval designs, and those most frequently seen are made by Dallmeyer, who started making portrait lenses with diffusion control in 1866. You want shallow depth of field? Try the Dallmeyer Patent Portrait No. 8D, 37" (934mm) focal length, f6. If speed is your thing, the B series was f3. Most of these well deserve the term "brass cannon". You need a very solid camera with a large lens board to make use of all but the smallest sizes. The glass ranged up to 6" diameter. They were also extremely expensive, up to over $400 at a time when you could buy an Eastman View Camera for $19.00. The smaller sizes carried a rack and pinion focusing movement, and you had to pay extra for an iris diaphragm instead of Waterhouse stops. Ross also made lenses of this type in f3.5 aperture.
The Wollensak "Vitax" is probably a Petzval type. It was made in at least three sizes from ten to 16 inches (254 to 406mm). It is distinctive in having a knob on the side as the diffusion adjustment means. It may be found in a "Studio" shutter, an iris diaphragm type working in only the "Bulb" mode. Also apparently a Petzval type is the Eastman Portrait Lens, not to be confused with the Kodak Portrait of much later production. "Eagle" Portrait Lenses were sold by George Murphy Inc., and I think this probably was a Murphy house brand. There were several series, both with and without the diffusion adjustment.
Turning to the anastigmats, many makers provided at least a few lenses with a soft focus adjustment added to lenses selected from their normal production range. An exception was the Graf "Variable", designed from the start as an adjustable diffusion type. The name derives from the fact that the focal length and the aperture changed a little as the soft focus was selected. Edward Weston was among the several prominent users of Graf lenses. Wollensak made some lenses of this type, probably Tessars. The ones I have seen were Series II, but there may have been others. In England, they were made by Taylor, Taylor & Hobson (Cooke), Dallmeyer, Beck and possibly others. Cooke lenses are the most common, in Series II, f4.5 and Series VI, f5.6, but not all Series II Cookes have the diffusion device. Many Cooke lenses have very prominent adjustment handles with two finger openings, sometimes referred to as "spectacles". The absence of these does not necessarily mean that there is no diffusion adjustment, however. The only Continental anastigmats with a soft-focus feature that have come to my attention are the Voigtlander "Universal" Heliar and the Zeiss Portrait Unar, also made under license by Bausch & Lomb. There probably have been others, though.
Like other tools, the use of soft-focus lenses improves with practice. There is a problem in that the ground glass gives only a limited idea of what the final print will look like. It would be a good idea to take a series of otherwise identical photos with differing settings of aperture and (if provided) diffusion control, when first trying out a soft-focus lens. The resulting prints can then be used as references when making future photographs.
There are many methods of softening focus without use of a special lens. One idea, frequently suggested, is to diffuse the focus during enlargement. There is a commercial item for this purpose, the Pictrol, too small at 2" inside diameter to go in front of most large format camera lenses. The problem here is that diffusion during a printing process produces a different result. Diffusion onto a negative spreads light out into the shadow areas. Diffusion during printing spreads darkness into the highlights. The result has been described as being suitable for portraits of the Addams family.
One early device mechanically jiggled the focus control during exposure, the apparent aim being to increase depth of field. Some early lenses were advertised as having great depth of field. This was the same as saying that they were soft.
Some experimenters have used the rather hazardous means of partially unscrewing a cell or cells of a normal lens. My first photograph with a new wide angle lens produced a picture of a youth choir looking somewhat more angelic than expected. I traced the phenomenon to a lens board a little too thick to allow the cells to fully come into position. As it turned out, the choir director liked the result. If I were going to try something that might result in accident to the lens, I think I would try it on one of the surplus Xerox lenses. These are typically 8 1/4", f4.5, made by very good manufacturers. As of this writing, Copy Raptars are available at www.surplusshed.com at $10.00. The last I knew, these lenses by T, T& H, B& L and Rank were available at www.candhsales.com at $16.50. The Raptars appear to be normal production items, while the others were designed especially for copy machines and may have been color corrected for the near monochromatic light of these machines.
Some people have smeared Vaseline onto the front of their lenses. I think I would prefer to smear up a filter rather than a lens. Others have used everything from cigar smoke to a piece of ladies stocking material in front of the lens. In the latter case, sometimes holes are burned into the fabric to modify the results. Hollywood types have employed fog machines. There are commercial diffusing discs. The Zeiss Softar seems to be the most highly regarded device of this type. It has a series of concentric thread-like rings formed into the glass and is rather expensive. Newer Softars use a different design; there are smaller “sub-lenses” in the filter which create the secondary images at all apertures. The older models with the concentric rings produce the softest effect when the lens is wide open or at 1 stop down and the image becomes progressively sharper as the aperture is stopped down.
There are ways of upsetting carefully calculated spherical aberration reduction besides changing element spacing. A thick glass plate is one. Adding various combinations of weak positive and negative elements, Proxar and Distar and the like, might be another.
SOFT FOCUS TECHNIQUES IN PRACTICAL USEAGE TODAY: I am a commercially oriented portraitist serving the general public, business, industry, the theatrical/musical community and families. I can not be a one note photographer and sped my life fighting with other photographers as to the validity or superiority of one style of photography versus another. Like any other service business I need to offer a variety of techniques and styles to accommodate the broad spectrum of clientele that I cater to.
Musicians call it their repertoire, magicians call it their “bag of tricks, and auto mechanics call it their lists of services. I simply offer various approaches to accommodate the needs of my various. The soft focus technique is one of my “tricks” or “services” that appeal to many of my clients both for cosmetic purposes and/or for the moods which this technique supports.
It is true that PhotoShop and other plug-in kinds of effects that will create a softer image but they are nothing like the unique look of what you can do with some of theses prime lenses and some of the antique models. It is also fun trying to hunt down some of theses relics and press them into use. The newer prim soft focus lenses yield great soft effects but can still stand up to higher degrees of enlargement. I have made 3-x40 from negatives and scans made in my RZ system with no loss of quality.
When ever the subject of soft focus photography comes up, all the urban legends, technical myths, misconceptions and strange improvisations seem to come alive as if resurrected from the dead. Yes- I know people use Vaseline, KY products, and Vicks Vapo-O-Rub on old skylight filters and this works to some degree. Black plastic screening, nylon stockings and clear nail polish on the edges of filter ain’t half bad but those methods can be both messy and inconsistent. For me, breathing on my lens is not an option, I like my garlic pizza and my breath may take the coating off my lenses. Besides, I’m in Canada- if I breath on my lens while shooting out of doors in the winter, the lens may crack and fall of the camera.
It is interesting to note that the entire motion picture of “Fiddler on the Roof” was shot through a pair of pantyhose stretched across the mat box of a Panavison Camera. What with all the technology available to the motion picture industry and all the top talent involved with that production, one would think that some specialized filter or post production technique would have imparted that old world warm look on the film but the pantyhose did the trick and beat out all the others as far as what the producers and the DOP were looking for.
Nonetheless, here is the real story about the soft focus imagery as to how it works and how to use in effectively.
The basic classical soft focus effect is not based on interfereing with the performance of a perfectly sharp lens, shooting out of focus or degrading the image in any way. It is, however, based on optics and lighting technology and a fine lens which is especially designed to accommodate the effect. In the paragraphs below, I will explain some of the optical phenomena but for now, I want to start with the “look”. If you look at a well executed soft focus image you will see two images, firstly the primary image which is relatively sharp. The secondary image seems to place “glow” alongside the primary image almost it was emanating from the sharper image thus, creating the classical ethereal effect and mood of great soft focus work. This effect is common to a number readily available selection of lenses and is based on the Rodenstock Imagon formula. There is the Mamiya Sekor 150mm SF lens for the Mamiya RZ line of cameras, the Fugi SF created for their medium format system and the Imagon adaptation model for the Hasselblad system. This effect, surprisingly enough, is beautifully simulated by the Zeiss series of Softar filters- all of the other aforementioned lenses are prime lenses produced specifically for the camera bodies of the same manufacture.
I am into soft focus lenses for the retro and theatrical looks. The basic lighting for this kind of photography is rather hard lighting. The hard lighting creates a sufficient degree of specular and diffuse highlights to enable the aforementioned glowing effect. I have adapted old Imagon and other such lenses first to my medium format cameras and now to my DSLRs. I do quite a bit of analog black and white on with theses lenses but I also like soft colors as well- reminiscent of the old color film and hand tinting.
Before we get into some practical applications, I though it would be a good idea to talk about some of the technical aspects the optic involved, the famous soft focus lenses themselves and other informational details. I have been researching the subject for a lot of years. I have used only a hand full of some of the lenses mentioned but I have tested others for friends and seen some of them in use by some of my collogues. Many of theses lenses require the use of large or medium format equipment and film. Some medium format and large format cameras can be fitted with digital backs. Presently Canon produces a 135mm SF lens for its current line of digital cameras and the results are outstanding. That lens works on the same principle as the Mamiya Sekor 150mm SF- with the interchangeable grills. I have listed the others in some of the following paragraphs incase anyone out there runs in to one of those old rare models or wants to hunt one down for their own use.
Over the years there has been some controversy, among photographers as to the making of soft focus images altogether. This goes back a long way to Ansil Adams and his f/64 Group which insisted that every photograph should be tack sharp with a plethora of detail and the opposing school of though which seems to have been led by William Mortensen and his followers who applied a fantasy and (early Hollywood) theatrical mood to their photography. In the art and photographic world there have always been opposing philosophies between the realists, the and the a style of photography, popular at the turn of the 20th century, using soft-focus techniques to imitate academic painting.
Critic A: "This image has a certain ethereal quality.
Critic B: "It's a fuzzy picture."
The use of soft-focus lenses has always been somewhat controversial as well as rather difficult. To me, they are a rather specialized tool, something like the fish-eye lenses. I have seen many fish-eye pictures I didn't care for at all, but a few I found wonderful. Similarly, there are awful soft-focus images, but some of the all-time great photographs are soft. The names Stieglitz and Steichen jump into mind. Many think of these lenses as merely a way to "erase wrinkles", but in the right hands they can help in creating beautiful landscapes and provide a mood that strengthens other photographs. Soft-focus lenses are tools. Like other tools they can provide results that are good or bad. At one point in my career, I decided to harness all the craziness of the strange and exotic glass so that I cold have tools at my disposal with repeatable and consistent controllability. I was pleased to find that the nice folks and Rodenstock, Mamiya, Fugi. Minolta and canon had done most of the work for me in their design and production of soft focus lenses that actually were not “wild and crazy” as some of their ancestors. Yet in most cases, you can not pop one of theses lenses on your camera and have success right of the bat. Some of theses lenses do not even come with instruction manuals that go into any great detail. The one that came with my first Imagon said something to this effect- I paraphrase: Thank you for dropping nearly 2 grand for this lens. What you have purchased is the photographer’s equivalent if an artist’s paint brush- we can tell you how wide or narrow it is what kinds of bristles are in it and how long the handle is but we can’t REALLY tell you how to use it for the exact effect you are looking for. So now that you have this diamond in the rough you will probably invest (waste) another 2 grand in time and materials to “get it”. If you have no talent, may the Lord have mercy on you soul when your wife finds the invoice. Well- they do have good resale value so if you can’t use it, just stash it away for a few years and you will probably get back what you paid for it and perhaps then some.
No lens is perfect. All lenses have defects known as aberrations that cause the image to be less than perfect. Softness of focus is the result of one or more of these aberrations being strong enough to be noticeable. One aberration is the "spherical". It is comparatively easy to grind a lens surface which is a segment of a sphere, but a surface like that can't quite put an image into correct focus. Lens designers have to use several surfaces working together to reduce spherical aberration to useful levels. The most common means of producing a soft-focus lens is to allow some spherical aberration to remain. A caution; some very early soft focus lenses also had significant amounts of chromatic aberration; they couldn't focus different colors onto the same plane. Unless you intend to use only blue-sensitive film, no longer readily available, these would not be a good idea. The tip for identifying these lenses is that they will not contain an achromatic component - two or more glasses together. Two examples are the Dallmeyer-Bergheim a telephoto soft-focus lens, and the Puligny-Puyo.
Many photographers still alive, and perhaps still working, today, started off with a soft-focus lens, although they probably have never thought of it that way. During the 1920's and 30's, Box Brownies and other simple cameras were apt to be fitted with a single meniscus lens - one piece of glass with convex curves on both surfaces, thicker in the middle than the edges. These exhibited most every aberration in the book, but had a small enough aperture that images were usable.
There are two categories of people. Those who divide into categories and those who do not. There are two categories of soft-focus lens. Those which provide selection of softness without changing the aperture, and those which do not. Let’s discuss the latter first. The smaller the aperture, the less spherical aberration affects the image. This provides the basis for making the simpler forms of soft-focus lenses. You need only two pieces of glass to make a basic achromat, a lens which will focus different colors of light together well enough to provide a usable image, but which has too much spherical aberration to produce a sharp image at larger apertures. Put a diaphragm in front of this lens, stop it down to f16, and you can make a fairly sharp photograph. This is the construction of two of the four soft-focus lenses that I am aware of being made today. These are the Rodenstock Imagon and the current version of the Fujinon soft-focus lenses. (Earlier Fujinon SF lenses were triplets.) These lenses have peculiar diaphragms - removable discs with central holes surrounded by a ring of smaller holes which can be opened or closed. Buyers of used lenses should be sure that all the discs are present. Imagon lenses are made in 250 and 300mm focal lengths as well as versions for medium format cameras. The Fujinons come in 180 and 250mm lengths. There can be an occasional problem with these lenses. Strong highlights can be surrounded by a ring of little lights - an image of the diaphragm.
The other two current soft-focus lenses are made by Yamasaki and Cooke. Under the "Congo" name, soft focus triplets are made by Yamasaki in 150mm and 200mm lengths. To date, Cooke produces only one size, the 9" (229mm) PS945. The Cooke design is based on a very old lens, the Pinkham-Smith, which, along with the Busch Nicola Perscheid, has become something of a cult item, particularly in Japan, receiving very high prices on the used market. There were several series of P& S lenses, later sold under the Smith name only, which differed in their characteristics. I don't know which was used as a design basis by Cooke.
Speaking of used items, most are quite old, but there is less reason to reject a soft-focus lens because of age than there is when searching for a normal lens. O.K., it won't be as sharp as a new lens. You don't want it to be. It won't be coated, and it won't have the contrast of later designs. Most of your subjects will not want high contrast treatment. Flare could be a problem, but that's what lens shades and lighting control are for. Many soft-focus lenses have rather narrow coverage for their focal lengths and this can be helpful where flare is concerned.
Still speaking of lenses which control the amount of softness only by the aperture, there are many different designs which may be available at least occasionally. One of the more common is the Wollensak Veritar. They have an achromat pair at the back and a large meniscus lens at the front. The combination gives a peculiar result in stopping down. All the gain in depth of field is behind the plane of sharp focus, so instead of focusing on an eye when making a portrait, you need to focus on the tip of the nose. They are among the few older soft-focus lenses which came in (large) synchronized shutters. A still earlier Wollensak product was the Verito. Except for the two smallest sizes, this was an f4 lens, the back group of which could be used by itself. It may have been a Rapid Rectilinear type, but more likely a Petzval.
The Kodak Portrait Lens is an achromat like those of the Imagon and Fujinon lenses, but has a normal diaphragm instead of removable discs. The Spencer Port-Land, the Hanovia "Kalosat" and the Cooke Achromatic Portrait are of similar construction. The same description would also apply to early "landscape lenses”. The basic difference is that those intended as soft-focus lenses have larger apertures.
Some Dallmeyer lenses fall into this grouping. One type was just called the "Dallmeyer Soft Focus. It appears to be similar to the Kodak. Another was the "Mutac", unusual in that it was a triple convertible. You could use the lens complete or with either of the cells by itself.
The Petzval Portrait was a special case, not really a soft-focus lens, since it is very sharp in the center. The very first mathematically computed lens, it goes back to within a year of the public introduction of photography and the aim was to produce a lens fast enough to take people pictures. Softness in the outer areas was not intentional, but was accepted in order to attain the desired speed. It also has an inward curving field. Aside from wide-angles, most of the Darlot lenses found today are modified Petzval types, some, the Ross, for example, offering a flatter field. Burke & James were still offering new modified Petzval type portrait lenses into the 1970's.
The other category consists of a normal lens, as far as the glass is concerned, with a means of varying the lens elements so as to produce a controllable amount of spherical aberration, thus giving you some measure of control independent of the aperture. Stopping down will, of course, still create a sharper image, but you have a degree of control over depth of field in addition to amount of diffusion.
Here we go with categories again. Some of these lenses are based on anastigmat designs, some are not. Those which are not are mostly Petzval designs, and those most frequently seen are made by Dallmeyer, who started making portrait lenses with diffusion control in 1866. You want shallow depth of field? Try the Dallmeyer Patent Portrait No. 8D, 37" (934mm) focal length, f6. If speed is your thing, the B series was f3. Most of these well deserve the term "brass cannon". You need a very solid camera with a large lens board to make use of all but the smallest sizes. The glass ranged up to 6" diameter. They were also extremely expensive, up to over $400 at a time when you could buy an Eastman View Camera for $19.00. The smaller sizes carried a rack and pinion focusing movement, and you had to pay extra for an iris diaphragm instead of Waterhouse stops. Ross also made lenses of this type in f3.5 aperture.
The Wollensak "Vitax" is probably a Petzval type. It was made in at least three sizes from ten to 16 inches (254 to 406mm). It is distinctive in having a knob on the side as the diffusion adjustment means. It may be found in a "Studio" shutter, an iris diaphragm type working in only the "Bulb" mode. Also apparently a Petzval type is the Eastman Portrait Lens, not to be confused with the Kodak Portrait of much later production. "Eagle" Portrait Lenses were sold by George Murphy Inc., and I think this probably was a Murphy house brand. There were several series, both with and without the diffusion adjustment.
Turning to the anastigmats, many makers provided at least a few lenses with a soft focus adjustment added to lenses selected from their normal production range. An exception was the Graf "Variable", designed from the start as an adjustable diffusion type. The name derives from the fact that the focal length and the aperture changed a little as the soft focus was selected. Edward Weston was among the several prominent users of Graf lenses. Wollensak made some lenses of this type, probably Tessars. The ones I have seen were Series II, but there may have been others. In England, they were made by Taylor, Taylor & Hobson (Cooke), Dallmeyer, Beck and possibly others. Cooke lenses are the most common, in Series II, f4.5 and Series VI, f5.6, but not all Series II Cookes have the diffusion device. Many Cooke lenses have very prominent adjustment handles with two finger openings, sometimes referred to as "spectacles". The absence of these does not necessarily mean that there is no diffusion adjustment, however. The only Continental anastigmats with a soft-focus feature that have come to my attention are the Voigtlander "Universal" Heliar and the Zeiss Portrait Unar, also made under license by Bausch & Lomb. There probably have been others, though.
Like other tools, the use of soft-focus lenses improves with practice. There is a problem in that the ground glass gives only a limited idea of what the final print will look like. It would be a good idea to take a series of otherwise identical photos with differing settings of aperture and (if provided) diffusion control, when first trying out a soft-focus lens. The resulting prints can then be used as references when making future photographs.
There are many methods of softening focus without use of a special lens. One idea, frequently suggested, is to diffuse the focus during enlargement. There is a commercial item for this purpose, the Pictrol, too small at 2" inside diameter to go in front of most large format camera lenses. The problem here is that diffusion during a printing process produces a different result. Diffusion onto a negative spreads light out into the shadow areas. Diffusion during printing spreads darkness into the highlights. The result has been described as being suitable for portraits of the Addams family.
One early device mechanically jiggled the focus control during exposure, the apparent aim being to increase depth of field. Some early lenses were advertised as having great depth of field. This was the same as saying that they were soft.
Some experimenters have used the rather hazardous means of partially unscrewing a cell or cells of a normal lens. My first photograph with a new wide angle lens produced a picture of a youth choir looking somewhat more angelic than expected. I traced the phenomenon to a lens board a little too thick to allow the cells to fully come into position. As it turned out, the choir director liked the result. If I were going to try something that might result in accident to the lens, I think I would try it on one of the surplus Xerox lenses. These are typically 8 1/4", f4.5, made by very good manufacturers. As of this writing, Copy Raptars are available at www.surplusshed.com at $10.00. The last I knew, these lenses by T, T& H, B& L and Rank were available at www.candhsales.com at $16.50. The Raptars appear to be normal production items, while the others were designed especially for copy machines and may have been color corrected for the near monochromatic light of these machines.
Some people have smeared Vaseline onto the front of their lenses. I think I would prefer to smear up a filter rather than a lens. Others have used everything from cigar smoke to a piece of ladies stocking material in front of the lens. In the latter case, sometimes holes are burned into the fabric to modify the results. Hollywood types have employed fog machines. There are commercial diffusing discs. The Zeiss Softar seems to be the most highly regarded device of this type. It has a series of concentric thread-like rings formed into the glass and is rather expensive. Newer Softars use a different design; there are smaller “sub-lenses” in the filter which create the secondary images at all apertures. The older models with the concentric rings produce the softest effect when the lens is wide open or at 1 stop down and the image becomes progressively sharper as the aperture is stopped down.
There are ways of upsetting carefully calculated spherical aberration reduction besides changing element spacing. A thick glass plate is one. Adding various combinations of weak positive and negative elements, Proxar and Distar and the like, might be another.
SOFT FOCUS TECHNIQUES IN PRACTICAL USEAGE TODAY: I am a commercially oriented portraitist serving the general public, business, industry, the theatrical/musical community and families. I can not be a one note photographer and sped my life fighting with other photographers as to the validity or superiority of one style of photography versus another. Like any other service business I need to offer a variety of techniques and styles to accommodate the broad spectrum of clientele that I cater to.
Musicians call it their repertoire, magicians call it their “bag of tricks, and auto mechanics call it their lists of services. I simply offer various approaches to accommodate the needs of my various. The soft focus technique is one of my “tricks” or “services” that appeal to many of my clients both for cosmetic purposes and/or for the moods which this technique supports.
It is true that PhotoShop and other plug-in kinds of effects that will create a softer image but they are nothing like the unique look of what you can do with some of theses prime lenses and some of the antique models. It is also fun trying to hunt down some of theses relics and press them into use. The newer prim soft focus lenses yield great soft effects but can still stand up to higher degrees of enlargement. I have made 3-x40 from negatives and scans made in my RZ system with no loss of quality.
Photo Critique On Photocamel
Want to know or learn some tips on photo critique writing, to help other photographers and artists alike? Check out this posting on Photocamel...
The biggest and most popular part of PhotoCamel are the critique boards. Just about every subject and type of photography is addressed. The reason for its popularity is the undeclared value it has to those who take advantage of them. If you are serious about your photography a well executed critique becomes an invaluable tool. It is a mirror that reflects both your strong points and your weaknesses and, like a mirror, you need to be willing to accept all your weaknesses no matter how hard it is to hear.
Having someone critique your work can be a hard blow to the ego. If you are overly sensitive about your work you may want to reconsider. However, keep in mind that the members making these observation only know you from what you post. They react to a request and will offer an opinion based on their level of experience and expertise. DO NOT take anything that is said about your work to heart. Instead work on separating yourself from your image and try to look at it from their perspective. After all, they are looking at your work with fresh, unbiased eyes.
Keep in mind that critiques are given in a written format. As you know, intentions are not transmitted easily through the written word and often what someone writes can be easily misinterpreted. If you are writing a critique mind your grammar and choose your wording carefully. You wouldn't want to inadvertently piss someone off by what you write. You also don't want to get banned because of a comment you post. With that in mind, remember that others may have the same problem and what they write may come across in a way they did not intend it to be. Take what is written with a grain of salt. You don't have to agree with everything people write, it is a learning tool only.
Definition
Why is giving and taking criticism so hard?
Photography is personal. It tends to be a reflection of how the photographer sees the world. Often that vision is taken further by adding an interpretation of the scene through various editing processes. In the end, a good photograph is considered a creation born out of love. There is an emotional tie. That bond causes the photographer to be protective of their creation, but it also goes deeper, they are protecting their egos. A good critique exposes weaknesses and no one likes to admit their failings.
As the creator, photographers tend to get so close to their work they fail to see the big picture; art is subjective. They work on an image, shaping it into something self satisfying, looking to present some message to the world. When that world views their work and derives a different message it can be a hard slap to the face. It is human nature to defend our choices, wanting to force something that others may not see, not realizing that the alternative can also be enriching.
Part of learning to become a better photographer is to realize that once you release an image to the public, it is no longer yours. I don’t mean yours in the form of legal ownership. I’m talking about that emotional connection, that link that forms from experiences when we first view a scene. When a viewer first sees an image it is compared to what they have seen, felt and explored in their own past because that is what they have access to. They definitely can not access what is in the photographer’s head therefore the creator does not factor into their interpretation of an image. As that creator you have to be willing to let that take place and accept where that image goes.
Objective vs subjective information
Because photography, specially great photography, strike those
proverbial emotional chords a good critic needs to be able to separate
the emotional from the technical; objective from the subjective. Once
separated a more constructive criticism can be assembled and presented
to the reviewee. That doesn’t disqualify the subjective, rather it
objectifies it into a more constructive format. While that may sound
like an oxymoron it is meant to avoid unproductive comments such as, “I like it,” and, “that's pretty!”
These types of subjective criticisms don’t benefit the person
presenting their work for critique and should be avoided. Instead,
explain why you "like" it or what elements define it as "pretty".
4 standard criteria for critique
Analyzing an image for criticism can follow a simple and fairly standardized format. This section explains four standard criteria for critiquing an image. These four are based on well documented standards and work to get the photographer to a more natural conclusion, advancing their ability. Each step progresses from the obvious to the more refined. To what level you take each section depends on your ability to see various aspects of a photograph; from technical to artistic aspects.
Too often I hear people say they can't offer a good critique because of one reason or another. “I'm just a beginner,” or, “I'm not a photographer,” tend to be the more common ones. Let me allay your fears. If you can formulate an opinion you can do a critique, so long as you are honest with yourself and the photographer whose work you are critiquing. To help you out here are the four criteria;
The takeaway here is to be honest but be polite, be subjective but also be objective and lastly, be constructive not destructive.
Some questions to ask
To help you out in formulating a good constructive critique here are some typical questions to keep in mind as you view an image;
The biggest and most popular part of PhotoCamel are the critique boards. Just about every subject and type of photography is addressed. The reason for its popularity is the undeclared value it has to those who take advantage of them. If you are serious about your photography a well executed critique becomes an invaluable tool. It is a mirror that reflects both your strong points and your weaknesses and, like a mirror, you need to be willing to accept all your weaknesses no matter how hard it is to hear.
Having someone critique your work can be a hard blow to the ego. If you are overly sensitive about your work you may want to reconsider. However, keep in mind that the members making these observation only know you from what you post. They react to a request and will offer an opinion based on their level of experience and expertise. DO NOT take anything that is said about your work to heart. Instead work on separating yourself from your image and try to look at it from their perspective. After all, they are looking at your work with fresh, unbiased eyes.
Keep in mind that critiques are given in a written format. As you know, intentions are not transmitted easily through the written word and often what someone writes can be easily misinterpreted. If you are writing a critique mind your grammar and choose your wording carefully. You wouldn't want to inadvertently piss someone off by what you write. You also don't want to get banned because of a comment you post. With that in mind, remember that others may have the same problem and what they write may come across in a way they did not intend it to be. Take what is written with a grain of salt. You don't have to agree with everything people write, it is a learning tool only.
Definition
Quote:
| Criticism: (n.) the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes; the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work. |
Why is giving and taking criticism so hard?
Photography is personal. It tends to be a reflection of how the photographer sees the world. Often that vision is taken further by adding an interpretation of the scene through various editing processes. In the end, a good photograph is considered a creation born out of love. There is an emotional tie. That bond causes the photographer to be protective of their creation, but it also goes deeper, they are protecting their egos. A good critique exposes weaknesses and no one likes to admit their failings.
As the creator, photographers tend to get so close to their work they fail to see the big picture; art is subjective. They work on an image, shaping it into something self satisfying, looking to present some message to the world. When that world views their work and derives a different message it can be a hard slap to the face. It is human nature to defend our choices, wanting to force something that others may not see, not realizing that the alternative can also be enriching.
Part of learning to become a better photographer is to realize that once you release an image to the public, it is no longer yours. I don’t mean yours in the form of legal ownership. I’m talking about that emotional connection, that link that forms from experiences when we first view a scene. When a viewer first sees an image it is compared to what they have seen, felt and explored in their own past because that is what they have access to. They definitely can not access what is in the photographer’s head therefore the creator does not factor into their interpretation of an image. As that creator you have to be willing to let that take place and accept where that image goes.
Objective vs subjective information
Quote:
|
Objective: (adj.) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Subjective: (adj.) based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. |
4 standard criteria for critique
Analyzing an image for criticism can follow a simple and fairly standardized format. This section explains four standard criteria for critiquing an image. These four are based on well documented standards and work to get the photographer to a more natural conclusion, advancing their ability. Each step progresses from the obvious to the more refined. To what level you take each section depends on your ability to see various aspects of a photograph; from technical to artistic aspects.
Too often I hear people say they can't offer a good critique because of one reason or another. “I'm just a beginner,” or, “I'm not a photographer,” tend to be the more common ones. Let me allay your fears. If you can formulate an opinion you can do a critique, so long as you are honest with yourself and the photographer whose work you are critiquing. To help you out here are the four criteria;
- Describe: This is a
literal description of the elements and action in the image. No deep
insight needed here, just a flat objective description of the image
contents. Often this is for self education and not verbalized in the
critique. It is just a tool that helps you get an understanding of what
you are looking at. Verbalizing the description often helps.
This process introduces you to the image. Here is where you identify the subject and supporting elements. Pay attention to colors, shapes, angles, people, textures, light and even editing styles and effects. The goal is to be as objective as possible. Describe the subject and its setting without inferring emotion, that comes later.
- Analyze: Here is where your knowledge of photography
fundamentals come into play. Use the elements and principles of
photography to reflect upon the image. Start with the basics then move
to more advanced technical qualities. Take note of such things as
exposure, depth of field, composition, framing, contrast, color balance,
focal length, posing.
Once the simple things are analyzed progress to more advanced observations such as the use of leading lines or light to draw the eye to a specific spot, or how colors are used to engage the viewer. With portraits it can be a matter of how far a face is turned or how a hand is presented. You are only limited by your own experience but the best thing about a critique is you also learn from reading what others post.
- Interpret: Here is where you begin to be more subjective in
your analysis. It is no longer about how an image is created but why it
was created. The best way to assess this is by asking yourself some
questions. Here are some examples;
- “What is the photographer trying to say through this image and why?” You are trying to discover the story within the image (if there is one), whether it is implied or un-implied. There are usually visual cues to help determine this. All photos have a story, but not all stories are deep and meaningful. Sometimes, “I am a pretty flower!” is the story and it doesn't need to go further than that.
- “What is the implied style or historical reference of the photo?” This one can be tricky as it requires some knowledge of past trends and photographic techniques. This is useful considering many of today’s editing software have the ability to replicate many of photography’s past analog processes.
- “What is the emotional appeal?” Since you can not know what the photographer had in mind when an image was created, you can not really know the true meaning behind why an image was created. You have to rely on clues in the image itself. “What am I supposed to be feeling when I view this image?”
- “Do I connect with the image and why or why not?” Expanding
on the emotional appeal, here you are want to do an introspective
analysis of your emotional connection to the image. It can be anything
from subject matter to a processing technique. Revealing this kind of
information allows the photographer to judge how his image is received
by others, specially if the emotional response matches the emotional
appeal.
Remember that just because an image receives a negative reaction from people does not mean that it was not the original intention of the photographer. Photography can be used to elicit all manner of emotions from the viewer, warm and fuzzy to horror and disgust. - “Why was the photo presented in this particular style?” Photo processing is a major part of presentation which ties in very closely with intention. A great photograph can be killed with bad editing and vice versa. It can be very easy to get lost in the technicalities of editing that the critic overlooks whether the initial style was the correct choice for a particular subject. Don't forget that lighting, makeup, costuming, perspective and set dressing also help to create a particular style as well. All these elements should be working in harmony with each other.
- Evaluate: After collecting all the above information about
the photograph, do your best to determine how successfully the
photograph met those criteria. Does it accomplish what the photographer
was trying to present? If not, what areas need addressing and why?
This is the hard part, writing it all down. If you follow the steps presented above you should have a fairly decent understanding of what needs to be addressed. It helps to create some bullet points in order to keep track of all the key issues. Just remember that you are addressing someone with an emotional tie to the work. Point out some strengths as well as the faults. Probably more so as strengths are hard to self analyze. Finally, offer suggestions on how the photographer can improve. Don't just say something is broken without offering a way to fix it or, at the very least, explaining why you think it’s broken.
The takeaway here is to be honest but be polite, be subjective but also be objective and lastly, be constructive not destructive.
Some questions to ask
To help you out in formulating a good constructive critique here are some typical questions to keep in mind as you view an image;
- What is the first thing you notice?
- Why do you notice that?
- Do you think this is what the photographer intended you to notice?
- What other elements do you take notice of?
- Why did you notice them?
- What elements make you think the photographer did this on purpose?
- What is the most interesting or creative thing you see?
- Is this point of interest the main focus of the image?
- If not, how would you suggest the photographer correct that?
- What is the photograph trying to convey (message)?
- Why do you think this?
- How does the photograph make you feel?
- Why does it do that?
- Are there any unanswered questions with the image?
PhotoCamel Writing Photography Tutorials
Find this good tutorial on writing photography related tutorials on Photocamel
We encourage all our Photo Camel members to share their knowledge with others. That is why we have this Tutorials section. However, there are a few pointers you need to keep in mind as you assemble your tutorial. Please keep these in mind as it will help give your tutorials some longevity.
First, some hard rules;
- Embed your images rather than link to them from an outside source - Embedding an image places that image on the Photo Camel server, making the image accessible all the time. If your image is hosted off site it is susceptible to changes such as changing hosting service, deleting or updating linked images, link changes within the hosting service and so on. There is nothing more frustrating to someone than reading a tutorial with broken link icons instead of the original images. There is a great Posting Images Tutorial by Mr. Pickles that explains how to upload images to Photo Camel.
- Avoid links to external sources as links tend to change or become obsolete over time - Similarly, links to external sources such as instructional videos or tutorials, products or photographers can change over time. Try to keep longevity in mind when posting in the Tutorials section.
Second, some not so hard rules;
- Do not assume the reader knows what you know - Remember that Photo Camel appeals to photographers of all abilities. Many come to this section specifically to increase their knowledge. What you find as common knowledge may be foreign to a beginner. Take the time to explain all the parts of your tutorial. If your tutorial is meant for more advanced photographers then state that at the beginning. Include a prerequisites disclaimer before going into the heart of the tutorial
- Break up the tutorial into easy to follow steps - Write your tutorial in blocks of text rather than one continuous expanse. Not only is it easier on the brain it is also easier on the eyes. Keep the paragraphs logical so each paragraph explains a single concept or structure before introducing the next.
- Keep your steps clear and concise - Everyone appreciates step-by-step processes. It allows for a clear understanding of your process. It also makes it easier to identify potential problems or pitfalls one could run into.
- Use bold headings to separate parts or steps in your tutorial - Long or complex tutorials should be broken into sections with each section clearly identified with a bold heading. This allows a quick perusal of the tutorial and if a reader is somewhat familiar with a section they can make the decision to either read or skip that section. Specially when referring back to a tutorial they have flagged for future use.
Thank you in advance for sharing.
Past Olympus Deals
Did anyone take advantage of these deals?
Right now, the Olympus E-PL5 is on sale for $100 off, making it $499.99 (or $500 for non-marketing folks). If comes with the 14-42 II R lens and an 8GB wifi SD card too. Still available in either Black, Silver, or White versions (White version has the silver lens).
E-PL5 | Olympus
Think it was a decent offer before, how about adding the Olympus M Zuiko ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 tele lens to the deal.
Get it here: E-PL5 | Olympus Deal
But the deal ends on 5/3/14
Right now, the Olympus E-PL5 is on sale for $100 off, making it $499.99 (or $500 for non-marketing folks). If comes with the 14-42 II R lens and an 8GB wifi SD card too. Still available in either Black, Silver, or White versions (White version has the silver lens).
E-PL5 | Olympus
Think it was a decent offer before, how about adding the Olympus M Zuiko ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 tele lens to the deal.
Get it here: E-PL5 | Olympus Deal
But the deal ends on 5/3/14
Thursday, May 1, 2014
PhotoCamel Image Posting
Note that in addition to the instructions below, the PhotoCamel Gallery Help file contains additional instructions.
This is a VERY detailed, but hopefully simple, look at THREE ways you can post images here on the PhotoCamel. We hope this helps some of you in getting your images in a thread, for all PhotoCamel members to enjoy, critique, educate, and learn from.
Posting Images By Direct Linking
Using the direct linking method, your images WILL appear in the thread. To use this method, your images MUST be "hosted" out in cyberspace, somewhere. More on this below.
To use this method, click on the icon (Insert Image - looks like mountains with the sun/moon) that is "highlighted" in the image shown below. You will get a pop-up dialog that asks for the actual URL (web page) of the hosted image. Typically, you Copy (Ctrl-C) the address from your other site, and Paste (Ctrl-V) the address into the dialog. Click the OK box on the dialog, and your linked image will be included WHERE your text cursor is. So you could type some text, insert an image, and type some text below it, if you wish. See note below if your image does NOT show up.
As for "host sites," there are free ones, like right here at PhotoCamel (click Galleries on the toolbar), and there are pay sites. Popular pay sites are SmugMug , PBase , and ZenFolio. Each have different options and features that make them unique (SmugMug offers print services, gifts, customization tools for your site, for instance), and each have different pricing structures, so check their sites for more information.
As for FREE ones, you need to watch and make sure you can direct link to images you put there. You can at PhotoCamel, so why go anywhere else? A lot of them will not allow that. One popular hosting site that a lot of people use is called PhotoBucket, another is Flickr.
NOTE 1: If you use the FREE PhotoCamel Gallery to host your images, the actual URL you should use is located in text boxes below your gallery image. Click here for a complete tutorial. The one you want to use is called Medium Image. You can click in that text line and it will highlight. Copy (Ctrl-C) the entire line, and paste (Ctrl-V) that into your thread WITHOUT using the Icon mentioned above (the IMG tags are already in that line), OR you can click the "More" icon (looks like a picture) below that, and grab the whole Direct Link line and paste that into the dialog box that pops up when you click the Image File icon. Pretty handy for you.
NOTE 2: If you use PBase (and possibly others), the URL address of your image does NOT contain a proper "extension", so when you paste it, you have to add a ".jpg" (no quotes) to the end. See your hosting site for more information. Some do NOT allow direct linking of images you place there (so your image will NOT show up in your post).
Even with direct linking, we still prefer the image be no more than 800 pixels on the long side. If your image IS larger, our Forum Software will automatically resize it down to 800 pixels. There WILL however be a yellow bar across the top of your thread indicating this, and viewers CAN click the yellow bar, and see the larger size. We still prefer you not post a 10mp sized image though. Most people will not look at it or comment accordingly.
If you need to post a larger version, you could use the option mentioned below called "Posting Images as a Link". This saves PhotoCamel some bandwidth and allows our members with a slow internet connection to enjoy the site and its performance.
Posting Images As A Link
Using this option will NOT make your image appear here in the thread. All that will appear is a "hyper link", that people MUST click on to see your image. Depending on your browser, viewers may see the image in a new window. You MUST have the image hosted elsewhere on the Internet.
To use this method, click on the icon (Insert Link - looks like the Earth with a piece of chain) that is "highlighted" in the image shown below. You will get a pop-up dialog that asks for the actual URL (web page) of the hosted image. Typically, you Copy (Ctrl-C) the address from your other site, and Paste (Ctrl-V) the address into the dialog.
This method is preferred if you wish to post a larger than normal image. Reasons for this would be to show greater detail, weird image artifacts, noise, etc. This method can often times lead to LESS "looks" by viewers. It is typically because cautious people do not click links, without really knowing what is at the end of that link. This option could be considered a good thing / bad thing, so use this appropriately.
Also, you can type some meaningful text (like "My Problem Image" or "Here") into the message Window BEFORE hitting the "Insert Link" button. When you put in your URL in the dialog, the text your typed in, will be the actual link text. Otherwise, whatever your actual address is to the image will be shown as the link text.
NOTE: If you use the FREE PhotoCamel Gallery to host your images, the actual "link" you should use is located in the text box below your gallery image (Linked Thumbnail one). Pretty handy for you.
Posting Images as Attachments
The direct attachment option allows you to NOT have your images hosted elsewhere on the Internet, and WILL allow your images to show up in your thread. To make the PhotoCamel site perform well, we have set limits to the size and type of images that your can attach, but we do NOT feel that we have been too restrictive.
Typically, our members will attach a JPG or JPEG image. This is a VERY common image format, and the image is compressed to make the file size manageable. With that said, we will only display these images in a thread if they are 800 pixels or less on the long side (a landscape image would be something like 600x800 (HxW) as an example). Also, the actual file size can not exceed 155kb.
In order to get to that size, you need to RESIZE the image to make it small enough pixel-wise, and when saving, you may need to lower the compression a bit (say 8 or 9 in Photoshop, 80%-90% in others). If using Photoshop, in the JPG options dialog that comes up with compression setting, the file size shown is LOWER than the actual file size will be. Keep that in mind when saving.
To use this option, it looks confusing, but it is pretty straight forward. Click on the icon (Attachments - looks like a paper clip) that is "highlighted" in the image shown below.
When you click the Attachment icon, a huge new window will open, but don't be scared. The new window is shown below.
The first section is entitled "Upload file from your computer". There are 5 boxes there, and 5 Browse buttons to make it easier. When you click the top Browse button, a typical "find file" dialog will be displayed. Use it to highlight the image you wish to upload, and hit Open. That will put the "address" of the file in the text box beside the Browse button. Notice you can do up to 5 images. You do NOT have to attach 5 images. One is fine. We ask you to be cautious of how many images you include in one thread, as if they are all different (person, tree, car, etc), then people may not know how to comment accordingly. Also on this window (I cut it off of my screen grab), entitled Attachment Key, you can see the limitations of file types and sizes that are currently allowed, so use the scroll bar to see the types and sizes.
NOTE: The image files you attach should NOT contain odd characters, like the apostrophe ( ' ) as it can cause problems.
When you are done Browsing and attaching images, click the Upload button that is in that section. It will take a bit of time for your computer to upload them to the PhotoCamel site, so be patient. Once they are uploaded, their file names will appear in a new section below the browsing section, and above the Attachment Key section. Once they all appear there, click the Close Window button to get rid of the Attachments screen (don't worry, the images are still "waiting" for you.
If you want the text to "wrap" around your images (like the this post), then you need to place your text pointer in the place you want an image (or if you want them all at the bottom, skip this until the Submit part), click the little drop-down beside the Attachments icon (the Paper Clip), and select the image you want where the cursor is. It will put a "tag" in there with numbers. Don't worry about that. If you have other images to place, do the same thing, otherwise, complete your post by submitting it.
That concludes this "brief" tutorial. Obviously, if you have any questions about this (or anything else), be sure and post a thread in out Suggestions/Questions board.
Now, lets see those images...
This is a VERY detailed, but hopefully simple, look at THREE ways you can post images here on the PhotoCamel. We hope this helps some of you in getting your images in a thread, for all PhotoCamel members to enjoy, critique, educate, and learn from.
Posting Images By Direct Linking
Using the direct linking method, your images WILL appear in the thread. To use this method, your images MUST be "hosted" out in cyberspace, somewhere. More on this below.
To use this method, click on the icon (Insert Image - looks like mountains with the sun/moon) that is "highlighted" in the image shown below. You will get a pop-up dialog that asks for the actual URL (web page) of the hosted image. Typically, you Copy (Ctrl-C) the address from your other site, and Paste (Ctrl-V) the address into the dialog. Click the OK box on the dialog, and your linked image will be included WHERE your text cursor is. So you could type some text, insert an image, and type some text below it, if you wish. See note below if your image does NOT show up.
As for "host sites," there are free ones, like right here at PhotoCamel (click Galleries on the toolbar), and there are pay sites. Popular pay sites are SmugMug , PBase , and ZenFolio. Each have different options and features that make them unique (SmugMug offers print services, gifts, customization tools for your site, for instance), and each have different pricing structures, so check their sites for more information.
As for FREE ones, you need to watch and make sure you can direct link to images you put there. You can at PhotoCamel, so why go anywhere else? A lot of them will not allow that. One popular hosting site that a lot of people use is called PhotoBucket, another is Flickr.
NOTE 1: If you use the FREE PhotoCamel Gallery to host your images, the actual URL you should use is located in text boxes below your gallery image. Click here for a complete tutorial. The one you want to use is called Medium Image. You can click in that text line and it will highlight. Copy (Ctrl-C) the entire line, and paste (Ctrl-V) that into your thread WITHOUT using the Icon mentioned above (the IMG tags are already in that line), OR you can click the "More" icon (looks like a picture) below that, and grab the whole Direct Link line and paste that into the dialog box that pops up when you click the Image File icon. Pretty handy for you.
NOTE 2: If you use PBase (and possibly others), the URL address of your image does NOT contain a proper "extension", so when you paste it, you have to add a ".jpg" (no quotes) to the end. See your hosting site for more information. Some do NOT allow direct linking of images you place there (so your image will NOT show up in your post).
Even with direct linking, we still prefer the image be no more than 800 pixels on the long side. If your image IS larger, our Forum Software will automatically resize it down to 800 pixels. There WILL however be a yellow bar across the top of your thread indicating this, and viewers CAN click the yellow bar, and see the larger size. We still prefer you not post a 10mp sized image though. Most people will not look at it or comment accordingly.
If you need to post a larger version, you could use the option mentioned below called "Posting Images as a Link". This saves PhotoCamel some bandwidth and allows our members with a slow internet connection to enjoy the site and its performance.
Posting Images As A Link
Using this option will NOT make your image appear here in the thread. All that will appear is a "hyper link", that people MUST click on to see your image. Depending on your browser, viewers may see the image in a new window. You MUST have the image hosted elsewhere on the Internet.
To use this method, click on the icon (Insert Link - looks like the Earth with a piece of chain) that is "highlighted" in the image shown below. You will get a pop-up dialog that asks for the actual URL (web page) of the hosted image. Typically, you Copy (Ctrl-C) the address from your other site, and Paste (Ctrl-V) the address into the dialog.
This method is preferred if you wish to post a larger than normal image. Reasons for this would be to show greater detail, weird image artifacts, noise, etc. This method can often times lead to LESS "looks" by viewers. It is typically because cautious people do not click links, without really knowing what is at the end of that link. This option could be considered a good thing / bad thing, so use this appropriately.
Also, you can type some meaningful text (like "My Problem Image" or "Here") into the message Window BEFORE hitting the "Insert Link" button. When you put in your URL in the dialog, the text your typed in, will be the actual link text. Otherwise, whatever your actual address is to the image will be shown as the link text.
NOTE: If you use the FREE PhotoCamel Gallery to host your images, the actual "link" you should use is located in the text box below your gallery image (Linked Thumbnail one). Pretty handy for you.
Posting Images as Attachments
The direct attachment option allows you to NOT have your images hosted elsewhere on the Internet, and WILL allow your images to show up in your thread. To make the PhotoCamel site perform well, we have set limits to the size and type of images that your can attach, but we do NOT feel that we have been too restrictive.
Typically, our members will attach a JPG or JPEG image. This is a VERY common image format, and the image is compressed to make the file size manageable. With that said, we will only display these images in a thread if they are 800 pixels or less on the long side (a landscape image would be something like 600x800 (HxW) as an example). Also, the actual file size can not exceed 155kb.
In order to get to that size, you need to RESIZE the image to make it small enough pixel-wise, and when saving, you may need to lower the compression a bit (say 8 or 9 in Photoshop, 80%-90% in others). If using Photoshop, in the JPG options dialog that comes up with compression setting, the file size shown is LOWER than the actual file size will be. Keep that in mind when saving.
To use this option, it looks confusing, but it is pretty straight forward. Click on the icon (Attachments - looks like a paper clip) that is "highlighted" in the image shown below.
When you click the Attachment icon, a huge new window will open, but don't be scared. The new window is shown below.
The first section is entitled "Upload file from your computer". There are 5 boxes there, and 5 Browse buttons to make it easier. When you click the top Browse button, a typical "find file" dialog will be displayed. Use it to highlight the image you wish to upload, and hit Open. That will put the "address" of the file in the text box beside the Browse button. Notice you can do up to 5 images. You do NOT have to attach 5 images. One is fine. We ask you to be cautious of how many images you include in one thread, as if they are all different (person, tree, car, etc), then people may not know how to comment accordingly. Also on this window (I cut it off of my screen grab), entitled Attachment Key, you can see the limitations of file types and sizes that are currently allowed, so use the scroll bar to see the types and sizes.
NOTE: The image files you attach should NOT contain odd characters, like the apostrophe ( ' ) as it can cause problems.
When you are done Browsing and attaching images, click the Upload button that is in that section. It will take a bit of time for your computer to upload them to the PhotoCamel site, so be patient. Once they are uploaded, their file names will appear in a new section below the browsing section, and above the Attachment Key section. Once they all appear there, click the Close Window button to get rid of the Attachments screen (don't worry, the images are still "waiting" for you.
If you want the text to "wrap" around your images (like the this post), then you need to place your text pointer in the place you want an image (or if you want them all at the bottom, skip this until the Submit part), click the little drop-down beside the Attachments icon (the Paper Clip), and select the image you want where the cursor is. It will put a "tag" in there with numbers. Don't worry about that. If you have other images to place, do the same thing, otherwise, complete your post by submitting it.
That concludes this "brief" tutorial. Obviously, if you have any questions about this (or anything else), be sure and post a thread in out Suggestions/Questions board.
Now, lets see those images...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)