-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
orchids
- Thread starter Ray West
- Start date
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hello Ray!
The pale picture surprises me since I never expected something impressionist from you. I checked the file info in Photoshop and found that this was without a defined color space. So it might appear very different to the viewer than you intend. Could you send it in sRGB so I know I'm seeing what you intend.
Asher
The pale picture surprises me since I never expected something impressionist from you. I checked the file info in Photoshop and found that this was without a defined color space. So it might appear very different to the viewer than you intend. Could you send it in sRGB so I know I'm seeing what you intend.
Asher
Last edited:
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Now I see it correctly. Thanks Ray!
This picture is written in a light and delicate manner. There are no shades in the darker tonalities and likely a purposeful work by the photographer. Also there is a diffuse granularity reminiscent of film. We can see a colored border around the light orchid petals suggestive of chromatic aberation. This suggest an older or inexpensive lens.
This image mimics a linear scan of a sheet of film made sometime ago. It could be that the color has faded. The appearance can be punched up using a light S curve and the density of the flower can be increased by adding a multiply layer.
However, all this is not the point. This is a gentle image that has to be viewed as delivered since that is the artist's intent at this point in time.
There is one thing I felt worth doing and that is placing the unaltered image within a delicate frame.
Wow, I've stuck my neck out!
Asher
This picture is written in a light and delicate manner. There are no shades in the darker tonalities and likely a purposeful work by the photographer. Also there is a diffuse granularity reminiscent of film. We can see a colored border around the light orchid petals suggestive of chromatic aberation. This suggest an older or inexpensive lens.
This image mimics a linear scan of a sheet of film made sometime ago. It could be that the color has faded. The appearance can be punched up using a light S curve and the density of the flower can be increased by adding a multiply layer.
However, all this is not the point. This is a gentle image that has to be viewed as delivered since that is the artist's intent at this point in time.
There is one thing I felt worth doing and that is placing the unaltered image within a delicate frame.
Wow, I've stuck my neck out!
Asher
Last edited:
Edward Bussa
Member
My first impression: A little bit too much is obscured, a little bit too much noise - especially near the yellow center of the flower.
Me second impression: This might be really impressive very large (6x4)?
Me second impression: This might be really impressive very large (6x4)?
janet Smith
pro member
Hi Ray
I'm a bit unsure about this one, I like the composition, the subject and the lighting, but it's a bit too obscured for my taste. Although I really like the delicacy of the image which matches the delicacy of the flower. Think you're on to something here.....do you have any more for us to look at?
I'm a bit unsure about this one, I like the composition, the subject and the lighting, but it's a bit too obscured for my taste. Although I really like the delicacy of the image which matches the delicacy of the flower. Think you're on to something here.....do you have any more for us to look at?
Thanks ever so much for your encouraging comments,
Asher, I like it when you stick your neck out. It does improve it somewhat, light frame, centre stage. the presentation helps.
Edward, I don't know, either. I'm not sure if folk in the USA understand irony, but 6*4 inches?
Janet, no more at the moment, but I may be able to do some others in a week's time (but by then you may well have your own??)
It seems it may be worth pursuing - I guess its tending towards sort of minimalist - i.e. the minimum required to represent three orchid blooms.
Anyone else?
Best wishes,
Ray
Asher, I like it when you stick your neck out. It does improve it somewhat, light frame, centre stage. the presentation helps.
Edward, I don't know, either. I'm not sure if folk in the USA understand irony, but 6*4 inches?
Janet, no more at the moment, but I may be able to do some others in a week's time (but by then you may well have your own??)
It seems it may be worth pursuing - I guess its tending towards sort of minimalist - i.e. the minimum required to represent three orchid blooms.
Anyone else?
Best wishes,
Ray
Edward Bussa
Member
Just so you know, I do like it and I would love to see it 6x4 (feet!).
Also, most folk in the US understand irony some of the time, and for me, the irony is that I left it open to interpretation because I knew ANYONE could figure it out!
Does it also fall into the "pictorialist" camp?
Also, most folk in the US understand irony some of the time, and for me, the irony is that I left it open to interpretation because I knew ANYONE could figure it out!
Does it also fall into the "pictorialist" camp?
David A. Goldfarb
New member
The key to soft focus, I think, is to be able to control it by combining soft and sharp. The classic soft focus lenses that I like, like the Verito, Heliar, Pinkham-Smith, and the new Cooke PS945 (I own the first two, not the latter two), do mainly this by allowing the photographer to control the amount of spherical aberration, so a diffuse image formed by the rays that enter the the lens at the edges is superimposed on a sharp image formed by the rays that enter the lens at the center (depending, of course, on how you focus the lens). By stopping down the lens (or adjusting the element spacing with some lenses), you can change the proportion of diffuse to sharp.
Soft lighting and a soft lens often doesn't work. With the Imagon, for instance, the manufacturer recommends a lighting ratio of about 1:5, which would be way too contrasty for a normal portrait (1:2 or 1:3 being the usual range).
I've tried some B&W landscapes with the Verito, and there I find I usually need a red filter to balance the soft effect of the lens, which I almost never use with conventional lenses, because the black skies are usually a little too Wagnerian.
So if you're not using a classic lens, there are other ways to do this. For instance, if you get diffusion with a diffusion screen in front of the camera lens, you could make a double exposure with the diffuser and without, or you could use harder light, or contrastier or more saturated film (or up the contrast or saturation in PhotoShop). Or if you diffuse in PhotoShop, you could have a sharp layer and a diffuse layer and adjust the proportions to taste. I usually find diffusion under the enlarging lens a bit unnatural (recognizing that sometimes surreal or ghoulish is desirable), because it sprays the shadows into the highlights (with negative processes, as opposed to Ilfochrome), rather than vice versa, but when I've seen it done successfully for a natural effect, it usually involves a very weak filter, like a Softar I, used for only part of the exposure time. These effects won't be the same as with a classic soft focus lens, but it still might be a nice effect.
Soft lighting and a soft lens often doesn't work. With the Imagon, for instance, the manufacturer recommends a lighting ratio of about 1:5, which would be way too contrasty for a normal portrait (1:2 or 1:3 being the usual range).
I've tried some B&W landscapes with the Verito, and there I find I usually need a red filter to balance the soft effect of the lens, which I almost never use with conventional lenses, because the black skies are usually a little too Wagnerian.
So if you're not using a classic lens, there are other ways to do this. For instance, if you get diffusion with a diffusion screen in front of the camera lens, you could make a double exposure with the diffuser and without, or you could use harder light, or contrastier or more saturated film (or up the contrast or saturation in PhotoShop). Or if you diffuse in PhotoShop, you could have a sharp layer and a diffuse layer and adjust the proportions to taste. I usually find diffusion under the enlarging lens a bit unnatural (recognizing that sometimes surreal or ghoulish is desirable), because it sprays the shadows into the highlights (with negative processes, as opposed to Ilfochrome), rather than vice versa, but when I've seen it done successfully for a natural effect, it usually involves a very weak filter, like a Softar I, used for only part of the exposure time. These effects won't be the same as with a classic soft focus lens, but it still might be a nice effect.
janet Smith
pro member
Hi Ray
Just happens to be one of the flowers I've not got around to yet, not being into house plants, I'm more of an outdoors girl, but my Mother has rather a nice white orchid.......
I've got a crazy week or two ahead of me, I'll have to see if I can find time..........
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ah, I'm relieved! The blade did not fall! But how did you take the picture? From whence come the grain and the chromatic aberration? Is it film of a digicam or some PS process?
Re Irony, it's ironic that I am born Englishman, did not get it! So is being British merely a superficial thing that wears off in the USA?
David,
I'm impressed that you own some of the early soft focus lenses. More than that, the fact that we have someone who understands the sources of soft focus brought about after lenses became too sharp for portraits early in the 20th Century.
As you of course know, one simple solution was to blur the image with a pattern of holes in a plate to break up the light within the lens. This of course gave a pretty uniform blur and in some lenses this could be dialed in. Then came a revolutionary idea in Smith and Pinkerton lenses of taking some of the peripheral lens and carefully designing the curvature such that the light would defocus over the focus image and produce an image both focused and glowing, especially with bright contrasty lighting. Diffuse even light does not work well with these lenses wide open. So now there were lenses that would be sharp from wide open to stopped down, but wide open, there would be a glow in the unfocused area and the focused area would be soft as well as sharp. A bight window would have a glow as if angels were entering the room. The face would come alive as if gently sprayed by magic elves with the finest silver in the brightest areas.
Guess what, I have the Cook PS945 Soft Focus Portrait lens and that will go into my Chamonix 8x10 Camera that is being made for me in China right now!! That story will be part of a blog I'll start shortly!
So I'd sure like to know about these flowers and what was on your mind, Ray? How did you come to take this picture end up with the result you share with us? Were you inspired by some picture, had a dream or came across the effect by accident? Anyway, I'm happy we have an ability to look at subjects in from different perspectives. Using the delicate colors and limited contrast and absence of lower tonalities, you present us with something ethereal and almost transparent, like the folds of a loose skirt of a young woman’s passing and gone in a fleeting moment; an impression of existence!
Asher
Last edited:
David A. Goldfarb
New member
If you're thinking of the "sink strainer" aperture on an Imagon, it's not exactly the aperture that produces the blur. The blur still comes from spherical aberration, but a sink-strainer disk makes it possible to control the exposure by limiting the amount of light entering the lens, while allowing light rays from the periphery of the lens to form the diffuse image, so you get the same blur with the lens "stopped down" as you would with the lens wide open. A Verito gets less diffuse as it is stopped down (though it still has chromatic aberration at all apertures). There were some portrait lenses that did this by means of a star-shaped aperture.
I'm impressed that you have a PS945! These are quite special lenses, though for the price (when I bought them, at least), I've opted for a few classic lenses of around 14" and a larger format. I also have a Petzval from the wetplate era, which is pretty funky looking, but not technically a soft-focus lens.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I just hope the the Cooke PS945 will barely cover the 8x10 format. I don't mind soft corners! Maybe I'll crop a tad if needed!
I'll have 4x5 back too so I'll have two ways of going.
Ray,
I looked through my pictures to find a soft orchid. I have others in mind but here's for now.
1DII and 70-200 2.8 IS.
Asher
Edward Bussa
Member
Wow! That is amazing! It does not look like a single exposure!?
What are the time based, technical details?
What are the time based, technical details?
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks Ed! I must sayI like the compostion.
It was just my search for humming birds, but by the time I put the lens on my 1DII, the birds had gone. I used no flash 1/500 sec, f5.0, 70-200 2.8L ISO 125, at 73mm. So I thought why not get the flowers anyway!
Asher
It was just my search for humming birds, but by the time I put the lens on my 1DII, the birds had gone. I used no flash 1/500 sec, f5.0, 70-200 2.8L ISO 125, at 73mm. So I thought why not get the flowers anyway!
Asher
Thanks for all of your comments. Is this image (my three orchids) one which you would be happy with, after minimum processing, just what was necessary for printing, give you something you think would be worthy to print and perhaps proud to hang on your wall? Do you actually 'like it'?
Or is it one you would want to do much more/less post processing, or just consign to the scrap bin? It was not meant to be a definitive work on orchids, it was just that they were there, a ready subject. I guess I'm asking if this amount of 'blurry' works for you.
Best wishes,
Ray
Or is it one you would want to do much more/less post processing, or just consign to the scrap bin? It was not meant to be a definitive work on orchids, it was just that they were there, a ready subject. I guess I'm asking if this amount of 'blurry' works for you.
Best wishes,
Ray
Hi Ray,
Well, I for one do like it. At first I didn't think I would as I generally prefer sharper images, but the more I look at it the more it grows on me. In fact it's very peaceful and almost soporific zzzzzzzzz................
One minor disappointment. When you changed the colour profile I half expected the orchids to magically turn yellow. ;-)
Regards,
Stuart
Well, I for one do like it. At first I didn't think I would as I generally prefer sharper images, but the more I look at it the more it grows on me. In fact it's very peaceful and almost soporific zzzzzzzzz................
One minor disappointment. When you changed the colour profile I half expected the orchids to magically turn yellow. ;-)
Regards,
Stuart
David A. Goldfarb
New member
Does it matter if we like it? I would have done it differently, but it's not my photograph. Do you like it?
Hi David,
I enjoy seeing other images, other folk's opinions, see if I agree or disagree. Sometimes it is nice to feel a member of a group (no pun intended ;-). The point, for me, in discussion here, is to learn what folk see in things, how to improve an image - for example, Asher mentioned CA fringing, although I saw it too, and as photographers, I guess everyone else saw it, but in some ways, to my mind, it adds a bit of colour, defines an edge. Maybe a non photographer would not notice it. As yet, nobody has mentioned a B&W rendition, so maybe the muted colours are needed, I guess. Sometimes I 'dish it out', to folk, usually if I see something that I think could be improved compositionally.
Also, there has been a number of excellent flower images posted here, very sharp, very detailed, almost clinical in rendition. These raise comments on sharpness (vdu's and digital images, often, no always comments on sharpness. But, there are other ways to represent things.
I have not posted any images recently, so it could now be 'pay-back' time.
Best wishes,
Ray
I enjoy seeing other images, other folk's opinions, see if I agree or disagree. Sometimes it is nice to feel a member of a group (no pun intended ;-). The point, for me, in discussion here, is to learn what folk see in things, how to improve an image - for example, Asher mentioned CA fringing, although I saw it too, and as photographers, I guess everyone else saw it, but in some ways, to my mind, it adds a bit of colour, defines an edge. Maybe a non photographer would not notice it. As yet, nobody has mentioned a B&W rendition, so maybe the muted colours are needed, I guess. Sometimes I 'dish it out', to folk, usually if I see something that I think could be improved compositionally.
Also, there has been a number of excellent flower images posted here, very sharp, very detailed, almost clinical in rendition. These raise comments on sharpness (vdu's and digital images, often, no always comments on sharpness. But, there are other ways to represent things.
I have not posted any images recently, so it could now be 'pay-back' time.
Best wishes,
Ray
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ray,
As you know, in my mind, the only person that matters in all this is you the photographer! The misty appearance of your orchids is reminscent of effects of the older lenses described above. People who view the orchids will get an emotional reaction based on the whole image, including as you point out the color fringes which also provide artistic shimmering value.
I happen to like such soft images.
Look at the work of Jim Galli here .
Asher
As you know, in my mind, the only person that matters in all this is you the photographer! The misty appearance of your orchids is reminscent of effects of the older lenses described above. People who view the orchids will get an emotional reaction based on the whole image, including as you point out the color fringes which also provide artistic shimmering value.
I happen to like such soft images.
Look at the work of Jim Galli here .
Asher
Last edited:
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
With Jim Galli's permission here's a particularly interesting soft image of a plant. According to obsessional documentary or forensic technical specifications, this picture is totally unacceptable as been poorly defined.
This in particular I find stunningly beautiful.
© 2007 Jim Galli (used for editorial reference only, not licensed for any other use).
As we can see, the very aberations we might find a problem technically are the essentail features that make the lens a delicate imaging tool. If it fits in with one's mental image if what one hope to get in the photograph, then this is a perfect choice. The lens used was a bunch of old, almost zero cost components put together!
This in particular I find stunningly beautiful.
© 2007 Jim Galli (used for editorial reference only, not licensed for any other use).
As we can see, the very aberations we might find a problem technically are the essentail features that make the lens a delicate imaging tool. If it fits in with one's mental image if what one hope to get in the photograph, then this is a perfect choice. The lens used was a bunch of old, almost zero cost components put together!
David A. Goldfarb
New member
If I remember correctly, that one was made with a Petzval type projection lens. Modern projection lenses are often Petzvals, so you may have one of these at home. The Petzval was one of the first practical portrait lenses. It was fast, but had strong curvature of field. At portrait distances, this wasn't too much of a problem, because the image only required the center of the image circle, but today some photographers like to experiment with that curvature and coma at the edges by using these lenses on formats larger than originally intended. With the right composition, it can produce a very dynamic swirling effect.
Here is a good example on Joseph Smiegel's website--
© Joseph Smiegel shown for editorial comment only
Technical info on that image here, but you might need to be a registered user of the LF forum--
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=239494&postcount=6
Here is a good example on Joseph Smiegel's website--
© Joseph Smiegel shown for editorial comment only
Technical info on that image here, but you might need to be a registered user of the LF forum--
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=239494&postcount=6
Last edited by a moderator:
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ray,
I'd love to know how you made your image? What lens and aperture?
Asher
I'd love to know how you made your image? What lens and aperture?
Asher
Hi Asher,
I started recording the process involved, just after I posted the image. I find it takes me a long time to write things, to try and explain things in a way that is easily understood by a wider audience. Hopefully I can get it completed in a day or so. I have also taken a few more shots (again of vegetation) and I will put them up sometime later.
I have printed it out at A4 on my oki laser, and apart from needing to select the correct profile, it is very good, imho, very smooth shading, even with the jpeg image posted. It may encourage me to clean the epson, again (not touched since a year ago!) and try it at A3. As Edward said, it may work well at a large size. The other thing that I found 'nice' - make a black screen background, sit it in the middle. Almost hypnotic.
Best wishes,
Ray
I started recording the process involved, just after I posted the image. I find it takes me a long time to write things, to try and explain things in a way that is easily understood by a wider audience. Hopefully I can get it completed in a day or so. I have also taken a few more shots (again of vegetation) and I will put them up sometime later.
I have printed it out at A4 on my oki laser, and apart from needing to select the correct profile, it is very good, imho, very smooth shading, even with the jpeg image posted. It may encourage me to clean the epson, again (not touched since a year ago!) and try it at A3. As Edward said, it may work well at a large size. The other thing that I found 'nice' - make a black screen background, sit it in the middle. Almost hypnotic.
Best wishes,
Ray
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ray,
How about, just for now, the camera, lens, f stop and shutter speed lighting used!!! I gather this was digital and not film?
Asher
How about, just for now, the camera, lens, f stop and shutter speed lighting used!!! I gather this was digital and not film?
Asher
Ok, Ok, don't keep on so ;-)
yertiz - http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4491
Best wishes,
Ray
yertiz - http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4491
Best wishes,
Ray
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well, you were outed, finally and I can see your approach is as finely queer as the best!
Ray, so our reference to the soft lenses is entirely appropriate and nothing more delights me. I'd even say that this makes me happier than seeing new images from a $50,000 loaded Hasselblad system, as magnificent as it might be. I know, if I spend that much money what I can get. Using simple glass to image flowers, however, give me images to see I'd not have imagined so easilly!
The best lens is a tool that helps one deilver on a promise to oneself, to extract that something out of what you see and record it.
So now we are on to this subject, what other soft images can we conjure up, by any means, but the simpler the better. BTW, avoid vaseline on you lens, rather use a sheet of plastic or platic food wrap unless you are wishing goodbye to your lens!
Asher
Ray, so our reference to the soft lenses is entirely appropriate and nothing more delights me. I'd even say that this makes me happier than seeing new images from a $50,000 loaded Hasselblad system, as magnificent as it might be. I know, if I spend that much money what I can get. Using simple glass to image flowers, however, give me images to see I'd not have imagined so easilly!
The best lens is a tool that helps one deilver on a promise to oneself, to extract that something out of what you see and record it.
So now we are on to this subject, what other soft images can we conjure up, by any means, but the simpler the better. BTW, avoid vaseline on you lens, rather use a sheet of plastic or platic food wrap unless you are wishing goodbye to your lens!
Asher