Soft diffusion filter for portraits

When I started out experimenting with soft focus, I used a makeshift to see what I might like -or not like. Here is a cheap way to get the feel. Take an embroidery hoop. Buy some tulle fabric or something like that and stretch it between the hoop sectors with screws. See if you like it.

Because any Tiffen or more fancy product screw on will be kind of expensive unless you are flush. And then you will have an expensive one of a kind strength,,,,But it may be worth a hundred dollars..

I use an old set of Bronica 67 mm filters of different strengths some black net and some white net with a step up adapter on my lenses which are typically smaller than the 67mm of Zenzanon lenses, You can also use moderate step down...may find some used on eBay they are well made and cheaper than Hasselblad Softars.

Answer to you specific Q= YES, A call to B andH or Adorama will likely give you a direct answer if you are ready to decide on the degree of diffusion for all subjectss. I personally find I can soften with light a lot of the time....but as I said at the first, do not ignore the stretched fabric approach. It can be fun and you will learn this and that... Some old lenses wide open also give that blemish free feel...

Others will certainly say you can soften in post processing. Me, I just kind of like to get it viewed in the camera. LIke you maybe?

[ATTACH alt="A few wrinkles very slightly "softened" by an older legacy lens wide open. Minolta Rokkor F 1.2, still realistic for the person age."]2428446[/ATTACH]
A few wrinkles very slightly "softened" by an older legacy lens wide open. Minolta Rokkor F 1.2, still realistic for the person age.

In the days of film, a ladies stocking was held underneath the enlarger lens, it might work if held in front of the camera lens.

Peter Del

--
Gallery: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8804053911

A few years back I tried out several softening filters. All screw-in (except old Cokin) and all were inexpensive. While this was not for portraiture, it could still give you an idea of how they differ -


Kelly Cook

Soft and/or other various FX filters are really fun to play with - but in the end you get exactly one look out of them. Personally I would rather add my filters in post and have a choice. Plus, I can control the amount of filtering - add or reduce. Unless you're striving for a post-free environment, hardware filters are just too specialized IMHO.

I do think if you're doing video they make more sense. (vs portraiture)

No direct replacement of the Lee filter - but maybe even better:


You will get best effect with aperture not too far closed (wide open or slightly closed) and a little overexposure.

The Lee filter seem to be classic softeners - you should be able to get an effect like that with almost any post-processing software.

Best regards

Holger

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Soft-Effects-Pro-Mist/ci/117/N/4026728340

For another opinion, I did not like shooting with a soft filter wide open. I preferred something more along the lines of f/5.6. But I would try and always do a few bridal shots with the soft focus filter. And yes, the filter is somewhat limited, but does produce an effect that you really can't duplicate in Photoshop. You can "blur" pixels in Photoshop but the filter is essentially "blurring" the light. In terms of limited use, yes. But not all that different than many other shooting scenarios. Fisheye? UWA? Lens baby? GND? And so on. Use what you need to get the shot you desire.

Try a black nylon stretched over the lens.

Completely agree with this. You can add any flavor of complexity of gaussian blur to an automated script that you apply at the end of your image editing. The flexibility to do it in post is so much greater.

I still have a Hasselblad softar filter which was used on med format film cameras at the time. Great product.