Zeiss Softar

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by [BnH], Jun 25, 2003.

  1. [BnH]

    [BnH] Guest

    Anyone want to offload their Zeiss Softar or equivalent [Hoya Soft Focus
    maybe?] ? :)
    Heard its a magic filter that will eliminate all the imperfection in a
    person's face .

    =bob=
     
    [BnH], Jun 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. [BnH]

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    That's called a lens cap, isn't it?

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Jun 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Try Clear Skin from www.mediachance.com ...it does wonders at removing
    imperfections.
     
    Russell Stewart, Jun 25, 2003
    #3
  4. [BnH]

    [BnH] Guest

    LOL :)

    C'mon .. anyone ?

    =bob=

     
    [BnH], Jun 25, 2003
    #4
  5. [BnH]

    Miro Guest

    For the last 100 years before 1980 it was a UVa + stockings or Vaseline.
     
    Miro, Jun 25, 2003
    #5
  6. [BnH]

    Valar Guest

    At the risk of offending all dSLR shooters, thats see how well this goes as
    a joke: try shooting with a crappy lens, or just dont USM ;)
    (ah, the same cannot be said of shooting with crappy film SLRs, because you
    also pick up heaps o grain/noise from film itself or scanning)
     
    Valar, Jun 25, 2003
    #6
  7. [BnH]

    Miro Guest

    A bad lens doesnt have good contrast or colour balance. Whereas a good lens
    does even when soft.
     
    Miro, Jun 25, 2003
    #7
  8. [BnH]

    Derek Guest

    he's right on that one

    " > A bad lens doesnt have good contrast or colour balance. Whereas a good
    lens
     
    Derek, Jun 26, 2003
    #8
  9. [BnH]

    Auspics Guest

    Miro was right about the stocking over the lens thing.
    I used to fog a UV filter by breathing on it sometimes and if you use
    petroleum jelly you can get quite mild effects. There's a filter you can buy
    to soften an image. I sometimes use star filters which only produce a star
    from bright highlights... Of course there are none in portraiture so the
    softening effect does help. "Duto" filter, I think is the name of the filter
    most closely matching a softar lens.
    JT
     
    Auspics, Jun 26, 2003
    #9
  10. [BnH]

    Derek Guest

    I've got a "Fotar Diffusion 55mm", yields quite a nice soft focus effect on
    portraits, if that's any good to you
     
    Derek, Jun 26, 2003
    #10
  11. [BnH]

    [BnH] Guest

    Actually any size would be good if the price is right as I am only using it
    to test out the filters.
    And eventually will buy one as filter from pro get worn off after a while :(

    Anyway if you have, any 52 | 58 | 67 | 72 | 77 mm would be fine.

    =bob=

     
    [BnH], Jun 26, 2003
    #11
  12. [BnH]

    Valar Guest


    softness is simply interpreted by the brain as being low contrast, due to
    the reduction in high spatial frequency. The unintentional softness is
    created by the inferior optical quality, sort of like astigmatism, the same
    is acheived by using a soft filter to filter out the high spatial frequency,
    no?

    PS. I wish i was a physics major, so i'd understand optics better.
     
    Valar, Jun 27, 2003
    #12
  13. [BnH]

    Miro Guest

    Firstly you must consider the role of binocular vision and integration.
    Secondly the brain does not know softness at all. It only knows hard
    boundaries. Therefore the lack of hard boundaries is a fuzzy level of
    information which is difficult to integrate.

    Since we work in colour that becomes relevant to definition. Consider this
    same function in poor light where the fovea does not function. Then it is
    entirely determined by monochromatic rods. The large integration of rods is
    responsible for increased acuity and therefore greater sensitivity but as
    always lower definition.

    contrast has several defining features, it is colour transition, spatial
    position and boundaries. It think that the image be it softer or fuzzy
    depending on the lens, is encoded on all of these levels.

    Chromatic abberation seen in poor lenses detracts from tonal uniformity and
    blurs edges such as eyelash, facial features and subtle lighting effects.
    Poor lenses introduce artifacts which are entirely apart from the function
    of the softar. The absence of artifacts is apparent to even an untrained
    person.

    To me ..... in my way of looking at things ..... soft lenses add white to a
    scene.

    In a nutshell ....... the brain is responsible for the perception not the
    filter. The filter modifies the product to the satisfaction of the eye.
     
    Miro, Jun 27, 2003
    #13
  14. [BnH]

    Miro Guest

    I understand what a Fourier transformation is but in all honesty I dont
    think anyone asserts that is how the brain is controlled.

    As for your very fuzzy notion of "nobody knows how it happens" - I think
    there is a class distinction between the molecular transformation and the
    process.

    In 2003 you can easily win a Nobel Prize for describing the process and not
    be the least bit informed on the mechanism. This is the distinction you are
    making and it doesnt hold any weight. It is perfectly valid to attribute
    functions to a region of the brain and not know how or why it is possible.
     
    Miro, Jun 27, 2003
    #14
  15. [BnH]

    Miro Guest

    I hold Majors in several science fields. I also hold several Minors.
     
    Miro, Jun 27, 2003
    #15
  16. [BnH]

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Alright, so you can't see any relation between spatial frequencies are
    hard edges. That's fair enough, I doubt you deal with fourier space
    much while you're washing test-tubes. HOwever, your lack of
    understanding doesn't prevent their being intimately related. See my
    square-wave case in point.
    That's nice, but since noone knows what the hell happens between the
    level fo about two neurons and the top where we have some vague
    models, your statements are still meaningless.
    It's not currently open to disproof, but that doesn' tmake it any less
    a stupid statement based on tiny scraps of information that don't fit
    together.

    In short, you don't know, and neither does anyone else.

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Jun 27, 2003
    #16
  17. [BnH]

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Tell you what, why don't you tell us precisely what they are /now/ and
    then we can point and laugh at you when you next invent a new one.

    No? Don't want to commit yourself?

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Jun 27, 2003
    #17
  18. [BnH]

    Miro Guest

    You are a jerk bruce. I happen to have gained 3 in the last year whilst you
    were pounding your pelvis with your idealism.
     
    Miro, Jun 28, 2003
    #18
  19. [BnH]

    Miro Guest

    You really are the love child of Rod Speed.
     
    Miro, Jun 28, 2003
    #19
  20. [BnH]

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    3 Majors in one year, eh? And how many dozen does this make in total? Now
    why don't you tell us precisely what these majors are and then we can all
    go look them up next time you claim to be qualified in yet another field.

    Well? surely that's a pretty reasonable request. You're a bit old to be
    doing a degree now though, aren't you? Or isn't there an age requirement
    on cereal boxes anymore.

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Jun 28, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.