PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I have seen here in RFF some portraits with a painterly look, which I like a lot, but I am not able to retrieve anymore.
I wonder what retro lenses used on a digital camera (I have an alpha 7R) may give me such a look in portraiture.
For some reason (I heard that Schneider lenses have a morbid rendering, and perhaps one of the photos I have seen was made with a Schneider lens), I think that a Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 1:3,8/90 M42 would fit the bill, especially if not coated. It not too much expensive and I have already the adapter.
Am I right?
Any other suggestion?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Paolo
I wonder what retro lenses used on a digital camera (I have an alpha 7R) may give me such a look in portraiture.
For some reason (I heard that Schneider lenses have a morbid rendering, and perhaps one of the photos I have seen was made with a Schneider lens), I think that a Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 1:3,8/90 M42 would fit the bill, especially if not coated. It not too much expensive and I have already the adapter.
Am I right?
Any other suggestion?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Paolo
Vince Lupo
Nobody's Mentor
73mm f/1.9 Hektor, Rodenstock Imagon. The Hektor could be easily adapted (it’s LTM), but may be a bit more challenging with the Imagon. I’m currently getting an Imagon adapted to fit my 907x.
Not too sure about the ‘morbid’ Schneider rendering - what exactly is that?
Not too sure about the ‘morbid’ Schneider rendering - what exactly is that?
Last edited:
Larry H-L
Well-known
I’m not quite sure what effect you are seeking, but for portraits some rangefinder shooters like the C-Sonnar 50mm f1.5 or the older Sonnars and Jupiter lenses.
There are more choices in SLR lenses, Pentax, Canon, Mamiya and others made soft-focus lenses for portraiture. The Lens Baby “Velvet” series, 28, 56 and 85mm are actually very dreamy and pretty well made. Softness is controlled by the aperture setting.
There are more choices in SLR lenses, Pentax, Canon, Mamiya and others made soft-focus lenses for portraiture. The Lens Baby “Velvet” series, 28, 56 and 85mm are actually very dreamy and pretty well made. Softness is controlled by the aperture setting.
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
Paolo, you're opening a big can of worms here and you're going to get so many differing opinions and suggestions it may not ultimately be helpful. So we should maybe first narrow down which focal lengths you prefer to use and then discuss lenses in those specific focal lengths.
x-ray
Mentor
I have a 200mm Imagon in a Compound shutter that I’ve had for twenty or so years. I certainly wouldn’t describe it as painterly. It’s a sort of soft focus lens that causes the highlights to bloom around a fairly sharp highlight.
Don’t confuse portrait filters with a true soft focus lens. Portrait filters kill sharpness but soft focus lenses cause highlights to glow.
The Imagon, Fuji soft focus, Mamiya and any other lens with a “strainer” or perforated aperture disc uses aberrations from light rays around the periphery of the lens to create a glow around a specular highlight. It’s a totally different effect than a lens like a Graf Variable or Pinkham & Smith portrait lens.
I don’t particularly like the effect of the Imagon with the strainers. I take it off and use it as a true diffused focus lens. It’s much more classic looking.
I just mounted my Wollensak Vesta Portrait lens so I can use it with my Sinar and Sinar shutter. It’s a 1920-30’s classic portrait lens that doesn’t overdo the softness but makes skin tones like cream when shot at f5.
I also have a Photoplastic portrait lens from 1900-1920 that’s an extreme soft focus where everything takes on a beautiful glow. I use it on my Sinar as well.
Lenses like the Wollensak Verito and Vitax are classics as well but all of these lenses are expensive and huge. Most were fairly fast for their focal length which equates to massive size and weight and cost too. Some of the most desirable portrait lenses are the Wollensak Vitax and any of the Cooke portrait lenses like the Knuckler. Finding a nice one will set you back $5,000 to much more. Pinkham & Smith will set you back that or more.
These lenses were for 8x20-11x14 cameras and many are 12-16 inch focal length or more and often weigh 7-10 pounds. They require a camera with a 9” lens board and very strong front standard.
Wollensak did make some short FL Verito portrait lenses that I’ve seen mounted for medium format. Their images are very creamy and classic 20-30’s Hollywood looking. You might luck out and find one.
It’s difficult to talk in my samples but the ship was shot with my Wollensak Vesta Portrait and the portrait of my wife was with a Darlot Petzval from around 1860. Both lenses are large and to give you an idea the Darlot barely fits on a 6” lens board on my 8x10 Deardorff and is about as heavy as it can support.
Don’t confuse portrait filters with a true soft focus lens. Portrait filters kill sharpness but soft focus lenses cause highlights to glow.
The Imagon, Fuji soft focus, Mamiya and any other lens with a “strainer” or perforated aperture disc uses aberrations from light rays around the periphery of the lens to create a glow around a specular highlight. It’s a totally different effect than a lens like a Graf Variable or Pinkham & Smith portrait lens.
I don’t particularly like the effect of the Imagon with the strainers. I take it off and use it as a true diffused focus lens. It’s much more classic looking.
I just mounted my Wollensak Vesta Portrait lens so I can use it with my Sinar and Sinar shutter. It’s a 1920-30’s classic portrait lens that doesn’t overdo the softness but makes skin tones like cream when shot at f5.
I also have a Photoplastic portrait lens from 1900-1920 that’s an extreme soft focus where everything takes on a beautiful glow. I use it on my Sinar as well.
Lenses like the Wollensak Verito and Vitax are classics as well but all of these lenses are expensive and huge. Most were fairly fast for their focal length which equates to massive size and weight and cost too. Some of the most desirable portrait lenses are the Wollensak Vitax and any of the Cooke portrait lenses like the Knuckler. Finding a nice one will set you back $5,000 to much more. Pinkham & Smith will set you back that or more.
These lenses were for 8x20-11x14 cameras and many are 12-16 inch focal length or more and often weigh 7-10 pounds. They require a camera with a 9” lens board and very strong front standard.
Wollensak did make some short FL Verito portrait lenses that I’ve seen mounted for medium format. Their images are very creamy and classic 20-30’s Hollywood looking. You might luck out and find one.
It’s difficult to talk in my samples but the ship was shot with my Wollensak Vesta Portrait and the portrait of my wife was with a Darlot Petzval from around 1860. Both lenses are large and to give you an idea the Darlot barely fits on a 6” lens board on my 8x10 Deardorff and is about as heavy as it can support.
Attachments
peterm1
Mentor
I have a few Schneider Xenars and tele Xenars and they all perform really nicely in portraiture. I am not sure what "painterly" means to you in this context but the rendering is certainly very nice - they seem to have the knack of being sharp and "rounded" (an old term meaning "portrait soft" at the same time.) However, I have no idea what "morbid rendering" means. I have not heard the phrase before.
For me "painterly" often connotes the inclusion of rich but not overly dramatic shadows with nice soft rather than harsh gradation into the lighter areas and hence slightly lower ("elegant"?) contrast, together with lower saturation and also not too much "crispness" in the face details - to this end in post processing (I always post process) if needed I pull back on the "clarity" slider - the clarity slider if pulled the other way makes most faces too "craggy" by bringing out unwanted detail. But fortunately I find that tele Xenars do not need this treatment as they naturally produce images which look how I would wish them to. My favorite tele Xenar is a 105mm f3.5 in a heavy chromed brass barrel. (see link below).
M42 Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 105mm F3.5
<p>I asked a while back on which camera this lens was used since I can not find it in the pdf archives at Schneider or the internet? Anybody knows, I will soon use it again on a city stroll in Zurich :-)<br> look here for photos please: http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00R6qq&...
www.photo.net
There are other lenses which in my experience produce a similar effect. Just quickly, off the top of my head, the Canon chrome nose 100mm f2.8 is a case in point as are any of the Pentax M42 Takumar 105mm f2.8 lenses - especially the older earlier ones which earlier coatings. I would regard both of these as capable of producing painterly results although I confess I am always inclined to also emphasize this quality in post.
Flickr is misbehaving - being slow and unresponsive, but when it begins behaving itself again I will try to remember to go searching for some examples.
x-ray
Mentor
For Leica, the classic Thambar with the center disc.
Just putting a portrait lens on your camera won’t necessarily give you what you want. High contrast with hard speculate highlights are what you want. Even the Imagin needs a 4:1 or 5:1 contrast ratio.
The old guys like Hurrell used fresnel spotlight to light his subjects to get that hard contrast and speculate highlights. Lighting, film and aperture were key to getting that effect. Generally as a soft focus lens is stopped down it gets sharper and that glow disappears. You have to learn to use those lenses and as much as I’ve shot with them I’m still learning.
Just putting a portrait lens on your camera won’t necessarily give you what you want. High contrast with hard speculate highlights are what you want. Even the Imagin needs a 4:1 or 5:1 contrast ratio.
The old guys like Hurrell used fresnel spotlight to light his subjects to get that hard contrast and speculate highlights. Lighting, film and aperture were key to getting that effect. Generally as a soft focus lens is stopped down it gets sharper and that glow disappears. You have to learn to use those lenses and as much as I’ve shot with them I’m still learning.
x-ray
Mentor
For Leica, the classic Thambar with the center disc.
Just putting a portrait lens on your camera won’t necessarily give you what you want. High contrast with hard speculate highlights are what you want. Even the Imagin needs a 4:1 or 5:1 contrast ratio.
Look at the work of George Hurrell, he used hard spotlights to get the contrast and highlights.
Here’s the Ilex Photoplastic Extreme Soft that I own and a landscape made with it.
Just putting a portrait lens on your camera won’t necessarily give you what you want. High contrast with hard speculate highlights are what you want. Even the Imagin needs a 4:1 or 5:1 contrast ratio.
Look at the work of George Hurrell, he used hard spotlights to get the contrast and highlights.
Here’s the Ilex Photoplastic Extreme Soft that I own and a landscape made with it.
Attachments
Last edited:
Vince Lupo
Nobody's Mentor
I have a 120mm f/4.5 Imagon and use it without the discs, as you say you’ll get an overall soft focus (though I know that you’re ‘supposed’ to use them). Guess the term ‘painterly’ is open to interpretation.
Last edited:
x-ray
Mentor
I generally use mine without the strainers. It’s a lot more like the old Kodak portrait lens.
You’ve got a rare one. You don’t see many of those short ones.
x-ray
Mentor
Vince one of my mentors had a 125mm Hektor. He glued a nickel to a filter and used it in the 125mm and got close when shooting wide open to the Thambar. I’ve even use the condensing lens out of a slide projector on a bellows and gotten some beautiful soft focus lenses.
Vince Lupo
Nobody's Mentor
Ha that’s pretty neat! I’ll have to try that nickel trick with my 12.5cm f/2 Schneider Xenon.
x-ray
Mentor
The imagon would be pretty interesting if you plug the center hole in the strainer and just use the outer ones.
peterm1
Mentor
I still cannot get any joy with my Flickr account but this first image is one from my PC that was made with the Schneider tele Xenar 105mm f3.5. Its rendering here is typical of the rendering of these lenses. Personally, I really like the way it "draws" its images.
The second image was made with another lens I especially like - the Canon FD chrome nose 100mm f2.8. This photo was post processed a bit more than the first but it nevertheless shows what it is capable of in the "painterly" department.
The second image was made with another lens I especially like - the Canon FD chrome nose 100mm f2.8. This photo was post processed a bit more than the first but it nevertheless shows what it is capable of in the "painterly" department.
Attachments
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
For me the easiest way is to use my Leica Elmar 50/2.8. It was one of those with a haze damaged element and DAG was unable to repair it. He cleaned it as best as possible but it will always be a fairly soft, almost pastel, looking lens. 
some may argue it's not vintage, but....Nikkor 135/2 DC
bjorke
Designated Driver
Probably the lighting.
peterm1
Mentor
Another taken with the Schneider tele-Xenar 105mm f3.5. Here I slightly missed focus so it is not quite as sharp as it should be. But its characteristic "drawing" of the image is present. I find it handles skin tones especially well, producing a gentle "creaminess" that I have not seen from pretty much any other lens and which is very flattering. This image was shot through a window which accounts for the slight flare that is present in places.
Cafe Study 26 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Cafe Study 26 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr