What's the best soft focus filter?

[scot079]

I'd like to get a high quality soft focus/soft fx filter for landscapes. Anyone have any recommendations?

[bobrock111565]

Please, please DON'T use a soft focus filter. In my opinion, it is just too easy to get whatever effect you need in PS. With the use of soft glows, various new blurring tools, layer masks, etc...,the soft focus lens filters are rarely used anymore and I'm sure new sales would reflect that. I think it is ALWAYS best to have the best image possible with the sharpest focus possible. You can always take it away later. In my opinion the very most important thing you need to get right in a capture is FOCUS. You can always tweak the exposure, saturation, white balance, etc...later on, but you can NEVER put in focus what was never in focus to begin with.

Enough said. It's just too easy to alter focus later. So my vote is don't use one.

[SkipD]

Please, please DON'T use a soft focus filter. In my opinion, it is just too easy to get whatever effect you need in PS. With the use of soft glows, various new blurring tools, layer masks, etc...,the soft focus lens filters are rarely used anymore and I'm sure new sales would reflect that. I think it is ALWAYS best to have the best image possible with the sharpest focus possible. You can always take it away later. In my opinion the very most important thing you need to get right in a capture is FOCUS. You can always tweak the exposure, saturation, white balance, etc...later on, but you can NEVER put in focus what was never in focus to begin with.

Enough said. It's just too easy to alter focus later. So my vote is don't use one.Ditto....

[Ephemeral]

I concur. :D

Why shoot in B&W when you can shoot colour and convert later.

[_aravena]

Idk. Get a cheap one if you. They work rather well. I use them on certain shots. Created this shot.

http://a377.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/120/l_70f48a6d2a35dee412c29d9ad79bb6c0.jpg

Not to mention, if you don't have PS or don't know who to use it, the ability of doing the same in PS is kinda pointless, right guys?

[Ephemeral]

I think _aravena makes a very valid point, but in the age of digital photography I think PS, or PS'esque skills in what ever you choose to use, is more than useful.

[Wilt]

In the film days, different brands/designs of soft focus filters had appreciably different results. Softars were legendary among pro shooters. Some were actually intended for use in the darkroom, rather than on the camera, too. It would be interesting to see how PS stacks up against the different soft focus filters from the film days. Sometimes PS can fool the unfamiliar into thinking the results are 'the same', when in fact they are not!

[scot079]

In the film days, different brands/designs of soft focus filters had appreciably different results. Softars were legendary among pro shooters. Some were actually intended for use in the darkroom, rather than on the camera, too. It would be interesting to see how PS stacks up against the different soft focus filters from the film days. Sometimes PS can fool the unfamiliar into thinking the results are 'the same', when in fact they are not!

Thanks for all the replies guys. I think Wilt brings up an interesting point. I've seen some fantastic landscapes created with the use of a soft effects filter. And (Wilt) I was checking out those softars the other day on B&H, very expensive! Next question: how do I mimic a star filter in PS?:D

[_aravena]

Just get one. Or set a slower shutter speed.

[scot079]

Just get one. Or set a slower shutter speed.

huh?

[_aravena]

If you set a slower shutter speed, it creates a star effect on lights. Just some info.

[scot079]

Thanks for that, something I didn't know. I DO have 2 very dark ND filters in the mail now, so I can use them for a star effect too. Cool

[Wilt]

If you set a slower shutter speed, it creates a star effect on lights. Just some info.


I rather doubt that! If it does on your camera, I'd say you have a dirty filter or front lens optic!

[_aravena]

It's simple science. Just like how lights twinkle by eyesight. Try it. It's just exposure.

[Wilt]

It's simple science. Just like how lights twinkle by eyesight. Try it. It's just exposure.

What you are calling 'star effect' I assume is 'like a star that twinkles'. Please show us a photo of what you think is a 'star effect' seen in a digital photo.

What photographers from film generations know as 'star effect' are the rays that project out from the center like spokes of a wheel, induced by filters designed with a certain number of spokes to appear from bright sources (e.g. street lights). You should NOT get these effects normally without a star filter in front of the lens!

[_aravena]

http://a862.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/105/l_af0b54028b4a615896c32812b3b9cb55.jpg

http://a432.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/86/l_d2f9e8a8d2b37840ff575c85bc479397.jpg

why not?

[Wilt]

http://a862.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/105/l_af0b54028b4a615896c32812b3b9cb55.jpg



why not?

OK, I am quite curious...what lens was used for these shots? and what was the shooting aperture for these photos?

[SkipD]

If you set a slower shutter speed, it creates a star effect on lights. Just some info.Shutter speed - by itself - would have nothing whatsoever to do with a "star" effect. It is the aperture that would contribute to that.

By setting a slower shutter speed - if you are using an automated exposure mode such as Tv - you are letting the camera choose a smaller aperture which could contribute to the "star" effect. The slower shutter speed itself, though, contributes nothing at all to the effect.

[Wilt]

Shutter speed - by itself - would have nothing whatsoever to do with a "star" effect. It is the aperture that would contribute to that.

By setting a slower shutter speed - if you are using an automated exposure mode such as Tv - you are letting the camera choose a smaller aperture which could contribute to the "star" effect. The slower shutter speed itself, though, contributes nothing at all to the effect.


And I presume that the lens used has an aperture with 6 blades, which accounts for the 6-spoke star (which is why I was asking which lens, which aperture). Now that Canon takes pride in offering lenses with more blades, for rounder (than more geometrical) apertures, they would not achieve the same star effect!

[_aravena]

Kit lens. Aperture was probably...something (F3.5 im sure). Let me go see. And it is shutter speed. It's actual exposure in general, whichever way you want to use it via aperture or shutter speed.

But yeah, not shutter speed alone. Just simpler.

[Wilt]

aravena, it is not simply 'exposure'. it is quite simply 'aperture'! The kit 50mm has 5 aperture blades; in comparison the 50mm f/1.4 has 8 aperture blades; you would not get the star effect with that to the same extent, due to its rounder aperture.

[_aravena]

Exposure time yes. You can't get one without the other. Aperture is exposure and so is shutter speed. So yes, it's simply exposure. Is it simple in terms or a grade school child, perhaps not. But simple none the less. More experimental on seeing how big/detail/small/whatever you want the "stars" to be. The blades of the lens though affect the points, but never-the-less, it's not simply Av or Tv (in canon terms) alone.

[_aravena]

13s F22 on the first @ 21

10s F29 on the second @ 28

[Wilt]

aravena, yes time goes hand in hand with shutter speed to render proper exposure. BUT it is simply the use of a 5-bladed lens on an intense source of light which caused the star effect. If I put a ND filter on the lens and increased time by 2X (double the time), the star would be exactly the same size because it is the aperture which controls the effect, and altered time has nothing to do with it.

[scot079]

aravena: that's the star effect I'm talking about, I'm sure you've seen what a star filter does, and (correct me if I'm wrong) it doesn't only work with a long exposure. Those photos hurt my eyes..sorry but it's true.

[neil_r]

From my experience I would say that the sharpness and extent of the star effect has more to do with the aperture than the exposure time. examples follow.... (no filters used)

f/16 gives very tight stars
http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/medium/Newcastle_Jan06_N6H7115.jpg

f/11 they are less defined
http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/medium/newcastle_28_7_04_0065acc.jpg

[_aravena]

^That would make sense seeing smaller aps create sharper images (for the most part... know sometimes F9 is better than F11 and what not but this is all relative). Overall exposure (time) creates the size of the star. If you just shoot something fast it won't happen. Same way water doesn't blur, you can stop the drops in the air with a fast shutter. A slow shutter lets you see the light leaving it's source thus creating a star. Shoot a light with a fast shutter and see if any star effect happens. It shouldn't. Thats why I say you need to set it to a slow speed. Not like 1 second, just not 1/300 or something. I just picked a speed by the way.

This also depends on the source of light. If it's bright enough, then the effect wills till happen. I've shot the sun at max ap and max shutter and there was a star affect. but we're talking about the sun.

So no, it's not simple. Everything has a situation.

aravena: that's the star effect I'm talking about, I'm sure you've seen what a star filter does, and (correct me if I'm wrong) it doesn't only work with a long exposure. Those photos hurt my eyes..sorry but it's true.

No, it doesn't. I have lots of other night shots, those were first to mind. But as Wilt was saying, you can set your aperture to create it as well. Which I have shots doing that too. But it's gotta be a balance I've found. I tested it at Old Town in Orlando. Mainly cause I was bored, was on a group trip, but pending on what lens you have is pending your restriction. But the points are made by the blades that create the aperture.

So if you want 6 points on a 5 blade lens, you need a 6 point filter. Correct me if i'm wrong, but that's what Ive come to found it.

EDIT: Sorry crash post. So I added the quote

[Wilt]

No, it doesn't. I have lot so other shots, those were first to mind. But as wilt was saying, you can set your aperture to create it as well. Which I have shots doing that too. But it's gotta be a balance I've found. I tested it at Old Town in Orlando. Mainly cause I was bored, was on a group trip, but pending on what lens you have is pending your restriction. But the points are made by the blades that create the aperture.

So if you want 6 points on a 5 blade lens, you need a 6 point filter. Correct me if i'm wrong, but that's what Ive come to found it.

aravena, there seems to be no convincing you. Let me simply state that I have been associated with photography, either as an amateur or in a professional capacity, for 45 years, so I know what I am talking about...
It is NOT 'exposure', it is NOT 'time', it is fully the aperture on your lens and the fact that it has fewer aperture blades, so that the small aperture has a pentagon or hexagon shape, and the affect would go away entirely at the exact same aperture and shutter speed with a lens which has more blades and more rounded aperture shape!

[_aravena]

Then it's blades, not aperture.

I know if it's rounded it wouldn't. But blades and aperture are 2 diff things. Blades create a "hole" in the lens to allow light in. Aperture is the numbers, the math behind what the blades create. It's the make up of the lens is what you just said. I know if it's rounded it won't. Then again, nothing is perfectly rounded. Close though from most the lens I've seen. Boredom at work teaches one a lto. And I learned from a guy with more years than you, but does that make him right? Idk. I just listen and take it in.

But once again, you speak of build and not the math. Which I know. I just never said it since we were talking about aperture, not the blades themselves.

And yes, you've been in cameras for 45yrs so you should know that when speaking of such things, you must be technical.

And in my life I've learn time means nothing. While only 20, I've been to 4 continents, 9 countries, met thousands of people, etc. Still, I will say I'm wrong and misunderstood you. But it's blades as I said and not aperture itself as you said. If it's the same math but diff build, it would not occur. Also, you said that this effect couldn't even be created and I showed you it could.

I rather doubt that! If it does on your camera, I'd say you have a dirty filter or front lens optic!

affect would go away entirely at the exact same aperture and shutter speed with a lens which has more blades and more rounded aperture shape!

But let me apologize, I perhaps didn't take my self entirely clear throughout my posts. I tend to do that. Speaking in person is easier and quicker, typing you forget things and assume we're all ont he same page.

[Wilt]

Then it's blades, not aperture..


It is the combination of which aperture you use (a smaller one) and how many blades in the lens! As I said, your 5-blade at f/16 creates stars, an 8-blade aperture with more rounded shape would not do stars at the the same aperture. Similarly, at wider aperture, the lesser diffraction effects of the 5-bladed aperture will decrease the starring!

And why I was 'wrong' about stars from a lens...even my 'cheapo' 50mm f/1.8 lens from 30 years ago (an Olympus OM-1 lens) has 6 blades, which presents a more rounded shape than the Canon kit lens! so my experience was not with a lens with so few blades.