Thread 4461621

How was that softness of 1980s centerfolds shot on Ektachrome achieved? Was it lens itself or was dude using some filters on his large format camera?

>>4461621 (OP)
You can use a soft focus lens, or if your system doesn't offer one you can just use a filter with Vaseline or something smeared on it. There are filters like soft focus filters, white mist filters and diffusion filters that can achieve similar effects too, thought I can't say how common they were. I think mist filters are a relatively modern fad.

>>4461630
Pretty much this. Movies in the 30s and 40s used to put pantyhose over the camera to get the look too.

>>4461630
I think the lens is most likely element.
Filters been around too but softness in centerfold shots looks three-dimensional to me. Filters tend to be rather flat and uniform.

>>4461621 (OP)
Looks like a filter to me.

>>4461632
>Movies in the 30s and 40s used to put pantyhose over the camera

Pantyhose didn't appear until the end of the 50s.
Nylon was developed at the end of 30s.

>>4461630
>>4461632
>>4461636
>>4461640
>>4461642
how stupid are you? its painted negs. you know, retouching before photoshop existed? i swear the people on this site are stupid

>>4461621 (OP)
Is play boy still alive?

>>4461644
the part of interest is not painted
so go proving you are dumb somewhere else, here your job is done

>>4461621 (OP)
It was the lens itself.

Back in the day this softness was seen as a flaw. People would have thought you were crazy using vaseline or a mist filter. Even the pantyhose thing is more of an internet legend than actually real: Maybe someone did it in the 40s but actually really popular it became only in 2010 or so

>>4461654
Yea, I was suspecting lens given how region with different DoF were affected in different degree.

I mostly remember softness as a common 80s wedding photos feature in my area. Must have been a trend around here.

>>4461644
No it's soft focus. Has nothing to do with paint. Not sure why you'd suggest this but it's wrong. Please go away and read more.

Mamiya (and other companies) made dedicated soft focus lenses https://www.flickr.com/groups/1301716@N20/pool/
>>4461654
>Back in the day this softness was seen as a flaw
No it was definitely deliberate. They would've had the best equipment available for playboy shoots back in the day, if they wanted tack sharp they would've got it.

>>4461632
yeah Im in a boomer facebook group, and that's all they talk about how they used to get the soft look "back in the day"

>>4461663
retard alert. look at the skin. it's completely airbrushed. fucking tard being confident hahah

>>4461683
Nope it's not. Nice backpedal though.
>b-b-b-b-but its painted
>w-w-w-well actually its just airbrushed
I accept your concession though.

>>4461683
Not only skin is softened, go have your eyesight checked.

>>4461683
>fucking tard being confident
You're right, but not in the way you think you are

It was the lens and I have two of them, Nikkor 135/2 DC and Mamiya 150/4 SF. The Mamiya does it with drop in filters you have to unscrew the top half of the lens and manually place the filters in. Large format lenses that do this work the same way.

The Nikkor has a defocus control where you turn a ring manually and it does more-or-less the same thing but in a different method.

>>4461676
The Canon RF 100mm F2.8 Macro has a spherical aberration ring that should help get that soft vintage look, but you might just as well get an oldie.

so what kind of pantyhose should I get for this
the black ones or the skin tone ones

>>4461724
EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus. They're like $100 and pretty decent for what they're meant to achieve

>>4461644
Why are mass-repliers so consistently retarded?

>>4461644
negs? It's Ektachrome, a positive film

>>4461654
Soft focus lenses have been around since the beginning of photography. An overly sharp lens was considered a flaw when taking a portrait.

>>4461760
>for over 100 years, 3d has been pd
porn, porn never changes

>>4461775
Yeah, a good soft focus lens can create a very flattering softness to the skin. They're really fun lenses to use and I would recommend grabbing one if you have the camera for it.

could a be a filter like the zeiss softar

>>4462040
No, filter produce flat blur, these centerfolds have depth to their blur. You can see that easily if you look at your picture.

>>4462040
which playmate is this?

>>4462077
Playmate of Trumpuary 2137

>>4462053
Soft focus lenses use spherical aberration to create their softness/glow. Some like the cooke portrait move their center element to control the amount, while the imagon uses special aperture discs. Its almost like adding a blur overtop a sharp image instead of just blurring the entire image.
They're very cool and the effect is more prominent on larger formats.

>>4461732
Didn't know it existed. Interesting lens which I have to research.

>>4462081
1st attempt

>>4462128
What sort of placement is this for that sofa? next to the stairs?

And what kind of design is this for a sofa anyway? it’s like the opposite of a camelback design.

>>4462128
Wtf doghair is indian?

>>4462146
/p/ - interior design

>>4462158
I don't know what you're trying to say

>>4462128
Teehee. You're just baiting me now. Stahp it. I will still happily oblige. :) Enjoy the glory of the legendary imagon lens on 4x5 film. Not quite the same as on 8x10, but it is close. The human female portraits taken on glorious 8x10 film with this lens are truly stunning.

I found a good deal on 15.5" cooke IV portrait lens, so there will be more gloriously soft and glowy pictures for you all to fawn over. Gimme a few days. Thanks.

>>4461621 (OP)
My Dad did these, pinups, glamour & erotica in the 70s & 80s. That photo in your post is from the 90s. The way they did them until digital was to shoot it tack sharp, then do a huge enlargement, then airbrush that, then rephotograph that. That’s why it was called airbrushing before photoshop, it was literally done by an airbrush artist. 70s also used soft focus rather a lot in concert with short dof but that went out of style with the disco era, about ‘79.

>>4462178
Airbrush whole photo? As as we explained to another low IQ anon these is a question about whole photo Are you am another low IQ anon?

>>4462178
Yep. pea brained retards think its a soft lens LMAO

>>4462178
based son of a coomer dropping knowledge

>>4462178
bet the room those get stored at smell of chlorine

>>4461621 (OP)
Canon 135mm Soft Focus lens, it has a very distinctive look to it.

>>4462178
>That photo in your post is from the 90s
>Henrietta Allais, March 1980

I fucking hate each and every one of you. This isn't a thread discussing the softness of a photograph taken in the 80s — this is a prime example of everyone wanting to be right, without the actual brain cells needed to BE right.
OP asked how the softness was achieved but nobody itt is able to provide any evidence for their claims
>inb4 sauce beggar
At least have the fucking decency to say "I think" or "As far as I'm aware", not just blindly spilling dogshit from your mouth like it's concrete gospel.

>>4462239
u mad

>>4462239
I mean, none of us were there so we can't say with 100% certainty exactly how it was done
but seeing as lenses specifically designed to give this exact effect were commercially available back then, seems pretty likely that's how it was done >>4462081

>>4462239
>BUT NOBODY IS ABLE TO-
>>4462163
>-ACK

>>4461621 (OP)
I use a cheap mist filter, not quite the same but similar

>>4462303
I can just lick the lens to get this effect for free.

>>4462163
>>4462040
>>4462303

I'm just going to say that my first try is closer than these, they don't even have a furniture in them. One is not even in color. Being able to look at them next to each other afterwards, sure, I can see some basic things that could be improved. Beyond that, I'm sure a faster telephoto lens would let me imitate this style even closer, along with some kind of not stained stained glass style churchy style glass door, I'm not going to have that.

>>4462437
Why not post your shot and what technique did you use to create the softness?

They were airbrushed, as were anything serious and professional print back in the day, but that doesn't answer the question of the achieving the softness
Besides regular film halation, medium format size, and old glass, they intentionally used soft focus filters like Harrison & Harrison
They still exist today, like the Tiffen Black Pro-Mist
I think they used the Tiffen Soft FX in the late '00s/early 2010s

>>4462472
another moron in the thread detect'd

>>4462437
>no furniture

wut now

anyway heres the closest thing I have to furniture hope it helps lol

>>4462472
Here you are friend. My cooke portrait lens was just delivered. No time for an 8x10 image, but I did have time to take some pics with my 5dm3 slapped to the back of my view camera. This is at max aperture f5.6 and max softness. I can post sharper configurations later.

What do you think?

>>4461654
Wrong

>>4461621 (OP)
I was reading a book that covered this. I forget the title but it was something like photography for advertising, 1985. They discussed using soft focus/diffusion filters for portraiture to create a pleasing effect especially on portraits of women. The authors also talked about using even stronger filters than would normally be used for portraits to have an even stronger softening effect.

But maybe they did something else in that photo.

>>4462239
Sad state of affairs. So many questions can be answered by just checking out a book or looking at magazine back issues. 1980 was not the dark ages, you can just go straight to original sources and see what they had to say.

>>4462716
But people did post examples...

Very dreamy effect, I can see where someone might want the lens instead trying to simulate it later

>>4463005
Good morning sir

>>4461642
They used to wear sheer silk stockings in the 30's so it was probably that.

>>4463005
Are you trying to meet women here? What the fuck?

>>4462612
I would say this disproves anons writing about filters. As blur is clearly non uniform across whole depth just like it is on centerfolds.

>>4463027
He is trying to meet a man here which is even more futile pursuit here.

>>4462721
Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else? the sad state of affairs is just that there are anons (might just be trolling) who just say stuff pulled from their asses and there's also anons who fall for b8 every time

the examples posted are nice, >>4462517
looks the most similar to what I'd see in 80s magazines IMHO

I'm gonna go out on a limb here but isn't it just the development/scanning process? Whenever I see photos from the 70's compared to photos from today on the same exact systems/lenses/filmstock they're completely different to the point where the the older photos look like they came off a disposable

>>4463584
Maybe it is a small part of it, but there's more to it than lossy scanning.

>>4463584
the film stock is not the same, unless you were probably seeing scans of Foma or Kodak Double XX that currently are the only ones that keep using the original formula they were created with.

>>4463052

Not hardly, women don't exist on the internet.

Here, men are men, women are Cambodian chatbots and/or Indian scammers and 14 year olds are the Feds.

>>4463598
>here men are men
Hardly

>>4464224
Yeah I bet you're hard for men alright.

>>4464228
I see we have an expert on homosexuality here.
What was the story of you leaving the closet?

>>4464249
What was yours? I'm gonna be respectful and let those with more experience speak first.

>>4464271
You first, I insist.

>>4464310
Alright well it all began with how I met your father.
Dude's a real bottom bitch if you didn't already know that.

>>4464337
Well he still managed to top your's, so...

>>4464355
Damn you got two dads?

>>4464370
Yes, I had both your dads as my sex slaves

>>4464374
Lmao faggot

>>4464534
You may laugh now but mouth your daddy kissed you goodbye with had my cock in them.

So, soft lens after all.

>>4465908
Yes. The fringing on the second pic is a dead giveaway.