Back in the day using a diffusion filter or even smearing vaseline on the lens front was considered a good trick for portraits. But I have not heard or seen any examples of photographers doing this for decades. Then last week I was watching a YT video about the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM and the blogger talked about using a Nisi Black mist diffusion filter, either 1/8 or 1/4 in some scenarios (not specifically for the 1.2 I should add). Admittedly he was talking about wedding photography (The Magic Wedding Photographer) but it made me go and look. Thousands of mist diffusion filters are sold currently on Amazon and presumably via photo stores. The blogger showed some very nice results -- he's pretty slick at getting the money shot that will bring aspiring couples to his door!
Who on this forum uses diffusion filters or has a set they use on occasion? Are they still relevant? Or was the YT video an outlier?
(Realise this question could apply to many forums on FM but since I live here have posted on the Sony forum first)
Tons of people are still using diffusion filters (and many of them use far too strong of filters for everyday shooting). There's a reason Shortstache is making cash hand over fist.
The default has settled around 1/4 strength, which I personally find too strong. If I use one, it's a 10% and if I want a bit more effect, I can simply lower clarity in post.
There are also some newish post processing tools that emulate filters very well and obviate the need for them.
Yes, based on what I saw 1/8 is enough. I have been using the clarity slider when needed, but the Nisi filter adds a gentle bloom a bit like, say, the Sigma 45mm at close distances, which would be difficult to emulate in post.
I use 1/2 and 2 strength Tiffen Black Pro Mist filters;
- 1/2 for a stronger bloom outdoors at wider apertures
- 2 for a "very dreamy" look outdoors at wider apertures and for a noticeable bloomed look stopped down when working with flash indoors. I also have the Tiffen Smoque 2 filter.
SNJOps wrote:
I use 1/2 and 2 strength Tiffen Black Pro Mist filters;
- 1/2 for a stronger bloom outdoors at wider apertures
- 2 for a "very dreamy" look outdoors at wider apertures and for a noticeable bloomed look stopped down when working with flash indoors. I also have the Tiffen Smoque 2 filter.
Can you post examples of the 2x filter? That sounds much too strong to me, but maybe it works in conjunction with flash.
I enjoy my Pro Mist filters and the various variations, especially if it adds to a scene or mood. It's certainly not for every occasion, but it can work.
They very often interfere with the structure of peoples' faces (akin to the effect of high tones), so for me their position on the field is left right out. I want lenses that present skin optically. The world is awash with s/w profiles, corrections, then filters - it's all artifice. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
rob_ww wrote:
Who on this forum uses diffusion filters or has a set they use on occasion? Are they still relevant? Or was the YT video an outlier?
I use my Nisi Star Soft filter for astro, which is a diffusion filter, to get soft, bright stars. It tends to fade out faint stars while accentuating brighter stars, making the brighter ones stand out more. This is helpful with shots of constellations. Some astrophotographers use them, some do not. I use mine sparingly.
I have two, both the shortstache CPL combo and a Tiffen 1/4. I honestly think they do a great job cutting the harshness of my modern Leica sensors. I still have all the resolution and I’d rather have a physical diffusion than one in post-looks much more natural and less “post processed” to me
rob_ww wrote:
Back in the day using a diffusion filter or even smearing vaseline on the lens front was considered a good trick for portraits. But I have not heard or seen any examples of photographers doing this for decades. Then last week I was watching a YT video about the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM and the blogger talked about using a Nisi Black mist diffusion filter, either 1/8 or 1/4 in some scenarios (not specifically for the 1.2 I should add). Admittedly he was talking about wedding photography (The Magic Wedding Photographer) but it made me go and look. Thousands of mist diffusion filters are sold currently on Amazon and presumably via photo stores. The blogger showed some very nice results -- he's pretty slick at getting the money shot that will bring aspiring couples to his door!
Who on this forum uses diffusion filters or has a set they use on occasion? Are they still relevant? Or was the YT video an outlier?
(Realise this question could apply to many forums on FM but since I live here have posted on the Sony forum first)...Show more →
I think there are perhaps two reasons that we see less use of such filters.
One is that styles change and, at least for a while, the diffused, misty look was falling out of fashion. (Photography has vacillated back and forth between the sharp f/64 look and the Pictorialism style and their successors.)
Another is that back in the day you had to create that look optically, most likely at the time of exposure. (It could also be done in the darkroom later on when enlargers were used.) And that meant doing something to affect the light path. But in the past few decades digital post processing has made it possible — easy, in fact — to make a sharp photogaph and then manipulate it to create this sort of effect or many others in post. No need to smear Vaseline on lenses!
You can still get there with filters like those mentioned in the thread, but that is no longer the only way.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Another is that back in the day you had to create that look optically, most likely at the time of exposure. (It could also be done in the darkroom later on when enlargers were used.)
This claim is incorrect. The effect produced by a soft filter could not be replicated on an enlarger. While a soft filter could be used there, the results were entirely different, as the overexposure always originated from the strongest light intensity. Therefore, when using a filter on the taking lens, the highlights were blown out, making the image appear brighter and lighter. Using the same filter on the enlarger lens in the darkroom, however, had the exact opposite effect, since the photographic paper receives most of its light in the shadows. This means that in the finished image, it is not the highlights that are blown out, but the shadows; the image does not become brighter and lighter, but darker and heavier.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
This claim is incorrect. The effect produced by a soft filter could not be replicated on an enlarger. While a soft filter could be used there, the results were entirely different, as the overexposure always originated from the strongest light intensity. Therefore, when using a filter on the taking lens, the highlights were blown out, making the image appear brighter and lighter. Using the same filter on the enlarger lens in the darkroom, however, had the exact opposite effect, since the photographic paper receives most of its light in the shadows. This means that in the finished image, it is not the highlights that are blown out, but the shadows; the image does not become brighter and lighter, but darker and heavier. ...Show more →
I didn’t say it would be exactly the same, only that it is was an alternative way to introduce blur/glow to an image in the optical/chemical processing routine. (I didn’t want to leave that out since if I did I was sure someone would point out THAT error*… ;-)
Also, while the effect would be reversed when printing negatives, printing from positive film stock would not have that issue.
- - -
I almost didn’t mention this at all, but did include it as an aside. I also considered mentioning — but decided against it — that some pictorialists actually chose lenses that created this effect themselves.
The main point stands — that a decent version of the effect is easier to apply today in post, and with more control and variability. While you still can do it the old way, that’s no longer the only option.
Lots of interesting posts in the thread @nehemiahphoto referenced above (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695216/) But that thread is five years old.
Just wondering if the preference for lenses with some SA I sometimes see on the forum can be replicated by choosing the right filter and amount. I have tried to do it in post but unsuccessfully although I will try the suggestion by @RoamingScott above when I next have some suitable samples to work with.
rob_ww wrote:
Just wondering if the preference for lenses with some SA I sometimes see on the forum can be replicated by choosing the right filter and amount.
I don't think a filter can achieve that, and what I see in the video looks different to me as well. I recently bought a K&F Black Mist 1/4 for the 1.2 GM, but so far I've only taken a quick "test shot." I don't think that will be very helpful to you without a comparison image.
I took the back of one of the free uv filters B&H throws in with lenses and sprayed some black spray paint in the air and then waived the filter through the cloud of paint really quickly. It lives on the 33mm F1.4 on my X-T5. It's really subtle but I like what it does to the highlights.
I can recommend doing it in photoshop (or affinity).
It only takes a couple of seconds to do it and you get a lot of flexibility that you don’t have with a physical filter - you can adjust the strength of the effect, how deep into the midtones it should reach and most importantly you can mask it.
Let’s say you’ve taken a portrait and you like to have blooming in the highlights in the background but you don’t like what it does to skin details - easy peasy with photoshop, out of luck with the physical filter.
You could even apply two different filter strengths to different parts of the image.
