I know this is waaaay off topic, but I was hoping someone could help.

Is there a way to get that great "Zeiss Softar" effect in photoshop. I've used the filers included and haven't found the right look. You know that "sharp yet soft with bleedy highlights" look.

Many thanks...

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 11, 2002

Answers

How about this?

1/ Select/color range Choose "Highlights" from the drop down menu at the top. OK

2/ Select/grow Pick some number appropriate to the resolution of the image, and don't skimp.

3/ Select/feather Same as number 2, maybe the same number

4/ Edit/copy

5/ Edit/paste

6/ Go to the layers pallette, and make sure you're working on the layer you just pasted, then do a heavy Filter/Blur/Gaussian blur. Do a lot more than you think you want, because this isn't the last step.

7/ On the layer pallette mess with the opacity of the blurred layer until you see something you like.

Is that something like you want?

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

I'll let you know as soon as I try it (a little later, after coffee!)

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 11, 2002.

Have a look at this

www.blueshottub.com/leica/softartest.html

That was the first try, using the highlights softened, then flattening the image layers, and going back and softening the midtones a bit.

This is perhaps a poor choice of image on my behalf, since its one of those grainy ones, and the grain is of course softened.

THANKS - that was a good lesson in Photoshop for me!

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 11, 2002.

For anyone who's not catching on--what I did was select the highlights, and then the "grow" command expands them into the area beyond the highlights, giving "glow" into the non-highlight areas. "Feather" blends and softens the edge of the selection, so the blurring doesn't happen with a sharp, well-defined edge, and blurring, well, that blurs. :-) Then setting the opacity of that layer permits a percentage of sharpness to show through the blurring, giving the defined, sharp core to the blurred area.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

and if we really want to be fair about it, I didn't spread the highlights into the shadows and midtones--I just blurred them so there's a bit of the same look. Not identical, though--maybe someone has an idea of how to spread the highlights out a bit?

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

um, buy a softar lens, and use that??

:)

-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 11, 2002.

I tried a few more, and had good results doing two highlight selections. On is blurred a LOT, the other, is blurred less. Then a midtone selection with is blurred a bit less than either of the highlight selections.

As you showed me, by controlling the mix of the layers, against the original, you can get a decent bleedy result. That highly blurred layer is part of the key, letting it veil out the highlights, but just thinly. The other highlight and midtone layer control the "softness" more than the bleed.

I'm having fun with this. Also noted that you can add a little noise back in to simulate the grain that is lost when you blur things.

Its not a Softar, but then again, neither is the Softar perfect. NEVER shoot a Softar with a small aperture, even on 2 or 3 times normal focal length. The result will be globs out out of focus areas, very very nasty looking and it ruins the images.

This technique is passable for a sort of post-shooting fix. Thanks again!

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 11, 2002.

Buy a Softar I and II. You can't duplicate what these filters do to the image using any current computer imaging technique. Look at the actual filter. It has a zillion little optical ovals that ghost the highlights while not affecting the edge sharpness. Truely unique.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 11, 2002.

I own two sets of Softar's (i, ii, and iii in two sizes) but sometimes, frankly, I need to save my sorry behind and do something after the fact, hence the fix in Photoshop!

I'm being sort of semi serious. I was never able to really produce that Softar effect in Photoshop and that has always made me wonder how it could be done. Then again, sometimes you don't think you'll need the Softar, and whoops you did.

So, the question has sort of a dual purpose reason for asking.

FWIW, I usually keep a Softar I on all the time at weddings. Partly for the softness, partly to help the shadows a bit by lowering the contrast.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 12, 2002.

Figuring it out is just an exercise. Interesting that it seems to bother people so much, eh?

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

Yup....

Now, if someone figured out how to achieve the nasty terrible "clear with distinct circles of floating snot" look (the same as you get when you use a softar in little backlight, and an aperture smaller than F/5.6), THEN I'd listen to complaints!

I remember the first wedding shots I screwed up with a Softar II. Ayeee.... I'd studied under Ernst Wildi back in the early 80's (16 hours of instruction, he's really a great photography teacher) and he was adament that the Softar could be used at any aperture. He of course was wrong, and he later admited that to me when we discussed my failed results some years after that. So now its an F/5.6 or larger rule for this guy.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 12, 2002.

Do they even make Softars in sizes to fit Leica M lenses? I'd love one for my 90 Elmarit, but don't like the idea of a huge filter with a step-up ring.

-- Derek Zeanah (derek@derekzeanah.com), May 12, 2002.

There is some Contax branded ones at B&H for only $102 (only!) in 55mm. Heliopan has 49mm, so the ring will be smaller.

Since a ring is inevitable, you might want to look into some used B50 ones, and get a B50-46mm ring. I've seen B50 Softars for as little as $40 or so.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 12, 2002.