Portrait, Voigtlander Heliar Lens Test.

[Maris]

Portrait, Voigtlander Heliar Lens Test
Gelatin-silver photograph on Ultrafine Silver Eagle VC FB photographic paper, image size 21.5cm X 16.3cm, from a 4x5 Kodak Tri-X negative exposed in a Tachihara 45GF field view camera fitted with a Voigtlander Heliar 21cm f4.5 lens.

This lens dates from 1948, is single coated, and mounted in a wildly inaccurate but consistent compound shutter. Setting 1/100 always gets 1/40, setting 1/50 gets 1/17 and so on. At maximum aperture depth of field was minimal so camera movements were used to get both eyes and the middle of the top lip in the plane of focus. These three points are the initial co-ordinates for a face. Or so one theory goes.

[Barry Kirsten]

Job well done, Maris. A very appealing image of a lovely lady. Personally I've never been keen on soft focus lenses, but that's obviously a character defect on my part since many photographers like them, especially the Heliars, and that makes my view a minority one. I'd probably find soft lenses more appealing if stopped down, defeating their purpose, I suppose, but I've never bothered to experiment. Was the negative very dense being Tri-X exposed at f/4.5?

[Mick Fagan]

Very nice Maris, like Barry I prefer sharp contrasty stuff. However in this instance I think you have the right balance with a soft enough rendering that still holds much detail.

I'm sure your subject is happy with the results.

[ShawnK]

If you ask me, soft lenses have a pretty good effect. Of course, you can get contrasting results with other lenses. But for this picture, it's done just fine. I also like this video about the Voigtlander Heliar - https://youtu.be/d5g9T2MNkhYIT - maybe you've seen it already.

[Maris]

Thanks Barry Kirsten, Mick Fagan, and ShawnK for your kind and encouraging comments. I'm not a prolific portraitist but this one worked out okay EXCEPT for the "broken" catchlights in the eyes: a little mistake, a little reminder to try harder next time.