Painting with Lenses

[Michael Erlewine]

? afraid the depth of this is beyond my imagination ??

Yes. That's why we are sending you flowers. <G>

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

I have experimented quite a bit with those type of lenses and their, well, interesting bokeh and drawing.
Indeed the HELIOS 40-2 and the Biotar 58mm and 75mm are well known candidates for such and seeked
upon especially in Asia, where such bokeh is in high demand and also the reason for the price explosion
of the Meyer Trioplan 2.8/100mm.

But "impressionistic" to me is rather a "stroke brush like painting" type like this:





(both are not the mentioned but two very different lenses, used wide open)

[Michael Erlewine]

But "impressionistic" to me is rather a "stroke brush like painting" type like this:

We can come up with t better word. I am not referring here to French Impressionism, but to capturing an "impression." We could use "Mood," but the nature of these lenses deserve something better than that term. Suggest one please.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

We can come up with t better word. I am not referring here to French Impressionism, but to capturing an "impression." We could use "Mood," but the nature of these lenses deserve something better than that term. Suggest one please.

hmm, I see your point Michael, "mood" describes it in a way, "emotional" would be my take. There has been the term "subjective" years ago, which kind of nails it. The very personal view of the photographer.

[Michael Erlewine]

hmm, I see your point Michael, "mood" describes it in a way, "emotional" would be my take. There has been the term "subjective" years ago, which kind of nails it. The very personal view of the photographer.

All photography is personal IMO. Actually, all photography is impressionistic, by definition of there being a subject and an object.

The word "Mood," as I mentioned, cheapens the idea. This is not elevator-photography. The word "emotional" does not do it for me, either, because many of the kind of shots I like are not emotional, but more ethereal in looks. So do we want to call this "Ethereal Photography?" I don't think so. Nor do I want to call it "Swirly Bokeh" photography.

And Klaus, I recognize that you probably know more about this genre than anyone I have ever met and have proved it by testing probably scores of lenses and concepts over the years.

I am just transitioning from my style of photography, where I get some of these effects with great lenses, but with very hard work, to considering these relatively inexpensive lenses for what they, in themselves, can do.

When it comes to this type of photography, you have always been my guide and mentor.

So, anyone have any other names for this style?

Some ideas might be:

Ethereal
Mystic
Spiritual
New Age
Airy
Intangible
Filmy
Gossamer
Diaphanous
Transparent

[Thomas G]

I read it as a difference like in drawing and painting.
Drawing in terms of a more precise, technical rendition,
Painting like making use of purposeful imperfections to receive an extra in rendition,
which is not necessarily part of an 'objective' image presentation.

[Michael Erlewine]

I read it as a difference like in drawing and painting.
Drawing in terms of a more precise, technical rendition,
Painting like making use of purposeful imperfections to receive an extra in rendition,
which is not necessarily part of an 'objective' image presentation.

Good point, but what shall we call this "Ethereal Painting" or "Lens Painting."  The idea of painting with lenses is a good one.

[Michael Erlewine]

OK, changed the name of the thread to "Painting with Lenses." This is a term I can accept and that describes the technique we are using. Thanks to Thomas G. for the suggestion. I hope this is OK with everyone.

[John Geerts]

The Nikkors 50mm F/1.2  and the F/2.0 also qualify for 'painting'   But very close to painting are the Heligons as Jakov mentioned earlier.

[Michael Erlewine]

OK, here is a photo with the Lensbaby Velvet 56mm f/1.6-16 with 1:2 Macro, focuses from 5". This is a much more (regular?) and sturdy offering from Lensbaby than usual. Like all of these "painterly" lenses, wide open (f/1.6), everything is pretty soft, so it takes some work to get both bokeh and something in focus to catch your attention. If I wanted all bokeh, I could just take my glasses off and be in heaven.

I always want a lot of bokeh, but also something very much (or pretty much) in focus to prove to myself this is real life, and not just some dream or other.

So, what had to happen here is to stack focus, with a shot wide-open, and then a shot or two at a smaller aperture so that something is in focus. Then I combine the stack to have what we see here, a whole lot of bokeh, but some sign (in focus) that shows this is real.

Not making any claims here, other than proof of concept.

[Michael Erlewine]

Here is another proof-of-concept photo using the Nikon D810 and the Lensbaby Velvet 56mm f/1.6.

Again, trying to have something in decent focus against all that bokeh.

[BW]

If I want to render something soft or in a impressionistic way I always grab my Lensbaby. Just the "right" amount of shabby optics for a fresh new "look" without to much PP.

[Jakov Minić]

Børge, the lensbaby looks like a promising tool!
Given that you know how to use it as you certainly do. Great images!

[BW]

The key is trial and error. A lot of it

[Frank Fremerey]

Even the 35/1.4ais is a good candidate to achieve soapbubbles like bokeh and more lenses not yet mentioned here.
The choice of background is important and in post-processing one may accentuate a bokeh structure.
for instance

I feel Fons is a master in the impressionistic style and he has got quite a collection of old Nikkors which do the trick.

One of them not yet mentioned is the rare 2.0/24Ai which acts like an effect filter wide open.