|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Pantyhose Filter
I have a shoot coming up where I might want to soften things down a tiny bit. Now, I've heard of pantyhose being uses as a very effective soft focus filter, and I've seen a bunch of great examples, but logistically, how is this done? Specific brand? Color? Thread count or anything? Also, for those that have tried this, how are you mounting it to the lens? Will a rubber band suffice? Nov 21 08 09:38 am Link Mike in Maryland wrote: Black hose and rubber band is all you need. Nov 21 08 09:40 am Link I've used the more pail skin colored ones with 35mm but my dslrs freak out when I try it with them. Nov 21 08 09:41 am Link As Rob said. Black hose & a rubber band will do the trick. Nov 21 08 09:43 am Link I've never used actual pantyhose, though I too have heard of this all my life. Cokin used to make a variety of filters to simulate the effect, and I've used several with various (but mostly positive) results. I know the effect varies with focal length, distance, and aperture...so there's a lot of variation even when using the purpose-made filters. And...now that we're in the digital age...I never use any of 'em. It's very easy to get a more controlled result in Photoshop with the added bonus that you still have the original sharp image if you decide you're not too crazy about the "filtered" shot. Nov 21 08 09:43 am Link A rubber band will work just fine to hold it on. Color doesn't matter as much unless you are shooting film. And threadcount is really subjective. It just depends how tight you want to stretch it over the lens. I liked using nude colors as it was more of a warming filter when i was shooting film, black for more of a ND type. Both diffuse well though. Keep in mind that aperture will affect how much it diffuses the image. it would be best to play around with it before going into the shoot so you have an idea what it looks like beforehand. Nov 21 08 09:44 am Link Cool deal! Thanks guys!! Nov 21 08 09:48 am Link A rubber band will work but it looks seriously tacky. I would investigate the Cokin line of filters. Nov 21 08 09:50 am Link black tulle (sp?) works really well and still retains a good bit of sharpness. You can get that at any fabric store. The netting is wider than pantyhose and lets a lot more light through than pantyhose. of course- you can always shoot it sharp and the diffuse in photoshop later and have more options. Nov 21 08 09:50 am Link Nov 21 08 09:54 am Link Tiffen makes, or used to make Softnet filters. Arny Freytag used to recommend using the 2-B. This is grade # 2, Black. Made in all sizes, available from eBay. The reason, I prefer, using these, is because it provides consistency. There are hundreds of diffusion filters available. I use 3 kinds: Tiffen Softnet 2-B; ( basically nylon mesh, between a glass sandwich ). Nikon Soft Focus 1; ( made with a silver flake coating, slight halation ). Hoya Softner A; ( old style, like Zeiss Softars, they redesigned it, can't shoot stopped down, with this filter ). Nov 21 08 10:13 am Link DarrelB wrote: some of the best Jazz Horn players in the world still use the bottom of a plunger instead of a device called a Waa Waa to make a certain sound that goes WAA WAA. Nov 21 08 03:51 pm Link When I was very 1st starting out shooting women (normal type girls), I used the Tiffen softnet filter (basically net sandwiched between glass), it is very subtle but noticable. As soon as I began working with agency models in the early nineties, I put them away for good and never looked back. John Nov 21 08 04:08 pm Link Vanishing Point Ent wrote: Indeed, Softnet are much more reliable than actual pantyhose. Black net works on highlights, white net works on shadows. I have these as well as Softars as well center-clear diffusion filters, but honestly, I haven't used filtration for universal softening since I started shooting digital. Nov 21 08 06:24 pm Link DarrelB wrote: so long as it produces results, why worry about aesthetics? Nov 21 08 06:28 pm Link Mike in Maryland wrote: ps..a sheer stocking would work infinitely better Nov 21 08 06:29 pm Link Black ...white...brown ...cream...red! Each will give you a different contrast value. Raid the girls drawers...stretch and attach with a rubber band.   Nov 21 08 06:34 pm Link I tend to shoot "perfect" then fix in PS. In this case, open your perfectly crisp image, duplicate layer, add Guassian blur, reduce opacity of blurred top layer. Gives you alot more control. Maybe I'm a control freak. Nov 21 08 08:20 pm Link Mike, I found that a darning loop was a perfect solution (decades ago)⦠got an eight inch diameter so I could vary the distance from the lens⦠an inch or so can make a huge difference in the degree of diffusion⦠recycled nylons/pantyhose of various hue/chroma for differing effects⦠now after way too many hours in post processing I enjoy the granularity of control of selectively placing specific image components on separate layers and dialing in the amount of noise/diffusion/blur/speckle/grain etc⦠EZ once you invest the time to master it in your editing tool of choice⦠really think post may be better than pre in this particular aspect, but try it both ways since only then can your appreciate what each brings to the image equation⦠note if you're softening to correct skin texture, might want to explore using an MUA, just a thought  Nov 21 08 09:28 pm Link Ah, I love it when someone "discovers" the old fashioned way of doing things. Before I could afford to buy all these "new fangled" things I made use of most anything I could find to modify my images. Take a piece of SaranWrap or whatever it's called these days, crumple it up, stretch it of the lens and burn a hole through the center. When I smoked a cigarette did just the trick. Depending on the size of the hole and the f-stop it did a respectable job of a soft focus filter. Same thing when using an old skylight filter with vaseline smeared on it to varying degrees. Of course be careful not to get the vaseline on your lens, you'll never get it off as one unfortunate individual found out after misunterstanding the instructions. I tried everything and anything in my day. Some worked, some sucked and some I still use to this day. Nov 22 08 06:11 am Link Assuming you are shooting film, then "hose" the lens yes. Many of my shots posted here were shot "normal" then hosed under the enlarger in the dark room. That way I could control the amount and areas effected by the hose. PM me for details if you want...I even used a bellows lens shade and had to weld an adapter onto it for it to fit my lens. I cut the bellows at the top and would insert a clear piece of glass, smearing baby oil on the glass in the areas I wanted to effect, see my avi. If you are shooting digital, or going to post in digital why not do it in post production? Nov 22 08 06:30 am Link Twilight Arms wrote: They can't autofocus. Set it to manual focus. Nov 22 08 08:15 am Link |
