[woodenbits]

LOL. If that happens, consider manufacturing and selling some kind of a 'lens scratcher' device that will help in properly applying correct scratches in correct places

Seriously, can't wait to see more of your landscape photos (with un-scratched ponies in them) made with scratched lens.

[niceshot]

LOL. If that happens, consider manufacturing and selling some kind of a 'lens scratcher' device that will help in properly applying correct scratches in correct places

Seriously, can't wait to see more of your landscape photos (with un-scratched ponies in them) made with scratched lens.

Use a scufff pad

[paulh]

Dave, I'll be following your future posts with great interest!

Blooming redbud in early March. F35-70 on K10D:

[rayallen]

I know I've made it seem like a deranged act of wanton destruction, but it really wasn't. It was a carefully considered decision. I've got a lot of experience with vintage lenses, and I'm very familiar with different kinds of front element marks and scratches, so my goal was to simulate the effect on contrast and saturation that comes from decades of heavy cleaning marks.

The lens:



A quick test shot from early this morning:



The only processing is to set black and white points. The whole point of this is to get the look I want optically rather than Photoshopically. I reduced it to web size without any sharpening, so it looks softer than it actually is, and I'm very happy with the way the lens's hard edges have been (literally) sanded away.

And anyway, somebody has to provide some comic relief around here.

Dave, you have reminded me that I have a 58mm Asanuma Softon filter that I bought was back in the 1980s and I only ever used it once or twice way back then. I have a 52->58mm step up ring and I will give it a try tomorrow on my 18-55mm WR (on my K-3) to show you what effect it produces. I did a quick Google search and I don't think they are still available but that is not a concern for you because you have already found a DIY solution.

I still feel a little uncomfortable when I look at what you did to your lens but that is just because I treat my gear with the utmost care. You are at liberty do whatever you want with your gear. As long as it does what you want it to do then that is all that matters.

---------- Post added 05-04-17 at 04:16 PM ----------

I had a few moments to spare and I did the test with my K10D (so that I could post the images here without guilt!). Images are JPGs SOOC with only resizing for web (2048 pixels on long edge).

The difference is pretty obvious but I not sure if that is what you were after, Dave. I think the filter lived up to its name.

K10D, SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR, no filter.


K10D, SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR, Asanuma Softon filter.

---

Last edited by rayallen; 04-04-2017 at 11:19 PM.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Dave, you have reminded me that I have a 58mm Asanuma Softon filter that I bought was back in the 1980s and I only ever used it once or twice way back then. I have a 52->58mm step up ring and I will give it a try tomorrow on my 18-55mm WR (on my K-3) to show you what effect it produces. I did a quick Google search and I don't think they are still available but that is not a concern for you because you have already found a DIY solution. I still feel a little uncomfortable when I look at what you did to your lens but that is just because I treat my gear with the utmost care. You are at liberty do whatever you want with your gear. As long as it does what you want it to do then that is all that matters. ---------- Post added 05-04-17 at 04:16 PM ---------- I had a few moments to spare and I did the test with my K10D (so that I could post the images here without guilt!). Images are JPGs SOOC with only resizing for web (2048 pixels on long edge). The difference is pretty obvious but I not sure if that is what you were after, Dave. I think the filter lived up to its name. K10D, SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR, no filter.

Thanks for those shots with and without the filter, Ray. They show exactly why I ended up deciding that the only way to get the effect I wanted was to do what I did. All the commercial diffusers that I looked at had far too strong an effect, rendering things as just a big blur. The test shot that I posted yesterday was done with no sharpening at all, so at web size it looks much softer than the effect I'm hoping to get when I use the modified lens for real.

I've still got the unmodified non-WR 18-55mm that came with my K-S1, so hopefully later this week I'll be able to do some comparison shots with both lenses. (And before anyone asks why I didn't scratch up the free kit lens instead, the whole point for me of having an 18-55mm is the weather resistance, so that I can shoot in conditions where I don't want to risk my Takumars.)

I think what I'll do is post some comparisons without revealing which lens is which. It'll be interesting to see if there really is that much of a difference, and whether viewers can consistently spot it.

[ChristianRock]

I adventured out here in polen-land the last couple days, finally getting brave enough to do it. Of course that meant I'm taking meds now... and I didn't get as many keepers as I'd like (as usual...), but here's some that showcase the magic that happens (at least in my easily amused mind) with the K10D and the M 50 1.7...

[Dartmoor Dave]

Okay, two quick handheld test shots. One with the modified (euphemistically) 18-55mm WR, and one with the untouched 18-55mm kit lens, with identical manual exposure and manual white balance. Straight raw to jpeg conversions with no processing and no sharpening -- I simply opened each file using camera raw defaults, resized with no sharpening, then saved as jpeg. And stripped the exifs.





Having done this comparison, I'm not sure if it's really meaningful because it's two different models of the lens, rather than a straight before and after. I suspect there's actually more difference caused by the WR vs non-WR coatings than there is from my own little experiment.

[ChristianRock]

Okay, two quick handheld test shots. One with the modified (euphemistically) 18-55mm WR, and one with the untouched 18-55mm kit lens, with identical manual exposure and manual white balance. Straight raw to jpeg conversions with no processing and no sharpening -- I simply opened each file using camera raw defaults, resized with no sharpening, then saved as jpeg. And stripped the exifs.





Having done this comparison, I'm not sure if it's really meaningful because it's two different models of the lens, rather than a straight before and after. I suspect there's actually more difference caused by the WR vs non-WR coatings than there is from my own little experiment.

I like the 2nd one better...

Which is the other lens? If it's the AL II, then it's still the same optical formula, the same coatings, etc.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I like the 2nd one better...

Which is the other lens? If it's the AL II, then it's still the same optical formula, the same coatings, etc.

The kit lens is the DA L with the white band and plastic mount, which I think is optically the same as the AL II. The WR is the DA AL with the green band and metal mount. And that's all I'm saying at this point.

[ChristianRock]

The kit lens is the DA L with the white band and plastic mount, which I think is optically the same as the AL II. The WR is the DA AL with the green band and metal mount. And that's all I'm saying at this point.

Ok, so yes they are both the same optics and coatings. Which makes this comparison meaningful.

[ChristianRock]

I've had no reason to take the M 50 1.7 off the K10D in the last few days... great flower lens. But I *should* give the M 50 f4 macro a chance....

[rayallen]

Ok, so yes they are both the same optics and coatings. Which makes this comparison meaningful.

Yes, that is exactly what I thought, too.

---------- Post added 07-04-17 at 08:19 AM ----------

Okay, two quick handheld test shots. One with the modified (euphemistically) 18-55mm WR, and one with the untouched 18-55mm kit lens, with identical manual exposure and manual white balance. Straight raw to jpeg conversions with no processing and no sharpening -- I simply opened each file using camera raw defaults, resized with no sharpening, then saved as jpeg. And stripped the exifs.





Having done this comparison, I'm not sure if it's really meaningful because it's two different models of the lens, rather than a straight before and after. I suspect there's actually more difference caused by the WR vs non-WR coatings than there is from my own little experiment.

As the coatings and lens formulae are the same, the comparison is meaningful. At web size I can't perceive any difference in the two images. If there is any difference, a blind man would be glad to see it. What you have proven though is that a little damage to the front element (whether accidental or intentional) does not greatly affect the resulting image. Maybe, just maybe, I could remove some of the "protective" UV filters I have on some (not all) of my lenses. Definitely food for though. Thank you for your efforts, David. You have provided much more than comic relief.

[Dartmoor Dave]

At web size I can't perceive any difference in the two images. If there is any difference, a blind man would be glad to see it. What you have proven though is that a little damage to the front element (whether accidental or intentional) does not greatly affect the resulting image. Maybe, just maybe, I could remove some of the "protective" UV filters I have on some (not all) of my lenses. Definitely food for though. Thank you for your efforts, David. You have provided much more than comic relief.

Thanks Ray. Yes, I agree: at web size there's almost no perceptible difference at all. I don't think that a casual viewer would ever guess what had been done to one of the lenses, and I was never aiming for a big dramatic difference. I just wanted an ever so slightly gentler character to the rendering, at full resolution on screen or printed at my usual 12" x 18". A bit more Takumar like, to be honest. So I'm pleased with the result, even if maybe it's just a placebo effect. It makes me feel a lot happier about shooting with that lens.

For the record, the first shot is the kinky 18-55mm WR and the second is the vanilla kit lens. And to be honest, after I'd posted the comparison I forgot myself which was which and had to check back to the original files to make sure.

As you say, if nothing else, this will hopefully convince people that a little scratch or two on the front element is no big deal.

[ChristianRock]

Sample variation probably matters more than the scratches. I say this because to my eyes, the 2nd picture looks less contrasty and therefore a bit more "vintage" than the first...

[ZombieArmy]

To me the pictures look identical at web resolutions. Scratches will make far more difference when shooting into light.