drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Just so you can see what i have been talking about I am including the partial instructions which show the CalPro M. Zucker kit in a bit of detail. I still have mine and plan to use it for portraits. A very nice edge vignette or soft focus edge can be achieved in camera which even in digital wills save time in Adobe. All of the pro's here in Cincinnati were using it or some other version of it until digital hit. It cost a bit but was worth the cost. Especially since you tailored it to the camera you were using. I have seen it used on twin lens reflex cameras like the Mamiya C330. I spoke with M Zucker every time he was in for a Professional show. Several of us Pro's would hang out at the end of the show and talk shop. One way to get an in with the Pro's and find out who you may or may not want to work for.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for the info. Would you say it improved contrast and colour accuracy? Or was it just a modifiable lens hood?

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

More of a modified lens hood which allowed you to change the appearance of the picture. Such as making multiple exposures that could be duplicated. Changing the edge appearance of the photograph by darkening or frosting the edges of a shot. It all depended on which of the attachments you used as to the special effects you wanted. You could for another example place you image inside a heart. You could make the outside of the cut out area either a stop or more darker than the center of the image just by changing the insert you used on the front of the Calpro.
I always used a black dot filter for portraits on my portrait lens. My portrait lens an 150mm on a Bronica body would be similar to a 50mm FF lens on a DX body. I also used softening filters on women's faces. Old school film we had to get the shot right every time as we had 24 exposure rolls of film and the studio did not want to see a high percentage of bad shots due to cost.
In fact I remember an offer once for a filter screen of some sort that was used after the lens for softening of wrinkles in faces. It was a small screen the was inserted into the back of a lens. I never used one but I knew a photographer who swore by it being superior to softening filters in front of the lens.
There was also the Cokin filter system. The filters fitted into a filter holder screwed onto the lens. There were many assortments of the Cokin filters available. One would make a shot of a runner blur out front the back as you would get following a race car.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks again for the further info. It sounds more sophisticated than smearing Vaseline on the lens . I imagine the subject of stray light within the lens gets a lot of consideration from lens designers. I was contemplating experimenting with my own lens but it sounds like there's nothing much to be gained as far as image quality goes.

Bill_de Loc: US

I knew I had seen a mask like the one on the Sony on a Nikon lens. It's on the opposite end of the latest 24-70 F/2.8. Go figure???

--

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I'm left wondering if there's some sort of stigma associated with overtly using that kind of mask. As drklrd noted, it's more common on cheaper lenses. Maybe the leading edge lens manufacturers prefer to be discrete about its use.

Bill_de Loc: US

I've been fooling around with the 24-70 and I think I figured it out. It prevents mounting a tele-converter. When zoomed out to 24mm the rear element would come in contact with a 1.4x converter.

--

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Aha! An anti-TC device masquerading as a mask . But it's interesting to know that the masks can be used internally.

I'm still undecided as to whether it's worth experimenting or not. As long as I don't overdo it, it shouldn't do any harm, and at the very least it'll give me more protection from lens flare.