This was shot by the Pinkham & Smith VQ-IV.  It's an image of an unwound roll of industrial doublestick tape which I wound/unwound and threw up in the air several times until it landed on my brushed aluminum in a way that presented an interesting composition. 

I think the catch phrase appropriate for this entry is 'finally' and then 'ironic'.   I've finally gotten around to doing some work w/my P&S VQIV, and it's ironic that in the Visual Quality, I'm using one of the more 'user friendly' Pinkhams after I ended up first tackling the exotic and hard to focus P&S Semi-Achromatic Series III, and the not as difficult, but still difficult, Semi-Achromatic Series I.

I consider the Visual Quality IV to be one of the greatest softfocus lenses ever, and the equal of the earlier Pinkham Semi-Achromatics and I disagree w/some of Russ Young's comments he's made about this lens, particularly the suggestion that since the Visual Quality came later than the Semi-Achromatics, that the VQ wasn't used by anyone of note.  

You can refer to the stunning portrait contained in the Pinkham catalog that both Jim Galli and I have on our respective websites that was shot w/the P&S VQIV; a portait so beautiful, so skilled, that's it the equal of anything done by the masters who used the earlier Semi-Achromatics.   The Visual Quality has only about half the softness of the earlier Semi-Achromatics, but I submit that in looking at this beautiful portrait, that the relative softness of this lenses is the last thing you consider in looking at this portrait.

The earlier Semi-Achromatics were much softer than the VQ, and were very difficult to focus, particulary at wideopen, and complicated further by the issue of optical versus chemical focus.   A further complication focuswise unique to the Pinkham Semi-Achromatic Ser III is that it focuses forward.   That is, in terms of considering your zone of focus, say 1-10, 1 being the closet point in the direction of the lens where things began to sharpen up, and 10 being the farthest point of the zone where things go out of focus, you can select 10 as you sharpest point of focus, the focus will carry FORWARD.  

In other words 10 will be the sharpest point of focus, and will gradually get less sharp coming forward to 1, everything behind 10 ABRUPTLY goes completely out of focus.  Go the image '3 Glasses' which I have here and in my Semi-Achromatic Ser III gallery on my www.imageandartifact.bz  site to see this effect. 

I've focused on the rim of these glasses having 'racked' back and forth until this was my sharpest point, everything behind this point/the back portion of the glasses has gone abruptly and completely out of focus which is why the effect looks so strange.   Another shot which exhibits this focusing 'quirk' of the SA Ser III is the 'Goggles' shot in the same gallery where I focused at the rear/the top of the goggles because I knew the lens would focus forward w/the zone of focus to get the rest of the goggles from top to bottom in focus(the goggles were at an angle leaning backwards).

I believe that the Visual Quality was created and made less soft to ease the focusing difficulties that came along w/the earlier Semi-Achromatics, and in spite of the fact that it's less soft I believe it's as great a lens as any of the earlier Semi-Achromatics for the following reasons.................

I don't believe there are more than a dozen folks including 'then and now' who've had both the opportunity, time, and intuitive ability, to get sufficiently down the learning curve of the Semi-Achromatics to fully realize those lenses potential.  The Semi-Ahcromatics were/are exotics and very difficult to use.  The Visual Quality in comparison is a snap to focus, and much easier to use. 

The fact that it's half as soft as the Semi-Achromatics isn't to me a lesser quality, indeed it means that the VQ has it's own personality/signature, and I've learned in using these lenses that considerations of lighting/exposure/focus/distance from your subject matter can have more of an effect on the final image shot w/these lenses than how soft the lens happens to be.   

Witness this shot done w/the Visual Quality and hopefully you won't come away w/the primary thought of 'hey, it's not as soft as one of the Semi-Achromatics'.   The Semi-Achromatics, the Visual Quality, the Veritos,  the Wollensak Velostigmat w/it's front soft-focus ring unsrewed almost all the way off,  and many other soft-focus lenses can be manipulated into looking very soft or sharper depending on how  you shoot, it isn't just the lens.

How many people can handle a fullblown, racetrack only Porche race car, as opposed to a street Porche which can provide the pleasure of driving a Porche to bigger number of folks who don't have the skill of a professional race driver?..........................Same analogy applies to the Pinkhams, in terms of the Semi-Achromatics versus the Visual Quality,  the Semi-Achromatics are exotics, hard to use, difficult to focus, w/the Visual Quality giving a bigger number of folks the opportunity to use this type of lens, and this is why I consider the VQ the equal of the Semi-Achromatics.  

Take care