With respect, I disagree with:
In either case, short or soft, the goal is the same; get the airplane into the air and off the surface as soon as possible, and one must always be mindful of obstacles.
The soft field technique wants you off the ground asap, the short feild technique does not. I do agree that many runways which will require one technique, tend to need the other as well, but it ends up being a cobled compromise between the two, which works, but does not optimize either.
The important difference between the two techniques in their pure form will be that for the soft field, there is very little change in elevator command to become airborne during the entire takeoff run, the elevators are heald in the position to get you airborne the whole run, only modulated to maintain the optimum pitch attitude.
For Short field technique there will be a distinct rotation (elevator control input) of the aircraft at a piont where the appropriate takeoff speed is reached, but not really prior. If the short field technique includes getting off the ground asap, you're prolonging the ground run (not as short as could have been) because you're pulling along the added drag resulting from lift demanded through the entire takeoff run, instead of just at the point of rotation.
Taken at it's extreme in my experience the PA 28 can be operated to create a dramtic effect (but please don't do it 'cause I said it could be done - hurting the plane is a real possibility). I have previously posted the text which follows, it describes in extreme, an unintentional soft field takeoff through which I once rode, which nearly did not work.
Here you go...
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']PA28's have a stabilator rather than the conventional stabilizer/elevator combination. In "normal" operations this is a completely benign difference. Where it does show up, however, is in very low speed, nose high operations. Here's what happens: Pilot commands more nose up at low speed, takeoff being the most likely occasion. Where the conventional stab/elev combination would have a greater deflection of the elevator, the camber of the horizontal tail as a single flying surface is increased (as well as a change in effective pitch angle). As such, it's capacity to create more "down" lift before stalling, or experiencing a large drag increase is better. (okay purist aerodynamicists, have at me, I've got experience with the result, not the theory). On the other hand, the stabilator, has only the opportunity to change angle of attack to create more "down" lift. Like any flying surface, it will reach an angle of attack, where the Cl max has been passed, and the increase in drag is no longer proportionate to the increase in (down) lift. Yes, I'm sure that Piper gave this a lot of thought and test all those years ago, and their engineers know more than I do about this, but...[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']I was the right seat check pilot to a junior pilot in an Arrow PA28R-200 many years ago. He rotated prematurely out of a 1000 meter runway. It was a hot day, but we were quite light, and it was a 200HP version of the aircraft, so power was not a problem. The plane was stuck in ground effect, with the pilot holding the controls 'way back. The stall warning was sounding. The aircraft would not accelerate, or climb away. Landing back might have worked, other than the runway end was approaching, and he (well I suppose "we") had allowed the aircraft to drift off the side, so there was not a runway under us any more. I was shocked at the "poor performance" I was experiencing in this aircraft I thought I knew so well. We were nearing the obstacles. We did not wreck the plane simply because I "locked off" and retracted the gear. The resultant reduction in drag was all that was needed to allow the plane to slowly climb away. [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Shocked by what had just happened, I went to experiment. I flew a PA28-140, which I believed to be in good condition, off a very long frozen lake (runway and width length no longer a concern). Sure enough, I could get the plane very nose high, with lots of aft control, and it would not accelerate or climb out of ground effect. My only option was to land back (fixed gear). I repeated this configuration enough to satisfy myself that this is a configuration to be avoided in PA28's (and probably Cessna 177's as well) So I do! The thick wing has great lift, and resists stalling well. The stabilator tail is not ideally matched in this attribute. [/FONT]