| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2009 10:37:24 AM · #26 |
The shots came out great! Perfect exposure and everything! Man, I wish I could get blue skies like that in every shot.
If this stuff wasn't so dang expensive, I might say I'm in love : ) |
|
|
|
03/30/2009 11:04:33 AM · #27 |
Can you scan and post a sample? I'd love to see it.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2009 11:21:02 AM · #28 |
Who manufactured the 4X5 you used? Most common are, of course, the Graflex cameras; Speed Graphic, and Crown graphic. But some very fine 4X5 cameras were made by others as well.
Back in the old days, before Methusalah, I would often use a polaroid back to verify my setup before committing to the higher quality films.
Glad you shoot came out so well! |
|
|
|
03/30/2009 12:29:52 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Back in the old days, before Methusalah, I would often use a polaroid back to verify my setup before committing to the higher quality films. |
I remember well (quoth Methusaleh) when Polaroid's 4x5 back showed up. We architectural photographers were transported to Hog Heaven. And the REALLY nice thing about it was that Polaroid's 55/PN film packs had just about EXACTLY the same reciprocity failure numbers as the Extacolor tungsten film we used for interiors, so it was a Godsend for fine-tuning really long, ambient light exposures before committing. And we did a LOT of those because we pretty much refused to use strobes at all on architectural interiors except for balancing fill during daylight exposures with a lot of window light. Most of our interior work was with highly-designed lighting schemes, and we had to remain faithful to those. 45-minute exposures were common, and sometimes as long as 3 hours not unheard of...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2009 04:15:41 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by geinafets:
The shots came out great! Perfect exposure and everything! Man, I wish I could get blue skies like that in every shot.
If this stuff wasn't so dang expensive, I might say I'm in love : ) |
Are you interested in a 4x5 camera? I have an extra one lying around.
~~DanW |
|
|
|
03/30/2009 04:47:21 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Can you scan and post a sample? I'd love to see it. |
There's a scanner *somewhere* on campus...but when I got here, I didn't even know where the classrooms were. They kinda just assume we'll eventually stumble upon everything we need. I might need to go on a scanner hunt. |
|
|
|
03/30/2009 04:47:57 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by wheeledd:
Originally posted by geinafets:
The shots came out great! Perfect exposure and everything! Man, I wish I could get blue skies like that in every shot.
If this stuff wasn't so dang expensive, I might say I'm in love : ) |
Are you interested in a 4x5 camera? I have an extra one lying around.
~~DanW |
Depends on how much you want for it! : ) |
|
|
|
03/30/2009 10:51:04 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by geinafets:
The shots came out great! Perfect exposure and everything! Man, I wish I could get blue skies like that in every shot.
If this stuff wasn't so dang expensive, I might say I'm in love : ) |
I am using tilt shift lenses on my DSLRs but still I love my 4X5 . Because,color renderation on 4X5 is superb and I m big fan of 4X5 cameras.If you have placed polarizer in front of lens then all the colors will be more saturated. |
|
|
|
03/30/2009 11:38:09 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
The upside down thing is actually very helpful (after you get used to it)--it really seems to help break the normal view in the mind, so that you can see forms, shapes, composition a bit better. |
In a similar vein, a proofreader's trick is to scan a paragraph backwards, from end to beginning -- makes it less likely to skip over common typos where the mind fills-in from context what the eye doesn't see ... |
|
|
|
03/31/2009 12:11:10 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
The upside down thing is actually very helpful (after you get used to it)--it really seems to help break the normal view in the mind, so that you can see forms, shapes, composition a bit better. |
In a similar vein, a proofreader's trick is to scan a paragraph backwards, from end to beginning -- makes it less likely to skip over common typos where the mind fills-in from context what the eye doesn't see ... |
I had a friend who worked in a publication department describe that exact process-- proof reading backwards one word at a time. I tried it but could never get the hang of it. But she could do it easily. |
|
|
|
04/01/2009 08:41:29 PM · #36 |
So what do you guys know about bellows draw?
We're supposed to be shooting outside still so we don't have to worry about that, but due to my very limited modes of transportation, I'm doing this week's assignment in the school's studios. The teacher said it was ok, but it was the guy at the camera store who told me I should learn about bellows draw. I'm gonna go google it, but I figure you guys all have such great information that I'd ask you all too! |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 03:08:17 AM · #37 |
In simple words extensions & compression of bellows is called Bellow draws.
A major bellows issue is length - if you plan on using short lenses, you need to worry about the minimum bellows draw. In this case u have to think how much the bellows can compress.
If you plan on using long lenses, you worry about maximum bellows extension. Unless you use telephoto lenses and most LF camera lenses are wide angle lenses & you'll need bellow extension as long as the focal length just to focus at infinity. To focus closer, you'll need more. Close up in large format photography is quite different from close up with a SLR.
Theoretically you can use almost any lens provided the bellows draw is sufficient.
For example: with a 150 mm lens (Equivalent to 50 mm for a 35 mm set up), to do a 1:1 magnification, you will need to have 300 mm bellows draw. If you use a 300 mm lens, you will need 600 mm bellows draw. If you use a 80 mm lens, you will need to have a 160mm bellows draw.
There will of course the inherent distortions with the characteristic of each lens.
All lens on LF camera are macro lens Just extend the bellow & they are macro but have to calculate light loss,as per extension of bellows. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 03:22:49 AM · #38 |
And it's not just a matter of how long the bellows will extend, but whether the rail or camera bed is long enough for the lens and/or the focusing distance. And there's an issue with bellows *sag* on long extensions as well.
My Sinar-P had rail extensions in the case for long lenses or macro work. The basic rail was quite short, which is necessary when working with wide angle, as on architecture: if the rail is too long, you have to slide the lens standard all the way to the front to avoid having the rail in your frame, and this means you have a rail sticking out the back poking your adam's apple while you're trying to focus, so... short rail for basic outdoor work, and two rail extensions for more length as needed.
When working with really long extensions we stuck a third standard halfway between the front and rear standards, and used two accordion bellows: this eliminated the sag problem. With the wide angle, we had the opposite problem: an accordion bellows, when compressed, won't shift much at all: so we used a "bag bellows" for wide angle work.
Just to add to what sanji was saying. He seems to know his stuff :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 03:30:21 AM · #39 |
Another factor is the limitation that could be imposed on shifts by the bellows. I could compress my normal bellows enough to focus my 90mm lens and tilts/swings would work fine, but the compression made the bellows so "solid" that rise/fall and side shift were difficult and the bellows would vignette the image to boot. This problem is solved by a "bag bellows" that is floppy and shorter (baggy) just for use with short lenses.
More than one of my friends would add a nice long lens to their kit and head out for a day of shooting only to discover that their normal bellows would only just reach enough for infinity focus, if that. The only reason I didn't get burned the same way was that I could only afford a 90mm & a 210mm lens. In retrospect the 90 (& bag bellows) seldom got used and I should have sprung for one of the nifty nikkor convertible lenses.
Message edited by author 2009-04-02 14:12:12. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 03:33:00 AM · #40 |
Parallel posted with the Bear. We are of one mind.
It's his week to use it. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 09:12:47 AM · #41 |
| Another thing to consider is the exposure compensation needed for longer bellows extensions when focusing close. When focused at infinity, the standards should be separated by the focal length of the lens. If you focus closer, the standards will be farther apart. In many cases, this additional separation will not be enough to cause enough light falloff inside the camera to require compensation. However, by measuring the distance between the standards, you can easily calculate the required compensation. Like everything else, falloff inside the camera due to bellows draw follows the inverse square law. So, if, in your shot, the standards are separated 1.4x the focal length of the lens, you will need an additional stop of exposure beyond your incident reading, if 2x the focal length, 2 stops of compensation are needed and so on. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:04:49 PM · #42 |
Wow, you guys' info was much more informative, concise, and understandable than he stuff I found through google.
I have a 210mm lens and my subject should probably be around 2-4 feet from the camera. I've focused on stuff closer than that, so I know my rail is long enough.
Does this mean that I'll need to bring a ruler with mm on it so I can measure between my standards to figure out how many stops of compensation I'll need? Or is there another way to do this? If I use the ruler method, I just use a ratio between the length of the bellows and the mm of the lens, right? |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:12:00 PM · #43 |
Man, it has been a long time: I think I remember this rule of thumb correctly: My instructor said that 210mm is ~ 8 inches, so when extending the belows beyond normal, measure the distance (say 11 inches). Then think of it as comparable to f8 vs f11, and offset by that amount of increased exposure.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 02:26:45 PM · #44 |
A tape measure, in inches and mm, is a VERY handy thing to have! In addition to figuring out the extended bellows compensation, it is very handy for DOF settings.
I dug up my Linhoff Universal Depth of Field Table--I made regular use of this technique with my 4x5:
You focus on the nearest element of the scene that you want to be "apparently" in focus, make a little pencil mark on the rail (unless your rail has measurement markings already, then just make a note of the location). Likewise, you focus on the farthest element in the scene that you care about, make the equivalent mark or note. Now, you position the focus exactly in the middle of those two marks, and then select an aperture based on the following.
Measure/calculate the rail distance between near/far in mm.
For 4x5, the corresponding apertures are:
1.6mm--f8
2.2mm--f11
3.2mm--f16
4.4mm--f22
6.4mm--f32
9.0mm--f45
12.8mm--f64
18.0mm--f90
Now this would work straight up without tilts/swings, but you can see that you get to some pretty small apertures pretty dang fast: so you take maximum advantage of tilt/swing FIRST, using your loupe, etc. Once you have that dialed in, THEN you do this near/far focus technique, select your needed aperture, and your meter will tell you shutter speed that corresponds with this. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 03:05:21 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
A tape measure, in inches and mm, is a VERY handy thing to have! In addition to figuring out the extended bellows compensation, it is very handy for DOF settings.
I dug up my Linhoff Universal Depth of Field Table--I made regular use of this technique with my 4x5:
You focus on the nearest element of the scene that you want to be "apparently" in focus, make a little pencil mark on the rail (unless your rail has measurement markings already, then just make a note of the location). Likewise, you focus on the farthest element in the scene that you care about, make the equivalent mark or note. Now, you position the focus exactly in the middle of those two marks, and then select an aperture based on the following.
Measure/calculate the rail distance between near/far in mm.
For 4x5, the corresponding apertures are:
1.6mm--f8
2.2mm--f11
3.2mm--f16
4.4mm--f22
6.4mm--f32
9.0mm--f45
12.8mm--f64
18.0mm--f90
Now this would work straight up without tilts/swings, but you can see that you get to some pretty small apertures pretty dang fast: so you take maximum advantage of tilt/swing FIRST, using your loupe, etc. Once you have that dialed in, THEN you do this near/far focus technique, select your needed aperture, and your meter will tell you shutter speed that corresponds with this. |
So once I figure out my F-stop with your chart (thanks!), I use the light meter for the shutter speed and that will also take into account light loss from the bellows?
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 03:09:34 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by geinafets:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
A tape measure, in inches and mm, is a VERY handy thing to have! In addition to figuring out the extended bellows compensation, it is very handy for DOF settings.
I dug up my Linhoff Universal Depth of Field Table--I made regular use of this technique with my 4x5:
You focus on the nearest element of the scene that you want to be "apparently" in focus, make a little pencil mark on the rail (unless your rail has measurement markings already, then just make a note of the location). Likewise, you focus on the farthest element in the scene that you care about, make the equivalent mark or note. Now, you position the focus exactly in the middle of those two marks, and then select an aperture based on the following.
Measure/calculate the rail distance between near/far in mm.
For 4x5, the corresponding apertures are:
1.6mm--f8
2.2mm--f11
3.2mm--f16
4.4mm--f22
6.4mm--f32
9.0mm--f45
12.8mm--f64
18.0mm--f90
Now this would work straight up without tilts/swings, but you can see that you get to some pretty small apertures pretty dang fast: so you take maximum advantage of tilt/swing FIRST, using your loupe, etc. Once you have that dialed in, THEN you do this near/far focus technique, select your needed aperture, and your meter will tell you shutter speed that corresponds with this. |
So once I figure out my F-stop with your chart (thanks!), I use the light meter for the shutter speed and that will also take into account light loss from the bellows? |
Ah, ok I just figured it out. I have to then add the stops, which you said in your other post! OK, this makes so much more sense now. Thank you! |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 03:18:47 PM · #47 |
Yes--the DOF thing is separate from the bellows extension compensation.
Just for fun, sometime, in a set up where a tilt or swing WILL be used, do the DOF calc first with no swings/tilts, see what aperture you would have been forced to use, then set up with your swing/tilt in place, do it again and see just how much advantage those movements can give you.
This was the book we used years ago, still in print, and kinda pricey--but very good!
This one is much more reasonably priced (but I have never used it, so cannot recommend directly). |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 03:26:28 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by geinafets:
Ah, ok I just figured it out. I have to then add the stops, which you said in your other post! OK, this makes so much more sense now. Thank you! |
The bellows extension compensation means giving added exposure to offset the effect of the extension. I would generally do this by adding exposure time, rather than opening up the aperture, since I would have chosen my aperture setting fairly carefully to get the dof.
And, for the bellows comp, you would measure from the the film plane to the lens plane (the longitudinal center of the lens--at the the lensboard, basically). If you have a buncha swing or tilt, measure to the point where an imaginary plumb line from the actual lens center would drop, not the near or far swung edge of the lens board. |
|
|
|
06/03/2009 01:38:49 PM · #49 |
I finally got the tutorial for the scanner, so I scanned my first four shots this morning.
    |
|
|
|
06/03/2009 01:44:26 PM · #50 |
| Well, those are some pretty good first shots with a view camera! (my first shots way back when will not ever see the light of day!) Looks like you had some fun with it :-) |
|
