pbromaghin
Subscriber
I forgot that the Mamiya tlr's have a bar that comes down into the focus screen that tells you the exposure correction as you focus on close objects.
The Quick Disc takes all the pain out of calculating for large format macros - it also works with Mamiya TLRs. http://www.salzgeber.at/disc/
The Cambo Legend conveniently has a scale printed on the rail that indicates the distance between front and rear standards.
this can be easy if you want it to be
if you got a 5.6 inch lens and you extend the bellows to 8 inches you need to add a stop
if you got a 5.6 inch lens and you extend the bellows to 11 inches you need to add 2 stops
if you got a 210mm lens and you extend 320mm you ain't gonna be far off if you add 1 stop
if you got a 210mm lens and you extend 450mm you ain't gonna be far off if you add 2 stops
see the pattern, forget about inverse square law this is quick and dirty and if you can be more accurate you have some super calibrated lenses and need to calm down
I shoot landscapes with my Pacemaker, I often shoot with a just the one, on front, of the double Carl Zeiss, Protarlise Vll f 35 cm lens.. the focus at infinity is about 12" to the ground glass..
John, you really should pay attention to the post you're responding to.
He's about at his camera's maximum extension. Per the bible, 10th edition, the 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic's maximum extension is 12 3/4", the Crown's is 12 1/2". His lens-camera combination can't focus close enough for bellows factors to come into play. Your examples of extension are irrelevant, he can't get them.
After that the original post goes incomprehensible. This is an observation, not an insult.
Is it because, the image circle of light, at the film plane has enlarged, distributing the same amount of light over a larger surface, causing it to be less bright?
Some Mamiya Cs also have those bellows factor markings that are indicated by the parallax correction bar. Even the early ones that don't technically have them marked (like my C33) will give you an idea, as they still have the parallax correction bar. Yes; a very simple and good feature. I love my C33 for close-up pix (although I probably would not if I did not have the Paramender).
For the OP, these are the basic considerations that create the "problem":
1. Your light readings give you an exposure that is accurate at infinity, to which your lens' f stops are calibrated.
2. Amount of light falling diminishes (exponentially) as distance from a light source increases.
3. When a lens focuses on something closer than infinity, the distance between the lens and the film is greater than when it is focused at infinity. (Turn the focusing collar on any external focus fixed-length lens to see this.)
4. From your film's point of view, the lens is considered the light source, not the light source itself.
Now, apply this stuff to an actual situation:
A. Due to 3 above, when you focus on anything closer than infinity, you are moving you lens farther from the film than it is at infinity.
sounds complicated
B. Due to number 4 and number 2 above, this makes less light fall on the film versus that which falls when the lens is at infinity.
C. Due to number 1 above, your calculated exposure will actually provide less exposure any time you are focused closer than infinity.
If you add more specifically to number 2 above, you learn how to calculate how just much light falls off using the inverse square law. This law means that if distance from the source doubles, the amount of light falling is quartered. Vise versa: If distance from the source halves, amount of light falling quadruples.
You need to state this as an equation so you can plug your measurements into it. You compare the square of the extension at infinity, where f stops are accurate, to the square of the extension at wherever your shot is focused. To state this mathematically, to get correct results with your calculations, the measurements all have to be squared.
"Compare" means state as a ratio, which can also be stated as an act of division. When you divide, you end up with a correction factor that tells you how many more times the amount of light that you needed at infinity you will need to make up. It will always be greater than 1x, so, that helps you remember that you always need to be dividing the longer measurement squared (actual extension) by the shorter measurement squared (extension at infinity AKA the focal length of the lens).
Algebra states that when you have something raised to a certain power divided by something raised to the same power, you get the same solution if you remove the exponents and perform the act of division, and then raise the result to the power of whatever that removed exponent was. This just means that you can remove a step by squaring the factor at the end rather than by squaring each measurement individually before dividing.
The minimum amount of compensation you can provide is, of course, limited by the precision of your exposure controls. If you end up with a factor of 1.10 in the end, you need 110% of the amount of light that you decided would give the correct exposure. That is not even 1/3 stop more. I guess you could estimate that 10% more with "in between" an f stop adjustment or by adding a little time if you have exposure times that are long enough to time, but for the most part, 1/3 stop, and often 1/2 stop is as precise as you can easily get. So, basically, you just decide what your cutoff is for when you add that first 33% more light (or 50% more light if you only have 1/2 stop precision). I simply round to the next highest or lowest 1/3 stop. This means if my factor hits the 1.17 mark, I round up to 1.33 and add the 1/3 stop, but below that, I go with the exposure that would be correct for infinity.
To get your measurements, it first helps to determine what your measuring spot on the lens will be. Go somewhere outside and focus on something that is at infinity focus. Something way in the distance, miles away would be good. Now, say you have a 150mm lens. Measure 150mm from the film plane and remember (or mark) where exactly 150mm from the film plane is on the lens case. In the future, that is the spot at which you take all your measurements. You know what the point of reference is at infinity, and to be accurate, you need to always measure to that point.
This is picking nits. You could just measure to the diaphragm and you would be fine.
So, you know the bottom of the division problem without even having to measure it. It is the focal length of your lens. You just need to measure the actual extension, divide it by the focal length, and square the result to get your factor.
For instance, say you are using a 360mm lens to shoot a portrait. You are focused on the subject. Measure from the film plane to your lens. Say it is 550mm. So, you divide 550mm by 360mm and get 1.53. Multiply that by itself and you get 2.34. You need to give the film 234% of the exposure you have decided is appropriate. Multiply the shutter speed by 2.34, or open up to let in 2.35 times more light. I always just call this 1 1/3 stops and am happy, but it is not technically accurate, I believe. Someone else should chime in with exactly why it isn't.
No.Another newbie question. I am about to go try out my first 4x5 camera and I just wanted to make sure I got the bellows extension stuff figured out. I will be using a 135mm lens shooting landscapes, so I will more than likely be focused at infinity. Even with my bellows fully compressed, there's still a few inches between the lens and film planes. Do I need to factor this distance in when calculating my exposure?
correct.if yoursubject magnification is less than 1/10 you can safely ignore it;at 1:1 you alreadyhave to add 2 stops of exposure;you can google for exposure scales on the web or email me at rwlambrec@gmail.com and I'll send you one;can't post it here due to size of file.simply put, the exposure reading from your light meter will only be accurate when the camera is focused at infinity. To focus on objects closer to the camera the lens must be moved farther from the film plane, and less light falls on the film. So additional exposure needs to be provided to make up for this light loss. The farther the bellows is extended, the more compensation is required.
This approach is the only one that makes sense to me, how can you beat it in the field? Oh how I am going to “stir it...” This subject makes my head hurt.a simpler way
The system I learned was very simpole and straight forward. For evey 25% beyond the infinity focus extension you simply add one-half stop to your exposuree. I carry around a cloth measuring tape in my camera bag. Works everytime.
eric
the simplest way to determine the exp comp factor with view cameras is placing a little target into the scene and measure it with a template on the view screen.Send me an email to rwlambrec@gmail.com if you like a detailed write up on the subject; happy to send it to you for free.This is a pretty common question, but I can't seem to find a good thread on it on APUG, so let's make this a sticky and hope everyone chips in to give all the standard answers.
There are several methods for calculating bellows exposure factor.
I determine bellows factor in relation to magnification of the subject. You can do this by putting a ruler in the scene and measuring the size of the ruler on the groundglass to determine the magnification ratio, which I do for still life setups, but for most situations I can usually estimate the magnification of the subject in relation to the size of the format. For instance, on 8x10", a tight headshot--head and shoulders--is about 24" across, so 8/24 is a magnification factor of 1:3. Then I have a table that I keep taped to my light meter, my notebook, and the back of each camera, to convert (and to remind myself to convert) magnification factor to bellows factor. I've posted that table in DOC format here--
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
There are several copies of the table on the same page, so you can cut them out and attach them to everything.
I like this method because it works well with any format, even if you can't put a ruler up to the groundglass, and I can have a single method for every camera I use.
Ha! I've had an iPhone for several years and never knew that. Thanks! One might think I would have found it by accident, but since I retired in 2002 I tend to avoid activities involving calculators.If you open the calculator on your iPhone and turn it sideways it turns into a scientific calculator.
Me too, I only wish I'd known this 15 tears ago.Ha! I've had an iPhone for several years and never knew that. Thanks! One might think I would have found it by accident, but since I retired in 2002 I tend to avoid activities involving calculators.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: |