Exposure times for 4x5?

[kcham16]

Hi- I'm new to large format, having used medium format and 35mm for quite some time. I am wondering if anyone can help me- Do I need to have longer exposure times for large format, or go with larger apertures? If I use a handheld light meter, do I need to do any adjustments?
It just seems like I need to expose longer, but maybe I'm just incorrect.

I am not referring to bellows compensation, which makes sense to me. I am just wondering if the exposure times/ f-stops are the same as medium format and 35mm?

The reason I ask is that if I compensate 1 stop on my hasselblad 6x6 over my 35mm, I get great results. Wondering if the same is true, or even to a greater extent for large format...

Thank you all in advance- this is a rad community.

 

[Jim Noel]

Expose some sheets using your meter as you always have. Develop them according to mfg directions. You should have usable negatives, and you can make adjustments from there.

 

[DWThomas]

An f-stop is a dimensionless parameter and time is time. So (assuming the same film and staying out of bellows comp territory) exposures are universal. (Thank goodness!)

And I'm not sure why you need more exposure with your 6x6 -- maybe one of the cameras you're comparing has some shutter calibration issues?

 

[shutterfinger]

F stop is a function of the diameter of the entrance pupil to the focal length of the lens. The magnification of the lens front elements can make the diameter of the aperture opening look larger than it physically is allowing for smaller outside diameter of lens. A 50mm f1 lens will have an aperture opening that appears to be 50mm in diameter when viewed through the front of the lens. f stop= lens focal length/ entrance pupil diameter.
Time is time regardless of format. 1/125 f8 on a 4x5 camera lets the same amount of light through to the film as the same settings on any other format camera regardless of size or type.

 

[kcham16]

Thanks all, that was my thought, and what I gathered from reading. I realize there will be a lot of trial and error (which is part of the fun), but i'd like to focus on the trial, and cut down on the error if possible. thanks!

 

[Steve Smith]

If you like what you are doing with smaller formats, do the same thing with 5x4. The film doesn't know what size it has been cut down to!


Steve.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Hi- I'm new to large format, having used medium format and 35mm for quite some time. I am wondering if anyone can help me- Do I need to have longer exposure times for large format, or go with larger apertures? If I use a handheld light meter, do I need to do any adjustments? It just seems like I need to expose longer, but maybe I'm just incorrect.

I am not referring to bellows compensation, which makes sense to me. I am just wondering if the exposure times/ f-stops are the same as medium format and 35mm?

The reason I ask is that if I compensate 1 stop on my Hasselblad 6x6 over my 35mm, I get great results. Wondering if the same is true, or even to a greater extent for large format...

Thank you all in advance- this is a rad community.

There is a reason that large-format cameras are usually seen mounted on tripods. That's because the exposure times most used are usually longer than those commonly used on medium and small-format cameras. The main reason is that in order to get a similar depth-of-field on LF film, you have to use a smaller aperture than on a smaller format. The general rule is: the larger the format, the smaller the aperture needed for a given depth-of-field. In theory, you could shoot at the same aperture and shutter-speed combination on any camera given the same film. Most, however, usually want a certain amount of depth-of-field, which requires stopping down. Additionally, most large-format lenses widest apertures are in the f/5.6-f/8 range; you need heavy and more expensive "specialty" lenses to get even f/4 and f/1.8 is practically unheard of in LF. Plus, shooting wide-open with many LF lenses can introduce aberrations (most LF lenses aren't designed to be used wide open, but are optimized for f/16-f/22) in addition to the very shallow depth-of-field.

I don't know where you got the idea that you need to compensate one stop for medium format over 35mm... The same films are available for both formats (and for LF to a great extent) and the amount of light needed to expose a given film is the same regardless of format. The idea that you have to compensate exposure for different formats is incorrect. A hand-held meter should give you the same, or at least close, readings as an in-camera meter if used properly. If there is a significant discrepancy between your in-camera meter and your hand-held meter, then one or both are out-of-whack.

The fact that you get "great results" when exposing a stop more for your MF film can be attributed to a number of things: B&W film is very forgiving of overexposure, maybe you are slightly underexposing your 35mm film without knowing it, etc., etc. Ideally, your meters would agree, and you would be using the same, correct, exposure for all formats. Aperture gets chosen for desired depth-of-field.

Best,

Doremus

 

[David Allen]

And I'm not sure why you need more exposure with your 6x6 -- maybe one of the cameras you're comparing has some shutter calibration issues?

It is actually not surprising that different cameras require different exposures when using the same metering method, film and developer. This can well be variances in how the shutter is functioning but equally down to levels of internal flare both in terms of the camera body and lens.

For example, one of my previous student works with a 1950s Rolleiflex and a late Nikon FM2. When he came to me first he was puzzled that, using Tri-X at box speed the Rolleiflex images were well exposed but the Nikon images lacked shadow detail. After a few simple tests I could confirm that this was indeed the case. The Rolleiflex lens has relatively little coating and the flare helps to boost the shadow exposure. With the Nikon, the super multicoating on his prime lenses controlled flare much better and did not help lift the shadows.

In terms of large format, when I used to use it for landscapes and architecture (a very long time ago!!) I had three older Schneider lenses which matched pretty well and produced consistent and predictable results. After some years working commercially, I got a healthy repayment of tax (thanks to a great accountant) and used this to buy a Schneider 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulon as a replacement for my aged 90mm f/6.8 plain Angulon (barely covered 5 x 4). Whilst the coverage of the Super Angulon was much better and it was easier to focus, I didn’t like the results. It DID need more exposure to get the results that I was used to and it had a way of rendering detail that (whilst incredibly sharp) I did not like.

To answer the OP's question, the approach to exposure is the same with any format, but large format invites front to back sharpness and this is usually achieved with smaller apertures (f32, f45, f64, f90 and beyond) and these all require much longer exposure times and mainly the use of a tripod.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[DREW WILEY]

The bigger the film, the longer the focal length of lens required for the same perspective. So yes, lenses tend to be stopped down further due to
shallower depth of field, apples to apples. BUT view camera also allow for plane of focus tilts etc, which allows another way of controlling what is
in focus. Then, because you do have more surface area to the film, less magnification is required during enlargement, so you will tend to worry less
about fine film grain, and can potentially choose faster films. Yet large format lenses tend to have slower maximum apertures than smaller cameras;
otherwise, they get enormous. Then there is the issue of sheet film not always lying perfectly flat in the holder, so most people tend to stop even
further down. I typically shoot 4x5 at f/22 or f/32, and 8x10 at f/45 or even f/64. Lots and lots of variable, the most important being how you want
the image to look, which is largely subjective. Did that confuse you enough? Don't worry about it. But DO buy a very solid tripod and even better
tripod head. (For the sake of maximum stability I generally don't use a tripod head at all for large format). But typical exposure times for me? Let's
see, anywhere from 1/30th of sec to 30 seconds. Every shot is different.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The f/stops are the same and time is the same [both are standard on all formats] so just use your light meter and enjoy.

 

[RSalles]

The amount of money required to buy a LF lens with the same aperture - if it does exist - or close to a "clear" lens equivalent in 35mm - let's say f 1.2 or 1.4 would be outrageous, and it will probably have to be huge in size and weight. That's why we have LF lenses starting at f5.6 or f9. So, closer f-stop, longer the exposure and tripod required.
The most clear lens I have is a f2.9 8" Dallmeyer Pentac. It's very big one for a 8" lens, and expensive also compared against used Fujinon, Rodenstock or Schnneider lenses with the same focal length, and impossible to buy new. You'll have nothing to compensate in terms of exposure using the same film, doesn't matter if it's 35mm or 8x10 inches or larger. Just bellows draw, or filter factor - if required.

Cheers,

Renato

 

[Mark Tate]

If your meter is saying your ISO XXX film needs 125th second exposure at f:11 it does not care what the format it is. Film size has nothing to do with it.

 

[Luis-F-S]

Since most large format lenses are used at f/16 to f/45, the exposures are longer. It's not rocket science film size has nothing to do with it, usable aperture does.

 

[kcham16]

thanks again for all of the answers. i believe i mis-spoke in my original question- i understand light and aperture, i think the forgiveness of B&W film is where my question lay. I went out for the 1st time today and had great results- thanks for all of your responses.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's great! You'll get addicted soon enough. The secret is to shoot/print, shoot/print, shoot/print, until you understand what a versatile printing negative looks like. Films differ in their forgiveness. Depends on the specific film as well as the degree of contrast in the scene. But black and white
films tend to give you more wiggle room than color films. Eventually you'll need to determine how to meter and expose correctly rather hoping the
alleged "latitude" of the cover any exposure errors. But first things first. In other words, feed you addiction first. The rest will follow.

 

[kcham16]

That's great! You'll get addicted soon enough. The secret is to shoot/print, shoot/print, shoot/print, until you understand what a versatile printing negative looks like. Films differ in their forgiveness. Depends on the specific film as well as the degree of contrast in the scene. But black and white
films tend to give you more wiggle room than color films. Eventually you'll need to determine how to meter and expose correctly rather hoping the
alleged "latitude" of the cover any exposure errors. But first things first. In other words, feed you addiction first. The rest will follow.

Thank you so much for this- it's super helpful, and is coming true, as I have become completely addicted and am shooting every day.

Thank you all to this community- it is awesome to be able to ask questions like this to hone my hobby.

 

[zilch0md]

Smaller formats have a speed advantage when all of the following are true:

1. Same ISO rating
2. Same final print dimensions after dissimilar enlargement factors
3. Same maximum CoC diameters in like-sized prints at the same Near and Far subject distances (same DoF)
4. Same perspective (same ratio of FL to post-crop format diagonal)

Consider this comparison of 35mm format (cropping to 4:5 aspect ratio) vs. 8x10 format, using the same film speed, to produce the same size print, with the same size CoCs after enlargement, with the same ratio of FL to format diagonal.

Note that the 35mm format will require 8x more enlargement than the 8x10 format to produce like-sized prints. That's why the maximum CoC diameter at the film plane, before enlargement, can be 8x larger for 8x10 format DoF calculations vs. the smaller CoC diameter that's required for 35mm format DoF calculations.

Above, the 8x10 camera, using a 400mm lens, must stop down to f/32 to secure DoF that ranges from about 41 ft. to Infinity.

Below, the 35mm camera, using a 50mm lens to achieve the same perspective (the same ratio of FL to post-crop format diagonal), but can shoot at f/4 instead of f/32, yielding identical results in the final print, but with shutter speeds that are 6 stops faster, with DoF again ranging from about 41 ft. to Infinity!

Screenshots were produced using the excellent utility at

http://www.andersenimages.com/tutorials/hyperfocal/

Mike

 

[Leigh B]

The reason I ask is that if I compensate 1 stop on my hasselblad 6x6 over my 35mm, I get great results. Wondering if the same is true, or even to a greater extent for large format...

Film speed is film speed, regardless of format.

I shoot all formats from 35mm to 8"x10" including MF.
I've never needed to make any adjustment based on film size.

You may be experiencing differences in viewing or printing habits.

- Leigh

 

[zilch0md]

Film speed is film speed, regardless of format.

[snip]

You may be experiencing differences in viewing or printing habits.

- Leigh

Even when print size and viewing distance are the same, the longer FL needed to achieve the same perspective with a larger format will require the use of proportionately larger f-Numbers to achieve identical DoF - and thus, longer exposure times are needed for the larger formats.

 

[Leigh B]

Even when print size and viewing distance are the same, the longer FL needed to achieve the same perspective with a larger format will require the use of proportionately larger f-Numbers to achieve identical DoF - and thus, longer exposure times are needed for the larger formats.

Who said anything about DoF ? ? ?
That's total nonsense.

The question is about basic exposure.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE SAME FOR ALL FORMATS.

- Leigh

 

[Sirius Glass]

Film speed is film speed, regardless of format.

I shoot all formats from 35mm to 8"x10" including MF.
I've never needed to make any adjustment based on film size.

You may be experiencing differences in viewing or printing habits.

- Leigh

Exposure is exposure. The laws of physics are the same. That is why we have standard f/stops and film ISOs. By the way the same physics allow digital cameras to work because the photons only have to follow one set of laws.

 

[zilch0md]

Who said anything about DoF ? ? ?
That's total nonsense.

The question is about basic exposure.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE SAME FOR ALL FORMATS.

- Leigh

Neither of us has said anything nonsensical. We're just qualifying our comparisons differently. In your case, you're comparing apples to oranges by ignoring the difference in DoF. In my case, I'm comparing apples to apples, by not ignoring the difference in DoF.

As long as everyone understands this, we haven't contradicted each other in the least.

 

[Leigh B]

Neither of us has said anything nonsensical. We're just qualifying our comparisons differently. In your case, you're comparing apples to oranges by ignoring the difference in DoF. In my case, I'm comparing apples to apples, by not ignoring the difference in DoF.

Your comment is nonsense because nobody mentioned DoF before you did.
Certainly the OP did not.

And DoF is of no concern in most scenes.
In over 60 years of shooting I've only worried about DoF in advertising, tabletop, and similar situations.

- Leigh

 

[zilch0md]

Your comment is nonsense because nobody mentioned DoF before you did.
Certainly the OP did not.

And DoF is of no concern in most scenes.
In over 60 years of shooting I've only worried about DoF in advertising, tabletop, and similar situations.

- Leigh

I hadn't considered the possibility that the OP would be willing to embrace as little concern for DoF as you've expressed. Some people actually care about DoF and find themselves making longer exposures when they switch to larger formats. I thought it relevant to the discussion to explain why that's necessary.

 

[Leigh B]

Some people actually care about DoF and find themselves making longer exposures when they switch to larger formats.

While that may be true, it's not relevant to the OP's question.

The exposure is exactly the same whether you use a fast or slow shutter, open or closed aperture.

The film speed is unchanged, which is what he was asking about.

- Leigh