And there are/were ground glass metering systems for large format - Sinar offered a nice option that involved a probe, IIRC.
So, what prevents one from taking your light meter and sticking it behind the ground glass? Seems like that'd give you an accurate reading, right? You'd have to make sure that your meter is pointing exactly where you want it, be a little more precise with where you aim but I don't see many reasons why that wouldn't work.
So, more general question but I think it applies here (I've never had to worry about this because I've never been using a camera with enough detail for this to be a factor). How big of a deal is light diffraction? I know it's a factor, but could I go to f/45 on my Schneider 210mm without worry? And, if it is, Unsharp Mask would be enough to fix it wouldn't it?
Aww, come on…there is nothing like chromes on large format. I’ve never done 8x10, but they are stunning on 4x5, if maybe a little expensive.
by all means. take Donald's own advice, and go out and find a cheap 2X loupe with fungus all over the lens, to help everything look the same when it actually isn't, and never will be.
Doesn't diffraction depend on the size of the print as well?
If I was still shooting 8X10 chrome film, now at around $40 per shot with processing, I don't think I'd want to gamble on any of the shoot from the hip closeup advice about bellows extension on this thread. I'd want to know the factor exactly. And that's the case even with color neg and black and white film. If you have along one of those basic little aid devices, like the Calumet one I mentioned earlier, it's so darn easy that why forego it.
Per when the effects of diffraction significantly sets in, as a rough rule of thumb, it starts becoming apparent in enlargements from 4x5 film anything smaller than f/32. For 8x10 film, around f/64 is the limit, or maybe even f/45, assuming film in your holder is actually being held flat, which it often isn't. Sometimes sloppy adjustment in one factor disguises carelessness in another; but it's still there, and all adds up.
A mask can't cure something inherent to the exposure itself. It can simulate a little more edge definition, but that takes some experience if doing it darkroom style. But it can't add fine detail lost to begin with due to excessive diffraction
I completely disagree with Donald. A 4x5 film shot using a 210 lens at f/90 is going to look downright mushy with any degree of enlargement. At f/45, I'd be scratching my head too. Even an 8x10 enlargement at f/90 and the equivalent angle of view will look conspicuously soft. Only contact printers with zero magnification in the print can routinely get away with very small stops, undetected.
I know of one example of someone shooting the same scene on 4x5 at f/32 and f/45, and doing a side-by-side comparison. There was noticeable softening at f/45, but in the particular case, it added enough depth-of-field that the tradeoff was worth it-- but barely. I can't imagine f/90 being usable for anything that isn't a pinhole.
@John Patrick Garriga While I'd say Drew is technically correct in what he writes, it's worth noting that he has a long history here of advising that any other than wavelength-level precision and perfection is unacceptable. I'd rephrase what he said above about sloppiness to mean that unless every single part of your equipment and process is perfect (and it isn't), you won't be able to tell diffraction from defocus at f/45 on a 150 mm lens (with 4x5 negatives, anyway).
If you follow Drew's advice, you might well give up before you actually expose and process any film.
Find out for yourself -- shoot the same scene at f/22, f/32, f/45, and f/64 (if your lens will stop down that far -- many won't even in large format focal lengths). Examine the resulting negatives with a loupe. Learn the difference between defocus and diffraction (hint: one is local and depending on distance to subject, the other is not). Then make your own decisions.
And of course, don't do your early learning at $40 a sheet for 8x10 chromes...
As a landscape shooter, I've been told and follow the advice that it's more important to get the DOF. If you don't have that, you won't have to worry about diffraction.
That rotating device is related to the asymmetric tilt capability of your Sinar, and perhaps a couple other things. I learned how to use it long ago, then forgot all about it. It can be convenient when working with a predictable plane of focus in the studio, like tabletop setups. But I've ignored it for decades in actual outdoor use, where consistent planes are rare, at least in the mountainous West. Sinar had excellent handbooks on technique relative to their own cameras, but that's nearly all studio related. The F's and P's had different types of asymmetric calculation. I now mostly work with the prior Norma system, which doesn't have any such feature; but I don't miss that at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?