First Large Format (Ignorance and Expense)

[MattKing]

So, using a 4x5, I'm shooting a 150mm lens, 8x is 1200mm or 47", let's say closer than 4 feet. If I'm shooting a 75mm, 600mm or closer than 2 feet. A 210mm would be 1680mm or closer than 5 1/2 feet. a 300mm would be 2400mm or closer than 8 feet.

So how do you keep track when using these many lenses?

Here is the secret:
1) don't use so many lenses for close work; and
2) if you do use lots of lenses for close work, remember that the *"tipping point" will image essentially the same size of subject, no matter what lens you are using.
This just means that you need to be able to see when you are close enough for it to matter. And to recognize the size of a full frame subject when you are close enough for it to matter.
That size may be something like the size of a typical shoulders and head portrait frame, or whatever else resonates for you.
That is the visual "flag" that raises in your consciousness when you are working with a camera where bellows extension exposure issues may arise.
With some practice, you will easily see when you need to deal with the issue. After that, it is just a question of doing the calculations.
Exactly the same issues arise with my Mamiya C330 and with my Mamiya RB67 when I had it. Those cameras though have features that help with the issue.
*"tipping point" = the minimum subject to camera distance where bellows extension effects on exposure become meaningful.

 

[John Patrick Garriga]

Film has grain- that's an inherent quality of film. The faster the film, the more grain it has. Small format films like 35mm show their grain more readily than larger format films do because each grain of silver makes up a larger percentage of the total image area, relatively speaking. Once you get past 4x5, film grain is effectively a non-issue regardless of film speed.

Right, but film usually carries a ton of data, really good quality, but I often see people talking about film like it's so grainy that it's almost unusable. Not sure where thinking like that would come from.

 

[grat]

Fuzzy thinking leads to fuzzy logic.

 

[John Patrick Garriga]

Fuzzy thinking leads to fuzzy logic.

My brain is permanently set to infinity focus (every thought I have is fuzzy (I was dropped on the head several times as a toddler)).

 

[jimgalli]

Fuzzy thinking leads to fuzzy logic.

What's wrong with fuzzy? Some of us pay thousands for fuzzy picture lenses. But to the OP, these forums are great but try not to overthink everything too much. You'll learn more with gear in hand in a day than hundreds of pages here can try to teach. I started with a Cambo 4X5 and Caltar (SK) 210 and made some good images the first day on Polaroid. It really isn't rocket science.

 

[Roger Cole]

Really? Are you sure?
The old master had to write 3 books in order to explain the system (based on film technology from the first half of last century).
It implies that you develop each negative individually, and spend half your life testing film and process. (overexaggerating a little).
90-95% of the time, the light that falls on you is the same that falls on the distant scene or you can emulate the scene light by turning the incident meter. The remaining 5-10% is where you use your brain. After all, Ansel Adams didn't even use a lightmeter for his most famous photograph.

I'd say exaggerating a LOT.

The Zone System isn't that bleak. Or rather, it isn't if you don't use all of it in every detail, which is today largely unnecessary, but a knowledge of it, and the basics are NOT very complicated, can come in handy.

I use a modified version with medium format. I have one film back for N development, one for plus (about N+1.5 or so) and one for minus (also maybe -1.5.) With modern VC papers that's all that you're likely to need. I mostly group 4x5 sheets similarly - normal, plus somewhat, and minus somewhat. When shooting 4x5 I have, rarely, seen a situation where one sheet might need stronger measures and I do just that, develop it separately.

The ZS isn't nearly as complicated or difficult to understand as a lot of people make it out to be. You don't really need a densitometer to use the basics either. It helps with testing but the "minimum exposure for maximum black" under the enlarger will get you close enough. It's too much to detail here (at least given also how little sleep I've had at the moment) but you should be able to find it. Note "the basics." You can certainly MAKE it complicated if you want to do that.

I would never try to shoot landscapes with an incident meter, or at least not with JUST an incident meter. Sure Adams didn't use a meter - I presume you mean Moonrise over Hernandez - and he also said several times the negative was thin and difficult to print. IIRC he later intensified it with selenium and reported that improved it substantially. And even by then he had more experience than most of us are likely to ever accumulate.

If you're going to "wing it" there's little point in using a LF camera. Use a 35mm or 645 and at least bracket extensively - "spray and pray." LF is all about being slow and deliberate and methodical.

 

[Roger Cole]

You can simplify and not employ the ENTIRE concept of the Zone System, and yet a Spotmeter will indeed be very handy

1. Pick a point in the scene that YOU wish to appear as 'mid-tone' in the final print
2. Point your spotmeter at that point, and the suggested exposure will tell you to make THAT point middle tone (think '18% gray')
3. Process your film normally, without changing chemistry temp or time from standard suggested 68 degree developer time

The above steps simply use the Exposure part of the Zone concept as elaborated by Adams, and make use of the fact that all meters (not the 'evaluative' modes found in camera meters, which bias areas within its view and decides which areas play as 'more important' or 'less important') suggest an exposure resulting in 'mid-tone- gray, regardless of how light or dark the important object in the scene it is aimed at!

A spotmeter plays a more significant role in the Zone System when you need to read the brightest area vs. the darkest area, to determine the brightness range of a scene, and if that range is too wide to ordinarily fit within what film can capture, you can then adjust exposure AND adjust the developing to compress/expand the brightness of the scene to better fit into what can be captured by the film being used. But you do NOT need to use the entire Zone System concept simply to employ principles of exposure in which you decide at assess the scene more methodically (without adjusting processing later)

For example, in shooting product shots in the studio, I would use the spotmeter to assess the brightest and darkest areas of the scene in which I wanted to retail visible detail, and adjust my lighting so that the two would fall within the (compressed) range of tones that could be printed in a brochure by an offset press...and I was shooting color transparency, (not B&W film) and I was sending the shots to a pro lab for standard processing.​

This. Yes.

Extend that just a bit and by taking readings of the darkest area in that landscape that you want some detail in and the lightest area you will know the range. And it doesn't take much testing at all to find the range that prints on your normal contrast paper. You might want to develop + or - not just to be sure the detail is THERE, but to fit the range to your paper so it prints more easily with less dodging and burning (at least to present a more or less "realistic" - as far as black and white can be - portrayal. Dodging and burning for creative CHANGES is another thing of course and most scenes will benefit from at least some minor manipulation in that regard.)

 

[Roger Cole]

Right, but film usually carries a ton of data, really good quality, but I often see people talking about film like it's so grainy that it's almost unusable. Not sure where thinking like that would come from.

From combining poor technique with overly enlarged 35mm film.

Or sometimes from ok technique but the nature of the thing. I have some negatives I've shot on TMZ (35mm) and Delta 3200 (120) that I quite like, and are exposed, I think, about as well as one could do in that light (indoors in a warehouse at night, lit by some cheap stage lights, and outdoors by torch light) and I like the results, but even on 6x4.5 no one would confuse them with digital. Low light is where digital can really spank film if low grain / low noise is the goal. But there is a look to images shot on film like that which is difficult if not impossible to get with digital.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If your bellows are extended to 1.5x their length when focused at infinity, you have to add a stop.

Technically, this should be 1.4x -- if you're using a 300 mm lens at f/16 on the scale, but you've pulled out to 420 mm to focus, that f/16 with a slightly less than 20 mm effective aperture becomes f/22 because the same effective aperture is divided by 420 instead of 300. The factors are all roots or powers of two, same as the f stop scale itself. And the next step beyond 1:1 (at 600 mm bellows) would be 840 (2.8x infinity length) to need three stops = 8x exposure at 3:2 magnification...

Now, it's very unlikely the difference between 1.4x and 1.5x will ever be significant, but understanding the reason this happens makes this clear.

 

[BrianShaw]

What's wrong with fuzzy? Some of us pay thousands for fuzzy picture lenses. But to the OP, these forums are great but try not to overthink everything too much. You'll learn more with gear in hand in a day than hundreds of pages here can try to teach. I started with a Cambo 4X5 and Caltar (SK) 210 and made some good images the first day on Polaroid. It really isn't rocket science.

This is really worth reading and re-reading!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here is the secret:
1) don't use so many lenses for close work; and
2) if you do use lots of lenses for close work, remember that the *"tipping point" will image essentially the same size of subject, no matter what lens you are using.
This just means that you need to be able to see when you are close enough for it to matter. And to recognize the size of a full frame subject when you are close enough for it to matter.
That size may be something like the size of a typical shoulders and head portrait frame, or whatever else resonates for you.
That is the visual "flag" that raises in your consciousness when you are working with a camera where bellows extension exposure issues may arise.
With some practice, you will easily see when you need to deal with the issue. After that, it is just a question of doing the calculations.
Exactly the same issues arise with my Mamiya C330 and with my Mamiya RB67 when I had it. Those cameras though have features that help with the issue.
*"tipping point" = the minimum subject to camera distance where bellows extension effects on exposure become meaningful.

Thanks for the information. Which lens should you recommend for closrup landscapes? Ihave a75, 90, 150 and 300mm? Should i mark the bellows rail where closeup begins and how many stops etc.

 

[Ian C]

Regarding post #50

For any lens of focal length f, the number of stops of additional exposure Δ as a function of subject distance s is

Δ = 2.885*ln[s/(s – f)]

Subject distance is measured from the subject plane to the first nodal point of the lens. For standard lens designs (Symmar, Nikkor W, Funji W, Sironar, etc.), the first nodal point is close to the shutter.

Here’s a list of subject distances in terms of focal length and the required compensation. You can use the table to decide whether or not you need to compensate. All you need is a tape measure and the table.

2f (1:1), 2 stops

3f, 1.17 stops

4f, 0.83 stops

5f, 0.64 stops

6f, 0.53 stops

7f, 0.44 stops

8f, 0.38 stops

9f, 0.34 stops

10f, 0.30 stops

11f, 0.28 stops

12f, 0.25 stops

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Right, but film usually carries a ton of data, really good quality, but I often see people talking about film like it's so grainy that it's almost unusable. Not sure where thinking like that would come from.

Much of this came from the guys who switched to digital with the excitement of man discovers fire. All of a sudden they had a gazillion megapixels and it was "free" and they were so thrilled there was no obvious grain. Then they spent years downplaying film and claiming how inferior it was (e.g., see the big D review site.). But now that film is more popular again, some of these guys are trolling about their decades of film experience....

 

[Donald Qualls]

Which lens should you recommend for closrup landscapes?

What even is a closeup landscape?

For 4x5, I'd recommend a 135 to 150 mm until you find yourself limited by inability to use Nike zoom technique. Then, for landscape, a 90 mm is a good second lens, and something in the 240+ tele range (to shorten bellows requirements) is a third (or your first lens can be a convertible, which gives you that long lens at no extra cost or weight, if you have enough bellows).

For portraits, something a little longer than 150 mm is probably a good choice, say 180 to 210 (most 4x5 cameras will handle this and enough draw to focus). For macro, a process lens in the 75-90 mm range is probably a good choice, though many 4x5 cameras can shoot 1:1 with a 135 mm, some with a 150 mm.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What even is a closeup landscape?

For 4x5, I'd recommend a 135 to 150 mm until you find yourself limited by inability to use Nike zoom technique. Then, for landscape, a 90 mm is a good second lens, and something in the 240+ tele range (to shorten bellows requirements) is a third (or your first lens can be a convertible, which gives you that long lens at no extra cost or weight, if you have enough bellows).

For portraits, something a little longer than 150 mm is probably a good choice, say 180 to 210 (most 4x5 cameras will handle this and enough draw to focus). For macro, a process lens in the 75-90 mm range is probably a good choice, though many 4x5 cameras can shoot 1:1 with a 135 mm, some with a 150 mm.

I don't have a 210, only a 300mm. So I'll probably work with my Schneider 150mm APO Symmar f/5.6. Thanks

 

[Donald Qualls]

Schneider 150mm APO Symmar f/5.6.

Some Symmars are convertible, which would give you a 265 f/9-ish with the front group unscrewed from the shutter. A 300 will still work for portraits if you have enough bellows, but you'll need about 400+ mm from film plane to lens flange to focus for a head-only shot. Some 4x5 (press and some field cameras, for instance) don't have enough.

 

[MattKing]

Which lens should you recommend for closrup landscapes?

I too wonder what a closeup landscape is
Assuming you mean just closeups, to answer your question: the lens you like working with the most - probably not the 75mm though, unless you are really tight for space. A working distance of two feet (the "tipping point") is certainly not ideal for a LF portrait!

 

[Donald Qualls]

probably not the 75mm though, unless you are really tight for space. A working distance of two feet (the "tipping point") is certainly not ideal for a LF portrait!

Not to mention that the shorter the lens, generally the less pleasing the portrait due to geometric distortion making the nose or chin look oversize. This is why moderately longer than "normal" lenses are labeled as "portrait length" in smaller formats (70-105 in 35mm, 127 to 150 or so on 6x7 cm, etc.). For 4x5, the equivalent of the 70-150 on 35mm would be 210-300.

 

[MattKing]

Not to mention that the shorter the lens, generally the less pleasing the portrait due to geometric distortion

Or more accurately: "the closer the working distance, generally the less pleasing the portrait due to geometric distortion".
In many, if not most cases, you should choose a lens based on the working distance (and therefore perspective) that suits your vision.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, I won't disagree. Most folks won't consider it a portrait, though (or only a special kind of portrait like "environmental") if you were to shoot with a 75 mm lens from, say, ten or fifteen feet. Portraits are commonly head only or head and shoulders, with upper body and full body less common and usually qualified as such -- and with the constraint on field of view, shorter lens = shorter working distance.

 

[wiltw]

Inducing perspective distortion due to too-short shooting distance, makes one hand gigantic compared to the other, as seen in the leftmost photo

Using same FL, but increasing the shooting distance, makes my two hands much more similar in size (rightmost photo)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes I'm familiar with four shortening due to wide-angle lenses. But my closer shots are going to be landscape shooting? not portraits but let's say flowers or something outdoors. So I'm thinking that the 150 mm would be a good choice for me since I don't have a 210. And the 300 is too long because my bellows will only extend to 350 mm.

 

[GregY]

Alan...... just for the sake of clarity, a close-up outside.....is not a landscape photo it is a close-up. Yes a 150 is a good lens for close-ups of that type of photo. Working distance to the subject is important. If you think of it in 35mm terms...the most common focusing 'macro lenses' are similar to 'normal lenses'.... 50,55mm. Yes there were short tele versions 100/105mm. but most common are the normal length. In LF a 150 will be easy to work with & give you good results.
BTW "foreshortening"

 

[FotoD]

Yes I'm familiar with four shortening due to wide-angle lenses. But my closer shots are going to be landscape shooting? not portraits but let's say flowers or something outdoors. So I'm thinking that the 150 mm would be a good choice for me since I don't have a 210. And the 300 is too long because my bellows will only extend to 350 mm.

With a bellows extension of 300mm and a 150mm lens you can photograph subjects with a magnification of M=1 (life size).

A good way to think of it when you choose composition is: would this flower (or any subject) fit directly on a sheet of 4x5 film.

Your 350mm bellows will give you a magnification of at most M=1.33 with a 150mm lens.

 

[MattKing]

So I'm thinking that the 150 mm would be a good choice for me

In that case, you should put that on the camera, put the camera 1200 mm (~ 4 feet) from a subject and focus.
Now take a look at what is in the frame - what the size of the frame is, from edge to edge, corner to corner. Say it is 20"x16", or whatever.
If you photograph anything smaller than that size (20"x16" or whatever) that fills the negative, you know that you will need to adjust the exposure.
The most important thing is to become visually familiar with that size of subject frame.