That would be the original question...To monitor that, you will need to know how many stops* difference there is.
Which is the original question again.
Vaughn mentioned Luna Pros had a conversion table on them to go from EV to lux and/or foot-candles... does anyone have that conversion table?
I think there must be a diameter that after reaching, no longer allows enough more light in to change anything...
It's the ratio between hole size (optical, not physical. That glass again ...) and focal length.What is the definition of "F-stop" anyway?
I thought that theoretically, f/1.0 should give you 100% of the light at the scene onto your film, and he same as no lens at all...but then I remembered the Canon f/0.95 lens. How is it physically possible for a lens to increase the ambient light? I can't wrap my head around it.
Yes.
But is is of no use. All it does is tell you how many Lux the light illuminating the meter is.
You still do not know how that relates to the illuminance at the film plane.
You're not just dealing with a hole. There is glass in front and behind the thingy.
That glass can indeed concentrate the light into a point, or an area about the size of your film frame.
And given that, a bigger hole gives more light for the glass to concentrate and project in your image frame.
So theoretically, there is no hole big enough, as long as the glass plays along.
There is no "fixed diameter which is less than infinite, above which greater diameters do not produce greater effective exposure."
(There is, if you still want the lens to produce a useable image. But that (loss of image at f-stops larger than f/0.5) can be counteracted by making the lens longer; bigger hole, yet not so impressive f-stop.)
Conversely, starting with a huge hole, closing it down, every time you reduce the size of the hole the light available to project onto the film gets less.
From the very first moment you begin making the hole smaller.
HummmHow many stops difference is there between:
When film recieves an in-camera exposure of lets say
F/16 1/125th sec.
being properly exposed with 100 ISO film,
metering 18%gray at ISO 100.............
and
When the light hits that same speed film
having been placed in a printing frame...
and exposed out-of-camera for 180 seconds
in strong open sunlight.
Of course the film and lens are usually capturing reflected rays, rather than the ambient ones. Only a small percentage of the reflected rays are hitting the film without the lens. So, I think of it like a "light funnel." A reflected light ray passing a foot to the left of your open film surface won't hit the film, but a huge one meter diameter lens can capture that ray and bring it in. (f 0.05)
BTW I have that lens I posted. It is actually a f0.90 Switar.
I'll try to put the numbers up later.Thanks, O.G.
I was thinking about wanting to see that conversion chart for another reason.
(Wouldn't it be possible for people who can meter off the film plane to use that data?)
Yes.My idea that in some cases, increasing hole size (I can only think in physical terms) will have no effect above some point is based on my logic that the light source is itself limited and has "coverage"; I cannot contnually increase the effect of lighting on my subject in the studio simply by using a wider lens..
if the lens I am using, already lets in all of the useful (incident) lght.
Is my orignal question answerable?
How much over exposeure is being given when one exposes for the same duration but without an aperture?
Hummm
I wonder if the pinhole people could throw any light onto this?
Yes, if you find a way to relate the light falling onto the film when held in the light by itself to te amount of light falling onto the film when it is behind a lens with a given aperture size.
An answer was given, saying that at f/1, both amounts would be the same.
I don't know that that is correct. Could be.
If so, the rest is easy.
"Hummm,
I wonder if the pinhole people could throw any light onto this?"
If they have ever determined the correct exposure time for a hole of infinitely large size, they'd have the answer straight away.
Of course the film and lens are usually capturing reflected rays, rather than the ambient ones. Only a small percentage of the reflected rays are hitting the film without the lens. So, I think of it like a "light funnel." A reflected light ray passing a foot to the left of your open film surface won't hit the film, but a huge one meter diameter lens can capture that ray and bring it in. (f 0.05)
BTW I have that lens I posted. It is actually a f0.90 Switar.
The biggest, and all important assumption is that f/1 is equal to an infinitely large aperture, i.e. nothing there to reduce light levels.
Is it?
If not, the calculations making use of that assumption are of course not correct.
Here are some approximate numbers.
Direct sunlight at midday is pretty exactly 120 000 Lux. Exposing film to this intensity for 180 seconds will result in 21 600 000 Lux.seconds of exposure. This is enormously greater than the 0.1 Lux.seconds a 100 ISO film gets in camera; more than 200 million times greater!
You're still ignoring the bit mentioned earlier, that the Lux numbers are a measure for how much light is falling on the scene...
And that is still ignoring what a lens does, assuming instead that all it does is relay all of the light to the film.
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?