Large format macro

[DREW WILEY]

Depends on how you define "macro" (versus "micro"). I've used Fujinon A 240 and 360 lenses in the field with excellent results on 8x10 film up to around 1:1. True micro work would seem a bit more convenient in 4x5 format, esp if an actual optical microscope is involved. Lots of people have done that. Another interesting approach is to project transparent or transluscent subjects onto 8x10 film in a vac filmholder, using an enlarger with an appropriate carrier and lens.

 

[Bill Burk]

In his book, Complete Introduction to Photography, J. Harris Gable illustrates how to setup for Large Format Macrophotography

The part that really amazes me is where he suggests mounting the camera upside down will make the image on the ground glass right side up...

(We all know that won't work... If he had said something like "mount the subject upside down in front of the camera"... that would work to make the image on the ground glass right side up).

 

[dynachrome]

I was at the Second Sunday Camera Show in NJ last Sunday. I hope I didn't miss Dan again. One of the sellers photographs small items for advertising. He said he likes using (35mm or digital) 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor P lenses and finds that they are sharp from wide open to f/22. At f/32 he finds the sharpness still good but the contrast lower. His complaint is that too many macro lenses are diffraction limited and he needs smaller apertures to get adequate depth of field for certain subjects. For medium format close-up work I have the original 100/4 Macro for the Bronica ETR cameras. If I add the bellows (1st version) and an extension tube I can get pretty close. For improvising with enlarging lenses I would use a Mamiya M645 and some extension tubes and adapters. To get larger I would need to use my 4X5 camera and improvise a shutter. To get the most out of the 35mm format in color I would use Ektar 100. I have a lot of 35mm macro equipment and it is flexible and more convenient than using larger formats.

 

[Jim Noel]

macro w/LF

Has anyone done macro photography with a large format camera? If I'm not mistaken, Karl Blossfeldt shot macro with an 8x10 camera (I could be wrong about that), but I haven't seen anyone else do a macro shoot with a 4x5 or an 8x10. If anyone has tried it, please share your experiences.

Thanks

I use an 8x10 or 5x7 to make macro, and even micro images of flowers at least three times per week. It is my way of making images when i am unable to find someone to accompany me on a field trip. I am too old to take such trips alone.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I was at the Second Sunday Camera Show in NJ last Sunday. I hope I didn't miss Dan again. One of the sellers photographs small items for advertising. He said he likes using (35mm or digital) 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor P lenses and finds that they are sharp from wide open to f/22. At f/32 he finds the sharpness still good but the contrast lower. His complaint is that too many macro lenses are diffraction limited and he needs smaller apertures to get adequate depth of field for certain subjects. For medium format close-up work I have the original 100/4 Macro for the Bronica ETR cameras. If I add the bellows (1st version) and an extension tube I can get pretty close. For improvising with enlarging lenses I would use a Mamiya M645 and some extension tubes and adapters. To get larger I would need to use my 4X5 camera and improvise a shutter. To get the most out of the 35mm format in color I would use Ektar 100. I have a lot of 35mm macro equipment and it is flexible and more convenient than using larger formats.

You didn't miss me, I've stopped going. Hasbrouck Heights -- that's where it is, isn't it? -- is too far away.

Sharpness at small apertures is a sometimes thing. So is depth of field. The higher the magnification, the less of both. And, as has been amply demonstrated, at high enough magnifications stopping down reduces depth of field.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Wrong again. I got a Second Sunday postcard today. Wayne, 6/14. I'll probably make the trek.

 

[dynachrome]

I was at the 6/14 show but had to arrive early and leave early. I still found a few interesting things.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I went. Nothing there that I absolutely had to have, no surprise.

 

[miha]

Is anyone using close-up lenses to reduce the bellows extension and thus exposure?

 

[KenS]

"Close-up" lenses... (i.e. lenses designed for photomacrograhy) mounted on large format cameras will not 'reduce' the need for magnification exposure compensation. I have (probably) made thousands of photomacrographs for scientific staff over a 30 year career.

Ken

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ken, Miha is probably asking about the positive diopters that po' folks screw into the fronts of, usually, normal lenses for 35 mm cameras. I doubt he's asking about special purpose lenses for photomacrography.

 

[miha]

Ken, Miha is probably asking about the positive diopters that po' folks screw into the fronts of, usually, normal lenses for 35 mm cameras. I doubt he's asking about special purpose lenses for photomacrography.

Quite correct Dan, I was thinking of something like this: http://www.hoyafilter.com/hoya/products/specialeffectsfilters/macrocloseup/ or: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/ELPRO

 

[Drew Bedo]

This is a self portrait of my left eye done with an 8x10 Kodak 2-D on Ektascan ultrasound film. Don't remember now, but thwe lens was probably a 210 Symmar convertible. Two Vivitar 283 strobes were within a foot of my face. The lens was close enough that I just reached out and tripped the shutter lever.

The image fills the 8x10 negative, so it is at least 1:1, maybe larger.

No close-up screw-in lenses(+ diopter) were used, just extension. Looking at the image again, the DOF might be an inch?

 

[abbandon]

link to a single rose shot on 10x8 it is probably easiest to down load it if you want to look at the full scale.

The type of "rig" used to take the shot

I have the toys but not really the space to do this but give it a go a few times of year for kicks really. Things get a lot easier when you buy yourself 2Kw of flash gear, and mostly you are probably always going into diffraction and a smaller format might be more realistic or yield better results.

For those that really need to know Provia 10x8 Sinar P 10x8 30 year edition but with P2 10x8 format set, 1M base rail and a couple of 18" extensions F32 and 1/30th using Sinar digital shutter.

 

[Darkroom317]

Yes. I use a Claumet with 22 in bellows and a 90mm Fujinon lens now. The ones on the my website were taken with a 90m Schneider 6.8. Depth of field isn't terribly tricky because my subjects are relatively flat. Sharpness has been an issue though. I have a feeling this is because I am going far beyond the optimum of the lens. I am think about switching to a Componon 100mm enlarging lens. Would it be any better?

Dead Link Removed

 

[Arklatexian]

Large Format Macro?

I sometimes do LF macro with 4/5 and 5/7 ...it's fun .. can be tricky,
but fun
I've used both bellows as well as home made close up attachments ..
with bellows you really need to know bellows factor info ..
with an attachment, not so much ..

have fun!
john

Some years back, there was a college in Mississippi that required biology and geology majors to take a macro-photography course. In this course, some students made ten foot (and longer) cameras with pipe, a lens on one end and a 4x5 spring-back on the other. Talk about bellows-factor. By changing the lens you could enlarge crystals, mosquito larvae, etc. I always thought that a good idea to make these students familiar with optical tools. Things like that are probably considered tooooo haaaard nowdays. but then maybe they still have that course. The professor wrote a book on macro-photography. I think I may have a copy if I haven't lent it to someone....Regards!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Yes. I use a Claumet with 22 in bellows and a 90mm Fujinon lens now. The ones on the my website were taken with a 90m Schneider 6.8. Depth of field isn't terribly tricky because my subjects are relatively flat. Sharpness has been an issue though. I have a feeling this is because I am going far beyond the optimum of the lens. I am think about switching to a Componon 100mm enlarging lens. Would it be any better?

Dead Link Removed

If Schneider's propaganda is to be believed, at the range of magnifications you can attain with your righ you'd be better off with a 105 Comparon than with a 100 Componon. Either way, reverse the lens. Both lens' cells are direct fits in a #0, just put the rear cell in the front of the shutter and the front cell in the rear.

 

[Darkroom317]

If Schneider's propaganda is to be believed, at the range of magnifications you can attain with your righ you'd be better off with a 105 Comparon than with a 100 Componon. Either way, reverse the lens. Both lens' cells are direct fits in a #0, just put the rear cell in the front of the shutter and the front cell in the rear.

Really the Comparon. That's surprising. I use one at work sometimes for enlarging and haven't been impressed. I'll certainly give that a try though

 

[DREW WILEY]

Not only macro but even micro can be done and has been done in large format. I've done plenty of near-macro, even on 8x10 film. The right
lens, lighting, subject of course, and LOTS of bellows draw and support. I've seen Sinar 8x10 with up to a dozen rail sections, each with its
own bellows section and rail mounts, all bolted to a big structural steel I-beam. Simple in principle, damn expensive back in the heyday of
full pricing. But full 8x10 film - wow!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Really the Comparon. That's surprising. I use one at work sometimes for enlarging and haven't been impressed. I'll certainly give that a try though

They say the Componar is optimized for higher magnifications than the Comparon, say the Comparon is better at magnifications in the range you'll be working in.

 

[Darkroom317]

They say the Componar is optimized for higher magnifications than the Comparon, say the Comparon is better at magnifications in the range you'll be working in.

So would it be better overall including sharpness and detail or just depth of field? I've heard a lot about enlarging lenses for macro but have been hesitant to do it. Thanks for the information

 

[Dan Fromm]

Better sharpness. Depth of field is controlled by magnification and aperture, doesn't vary between lenses shot at the same magnification and aperture.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depth of field is next to nothing in true macro work. If you stop down a lot, you're gonna need a helluva lot of light, and can expect some
serious diffraction issues. There are a number of people specializing in this kind of work, generally in scientific fields. They have a wealth of
information and specialized equipment. And yes, sheet film is still used for certain applications.

 

[Jim Jones]

If Schneider's propaganda is to be believed, at the range of magnifications you can attain with your righ you'd be better off with a 105 Comparon than with a 100 Componon. Either way, reverse the lens. Both lens' cells are direct fits in a #0, just put the rear cell in the front of the shutter and the front cell in the rear.

This works well only if the aperture is located midway between the front and back of the shutter. Some shutters are asymmetrical in this respect, and some lenses need to have the aperture properly located along the lens axis.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Jim, Schneider delivered Comparons in cock-and-shoot Copal #0 and in press Copal #0. The press shutter has the diaphragm located 1.5 mm farther back in the tube. Neither has the diaphragm exactly in the middle. If this doesn't bother Schneider it shouldn't bother users.