Large format macro

[Jim Jones]

Perhaps Schneider compensated for the position of the diaphragm when manufacturing the lenses, although this does seem unlikely. I tried to reverse the cells in a Raptar 90mm for micro-photography, and the results were really bad.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Jim, once upon a time I bought a number of cameras that had 105/4.5 Comparons in, depending on the camera, cock-and-shoot or press Copal #0 shutters. The vendors thought they were selling cameras, I was buying shutters.

Anyway, I tried some of the lenses out. As expected, lousy at distance. As expected, quite good close up below 1:1 and above 1:1 (but not far above) reversed. There are better ~ 100 mm lenses for closeup work, but there are also worse.

I can't speak to your 90/? Raptar but I've tried out two tessar type Raptars sold as good for near distances. 50/4.5 Micro Raptar (with diaphragm), lousy under 10:1, ok above. 138/4.5 Graphic Raptar, just lousy at all distances. I wouldn't reason from tessar type Raptars, if that's what your 90 is, to other tessar types.

 

[Jim Jones]

Oops, the lens I tried reversing in the shutter was not a Raptar, but a Graflex Optar W.A. f/6.8 90mm, the basic four group four element WA lens for 4x5. That's the only time I've tried reversing lens cells in a shutter. I bow to your extensive experience and the wealth of information you've consistently posted.

 

[kinglang]

Makro symmar hm 180mm f5.6 for 8X10 film

 

[jc123]

Large Format Macro?





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!

Hi there, I’m very late to the party here so I can only hope you are still on this site. Do you happen to remember the name of this book or the author?
Best wishes
Jess

 

[Fragomeni]

I actually just posted in this same forum to share some daguerreotype work inspired by Kark Blossfeldt and then I saw this. I'm in love with his work in Urformen der Kunst and decided to explore the subject matter in my preferred medium which these days is the daguerreotype process. Below are the links I shared. You'll see some notations in each about my use of camera movements as well as the extended exposure times required because of the slow nature of the daguerreotype process. I'm not sure if I should link to the thread I created to share the work (don't want to hijack) so I'm just linking the daguerreotypes here:

 

[mcohn]

Makro symmar hm 180mm f5.6 for 8X10 film

At what magnification does the 180 cover 8x10 out of curiosity?

 

[xkaes]

Any lens will cover 8x10 if the magnification is high enough. One variable is the angle of coverage of the lens. The greater the angle of coverage, the less magnification is needed.

 

[locutus]

I've had good results with reverse mounting a 80mm APO-Rodagon-N in front of a Fujinon 180mm f/5.6, it requires the main lens to be focused slightly ahead of its infinity position to completely cover the 5x4 negative.

The Fujinon is left wide open and the Rodagon is stepped down 2 stops, the main limit on sharpness is DoF, i can scan some prints later and post.

 

[xkaes]

Do you use this reverse-mounted set-up because you lack a shorter lens or for some other reason?

 

[locutus]

It results in a faster working aperture, better working distance higher resolving power then trying to for example push my 90mm Super-Angulon or 125mm Fujinon to the same level of magnification.

 

[Dan Fromm]

It results in a faster working aperture, better working distance higher resolving power then trying to for example push my 90mm Super-Angulon or 125mm Fujinon to the same level of magnification.

Not to be a complete idiot, but why don't you just get a lens well suited to the purpose? For example, the 105/4.5 and 150/5;6 Comparons are direct fits in a #0 shutter. At near distances both will cover 4x5. There are many other enlarging lenses that will do as well. I suggested there two because of the ease of using them below 1:1 (oriented normally) and above 1;1 (reversed) because the #0 is symmetrical. Same threading front and rear, unlike #1.

By the way, A. A. Blaker wrote about your two lens trick in his book Field Photography. Where did you learn of it?

 

[xkaes]

By the way, A. A. Blaker wrote about your two lens trick in his book Field Photography. Where did you learn of it?

As did Lefkowitz in his Close-up book. It's a good approach if all you have is a long and short lens, and you want to get really close, but nowadays, good enlarging / process / macro lenses are very inexpensive -- and some have a 40mm (#1) thread.

https://www.photocornucopia.com/1061.html

 

[Dan Fromm]

As did Lefkowitz in his Close-up book. It's a good approach if all you have is a long and short lens, and you want to get really close, but nowadays, good enlarging / process / macro lenses are very inexpensive -- and some have a 40mm (#1) thread.

https://www.photocornucopia.com/1061.html

Joe, thanks for mentioning Lefkowitz.

About process lenses and #1 shutters. The #1 is asymmetric. M40x0.75, rear M36x0.75. I'm not aware of any process lens whose rear threads are M40x0.75. Some, not all G-Clarons' cells are direct fits in a #1. I just checked my R'stock Apo-Ronar catalog, no information about cells' threading. I know at first hand that my little 150 mm AR's cells won't fit any shutter I'm aware of. I have a small heap of Apo-Saphirs, far from all of them; none are direct fits in any shutter I'm aware of.

Many Schneider enlarging lenses' cells are direct fits in various standard shutters. I mentioned 105 and 150 Comparons above. I can't address other makes (except Boyer, a few do, most don't), no experience or useful catalogs.

I hang these lenses in front of a #1 using cup-shaped adapters, courtesy of SKGrimes.

 

[xkaes]

I'm thinking of your favorites -- the Tominon process lenses, all with 40mm threads -- but there are others, as well. The Rodenstock Eurygons come to mind, also with 40mm threads. And 39mm-to-400mm adapters are easy to get.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I'm thinking of your favorites -- the Tominon process lenses, all with 40mm threads -- but there are others, as well. The Rodenstock Eurygons come to mind, also with 40mm threads. And 39mm-to-400mm adapters are easy to get.

Actually, the MP-4 Tominons aren't my favorites. The 17 isn't a Luminar, but is very cost effective if one doesn't need Luminar performance. The 35 isn't the best at or near its focal length but, again, is cost effective. The 50 is so-so, and the longer ones -- except perhaps the 105, which I never tried out -- are mediocre. I've had several 35 Eurgons, all awful.

 

[varg]

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

Karl Blossfeldt used the 9x12cm format, a little bit smaller than 4x5" (10x13cm)
All pictures from him were made in a 1:1 ratio with a 500mm aplanatic lens at f/36 (source: das deutsche Lichtbild, 1928)

I try to make pictures in this way but I don´t use a 500mm lens in 1:1 because it needs an extension of 1000mm (40inch) Here I used a 320mm Rodenstock aplanat in 9x12cm size:

 

[Lemmythink]

Karl Blossfeldt used the 9x12cm format, a little bit smaller than 4x5" (10x13cm)
All pictures from him were made in a 1:1 ratio with a 500mm aplanatic lens at f/36 (source: das deutsche Lichtbild, 1928)

I try to make pictures in this way but I don´t use a 500mm lens in 1:1 because it needs an extension of 1000mm (40inch) Here I used a 320mm Rodenstock aplanat in 9x12cm size:

Did your source explain why he chose such a configuration? 40 inches extension is quite a big camera!

 

[baachitraka]

That is a meter long and I am curious about how the setup will look like.

 

[varg]

I read that his camera were self made and only a wooden box with the 1000mm extension, very simple.
He don´t were a photographer he were a professor of scupture, specially stonemason and this pictures were pattern for his students to learn the forms and the aesthetics of natural forms.
I guess he realised that the long focus gives the best perspective for this.

His book is still in use in the education of stonemasons.

 

[Lemmythink]

I read that his camera were self made and only a wooden box with the 1000mm extension, very simple.
He don´t were a photographer he were a professor of scupture, specially stonemason and this pictures were pattern for his students to learn the forms and the aesthetics of natural forms.
I guess he realised that the long focus gives the best perspective for this.

His book is still in use in the education of stonemasons.

A wooden box! Of course, if the set up is constant...why not.

 

[BAC1967]

You can get a lot of extension connecting two cameras. I butted two 4X5 cameras by simply wrapping the connection with a dark cloth to get this shot.

Threaded Needle by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[wiltw]

I read that his camera were self made and only a wooden box with the 1000mm extension, very simple.
He don´t were a photographer he were a professor of scupture, specially stonemason and this pictures were pattern for his students to learn the forms and the aesthetics of natural forms.
I guess he realised that the long focus gives the best perspective for this.

His book is still in use in the education of stonemasons.

1000mm extension with 500mm FL means the subject-to-film distance is 2000mm or 78.7" ...not much different that the subject distance used by portraiture photographers for natural perspective of human subjects!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I should try this -- I have 105/4.5 and 90/6.3 lenses that (in the former case, just) cover 4x5 at hyperfocal or longer; either one ought to make a reasonable macro if reversed.

I've also got a 150 mm f/5.6 Componon and I'll attest is is not awful at distance, in fact in my experience it's quite good -- not to mention the rear group alone (equivalent 256 mm f/13) is also good. As an enlarging lens, if I could get the front element through the front standards on my Annie or Graphic View (install from the back?), it should be good working at around 1:4 and larger, if I had anything like the bellows extension to get there. I might need to cobble up an adapter to mount the Annie in place of the removable focusing panel on the Graphic View; with both fully extended I should be able to get a 150 mm a bit bigger than 1:1.

Alternatively, I have one of those adapter boards for RB67 lenses; a 65 or 90 on that board would give huge magnification on the Graphic View if the image quality holds up...

 

[Dan Fromm]

Alternatively, I have one of those adapter boards for RB67 lenses; a 65 or 90 on that board would give huge magnification on the Graphic View if the image quality holds up...

Consider using a 105/4.5 Comparon on your GV. The cells are direct fits in a #0, so reversing the lens can be done by swapping the cells around. The lens is an enlarging Xenar, isn't at all bad and they're inexpensive. Or, if you want higher magnification, a 100/5.6 Componon-S, whose cells are also direct fits in a #0. 105/5.6 jes' plain Componon probably won't do, mine's cells are too small for a #0.