PDA

View Full Version : Questions about Macro with non-macro lens



StoneNYC
26-Feb-2014, 16:44
So last night I was shooting a model, and using my Toyo45a and my Schneider 150mm f/5.6 Symmar-S.

I was trying to take a photo of the models eye, but was having trouble focussing past 1:1 it was as if once I got past the 1:1 ratio, I just could not find any kind of focus spot, however the Bellows would extend farther than 1:1, I still was not able to actually focus it would get almost into focus but then be out of focus and no matter how fine I would turn it there was just no actual point at which it was in focus and I was forced to pull the camera back to get the image.

I understand that non macro lenses don't have quite as much detail in a macro type image because of the way the elements lineup, however to my understanding you could still in theory use the lens if you could get the proper bellows extension, so why was I having such trouble?

This was about as close as I could get, it's on an old Polaroid blue film, and is the 3x4 size not 45 size Polaroid.

111230

Thanks for any info.

Bob Salomon
26-Feb-2014, 17:04
What magnification ratio did you want? To reach 2:1 you would need twice as much extension as you had at 1:1. Do you have that much extension available?

StoneNYC
26-Feb-2014, 17:11
What magnification ratio did you want? To reach 2:1 you would need twice as much extension as you had at 1:1. Do you have that much extension available?

If I had the extension I would certainly shoot 2:1, but no I don't have that much, however it did seem that I was not fully extended but that any closer than this and the focus became a very "soft focus" even at full extension, so I had to pull back.

So I was wondering if there were optical limitations in the lens.

mdarnton
26-Feb-2014, 17:19
In macro work always set the distance with the front standard, then focus using only the back. If you try to focus with the front you are constantly changing the reproduction ratio, not the focus. At normal distances it doesn't matter, but close up it does.

With the Toyo, try moving the model, instead.

This is one reason why view cameras in the studio. It's not a lens issue.

Maris Rusis
26-Feb-2014, 17:36
A front focussing camera is difficult to use for close-up work.

The problem is that when you rack the front standard forward the lens to subject distance changes, the repro ratio changes, and the required bellows extension changes...all simultaneously. Often it is impossible to find a sharp image at any point in the focus travel.

Work-arounds include focussing with the back of the camera, if your camera has that facility, or setting a particular repro ratio (and associated bellows extension) and focussing by moving the entire camera as a unit back and forth while watching the ground glass. This is not so easy unless you have a nice mobile studio stand or a wheeled dolly under your tripod. And finally you can tell your subject to move backward and forward until they look sharp on the ground glass, call "hold it!", and shoot.

Bob Salomon
26-Feb-2014, 17:41
If I had the extension I would certainly shoot 2:1, but no I don't have that much, however it did seem that I was not fully extended but that any closer than this and the focus became a very "soft focus" even at full extension, so I had to pull back.

So I was wondering if there were optical limitations in the lens.

Your lens is optimized for 1:20 which means that its best performance range will be from infinity to 1:10. A macro lens will give superior results closer then that. An exception would be the Apo Sironar-S which is corrected for 1:10 which would bring you to 1:5. Still not an optimal lens for 1:1 or greater.

You still have not indicated how much more extension you have beyond 1:1. Since you need to double the extension to reach 2:1 a little more extension beyond 1:1 is not going to result in much more magnification.

Also, optimal aperture with your lens is f22. What aperture were you using?

jnantz
26-Feb-2014, 17:55
try a different/ shorter lens and stop way down.
you are probably going to need a ton of light.
enlarging lenses can sometimes work as
macro lenses, if you cant get a new lens a diopters might
help .. (there was a guy on ebay that sold
some and they were large diameter and cheap )...

jcoldslabs
26-Feb-2014, 17:56
In macro work always set the distance with the front standard, then focus using only the back. If you try to focus with the front you are constantly changing the reproduction ratio, not the focus.

^ This.

I have shot with plenty of non-macro lenses for macro work and they can perform just fine relatively speaking, but having rear focus is a blessing. With the 45A you might want to set the camera within range of what you want to be in focus and use the rear sliding extension to focus, albeit crudely. The Toyo's bellows extension maxes out at around 13", so with a 6" (150mm) lens you will get just about 1:1, not much more.

Jonathan

EDIT: Another option is to set the camera at max. ext. and then have the model inch closer and closer to the lens until her eye is in focus.

tgtaylor
26-Feb-2014, 18:34
http://www.toyoview.com/Products/Accessories/45AIIac.html See the formula at the bottom of the page.

Thomas

Dan Fromm
26-Feb-2014, 19:20
To expand a little on the point made by mdarnton and maris rusis, for all film-to-subject distances except 4f + i, where f is the lens' length and i is the lens' internodal distance, there are two magnifications (1:n and n:1) at which the subject will be in focus. In normal photography this doesn't matter -- with a distant subject this isn't a problem -- but in close-up work it can be a killer. This is why focusing by changing extension with the film-to-subject distance fixed is so problematic close-up.

When the film-to-subject distance is 4f + i the magnification is 1:1. At all other magnifications the film-to-subject distance is greater than 4f + 1. Set up the camera and subject so that the film-to-subject distance is less than 4f + i and getting the subject in focus by changing extension with the film-to-subject distance fixed will be impossible.

This is why most photographers who work at near distances set up the camera-lens assembly to give the desired magnification and then move it or the subject to position the plane of best focus as desired.

StoneNYC
26-Feb-2014, 20:42
To expand a little on the point made by mdarnton and maris rusis, for all film-to-subject distances except 4f + i, where f is the lens' length and i is the lens' internodal distance, there are two magnifications (1:n and n:1) at which the subject will be in focus. In normal photography this doesn't matter -- with a distant subject this isn't a problem -- but in close-up work it can be a killer. This is why focusing by changing extension with the film-to-subject distance fixed is so problematic close-up.

When the film-to-subject distance is 4f + i the magnification is 1:1. At all other magnifications the film-to-subject distance is greater than 4f + 1. Set up the camera and subject so that the film-to-subject distance is less than 4f + i and getting the subject in focus by changing extension with the film-to-subject distance fixed will be impossible.

This is why most photographers who work at near distances set up the camera-lens assembly to give the desired magnification and then move it or the subject to position the plane of best focus as desired.

Thanks everyone for the input.

Bob, I wasn't trying for 2:1, just trying for a little more than 1:1 which is all I have for extension (325ish)

And Dan, I had wondered why when I was shooting macro with my RZ67 and extension tubes, why I discovered at one point that there were two distances that were in focus and was very confused but was shooting a model and didn't have time to think about it or investigate it at the time and it slipped my mind until just now.

I still don't at all understand the math part, I'll have to look at what you said again in the morning with a clear head, or ask my dad to help explain it.

But you are suggesting doing math ahead of time, and setting the camera that way prior to shooting, that would be difficult with how I work, not just because I can't do the math, but that when shooting fast with a model, I don't have the time to pre-set-up. I know that sounds backward but macro is always the last thing I do as it's the most ... Intimate... So I prefer to wait till they are comfortable before doing that work.

If it's a still life macro I could certainly do that though.

Thanks to everyone else who mentioned back focus, I feel foolish not understanding that at first, I couldn't figure out how using front over back would make a difference till it was mentioned about the subject distance changing on the lens side... DUH! I feel foolish not thinking along those lines.

I will also try back focus next time, especially if I can't figure out the math bit.

tgtaylor
26-Feb-2014, 21:58
As you may have already noticed, every lens has a minimum focus distance: the closest the front of the lens can get to a subject and still focus it. Sometimes that distance is noted in the manufacturers lens data and sometimes it is not. Once that distance is determined, I would place the subject at that distance from the lens and apply the formula noted above for the required magnification. Having your camera/tripod mounted on a dolly and moving it forward or backward instead of relocating the subject facilitates focusing. I have used this dolly with a Toyo 810G and series 5 Gitzo tripod: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/280124-REG/Davis_Sanford_W3_W3_Dolly_with_3.html

Thomas

StoneNYC
26-Feb-2014, 22:10
As you may have already noticed, every lens has a minimum focus distance: the closest the front of the lens can get to a subject and still focus it. Sometimes that distance is noted in the manufacturers lens data and sometimes it is not. Once that distance is determined, I would place the subject at that distance from the lens and apply the formula noted above for the required magnification. Having your camera/tripod mounted on a dolly and moving it forward or backward instead of relocating the subject facilitates focusing. I have used this dolly with a Toyo 810G and series 5 Gitzo tripod: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/280124-REG/Davis_Sanford_W3_W3_Dolly_with_3.html

Thomas

Thanks.

Tin Can
26-Feb-2014, 22:34
Thanks for the handy and simple Toyo macro formula.

Nice!


http://www.toyoview.com/Products/Accessories/45AIIac.html See the formula at the bottom of the page.

Thomas

pasiasty
27-Feb-2014, 03:02
As you may have already noticed, every lens has a minimum focus distance: the closest the front of the lens can get to a subject and still focus it.
That's true for medium and small format lenses, where the barrel determines maximum extension, but even there you can overcome this limit with tubes or bellows. In case of large format a lens there is recommended magnification ratio range, for which the lens is optimised - but this does not prevent you using for sub-optimal magnification; you only have to accept some quality (mostly sharpness) deterioration and to have enough bellows extension.

StoneNYC
27-Feb-2014, 03:23
That's true for medium and small format lenses, where the barrel determines maximum extension, but even there you can overcome this limit with tubes or bellows. In case of large format a lens there is recommended magnification ratio range, for which the lens is optimised - but this does not prevent you using for sub-optimal magnification; you only have to accept some quality (mostly sharpness) deterioration and to have enough bellows extension.

There's always a limit somewhere... I couldn't shoot Protozoa even with enough light and bellows lol

Dan Fromm
27-Feb-2014, 05:21
Stone, there are limits and there are limits. The practical limit for photomacrography (photography with a single stage of magnification) is no higher 50:1, with a short lens and a lot of extension. Beyond that a compound microscope is preferable. The theoretical limit is as big as you want. Think of van Leewenhoek's simple microscope.

About intimacy and all that. Keep your distance from the model. To be exact, the front of the lens can't be closer than f to the model. That's the theoretical limit. With your extension and focal length, the practical limit is around 2f.

Drew Bedo
27-Feb-2014, 06:51
111257111258[B]
Camera: Kodak 2D (8x10)
Lens: 90mm/f8 Nikkor
Film: Ektascan film (Ultrasound/Nuc-Med film) rated at 200
Lighting: Two Vivitar 283 strobes at under 12"

I set up the camera and cranked it out to the end of the standard rail, without the rear extension. Then clamped a picture frame in front and taped a piece of paper with a strong pattern to the rear of the frame. I got behind the camera and slid it forward and back on the tripod sliding block till it was in focus. OK, this part took a bit of time and involved fooling with both the camera tripod and the picture frame. When things were pretty close to being right, I put a smaller target in to find the fine focus and locate the center. Then set up the strobes and did some exposure testing with a flash meter.

When it looked like everything was right, I sat down behind the picture frame and removed the paper target. My forehead went up against the top of the picture frame and I reached out to trip the shutter with a short cable release.

Made several exposures of my left eye.. The image on the left looked the most dramatic and is usually the one I show. It is printed reversed because that is how I see myself in the mirror. The other one is how everyone else sees me.

The negative is 8x10 and the image is at least life-sized or 1:1. I didn't record the exact data on magnification, bellows extension or exposure correction etc. The film was developed in a automatic processor in the X-Ray darkroom at the clinic where I worked at the time.

With all that said: I am sure that this technique could be refined.

Any help? Let us know what you do and post a few images.

tgtaylor
27-Feb-2014, 09:02
Here’s an equation that was supplied by Nikon with the 610mm Apo-Nikkor lens:

A= (2+M+1/M)*f
A= overall working distance
M=reproduction ratio
f=focal length of the lens

The equation given for determining the bellows extension is the same given by Toyo in the post above.

Thus the overall working distance for a 150mm lens @ 1:1 is:
A= (2+1+1/1)*150 = 4*150=600mm. So the lens should be placed 300mm from the subject. Note: The above equation is approximate and will be exact only when using “the precise data on the inspection card included with the lens."

Thomas

StoneNYC
27-Feb-2014, 12:39
Stone, there are limits and there are limits. The practical limit for photomacrography (photography with a single stage of magnification) is no higher 50:1, with a short lens and a lot of extension. Beyond that a compound microscope is preferable. The theoretical limit is as big as you want. Think of van Leewenhoek's simple microscope.

About intimacy and all that. Keep your distance from the model. To be exact, the front of the lens can't be closer than f to the model. That's the theoretical limit. With your extension and focal length, the practical limit is around 2f.

Thanks that made sense to me thank goodness.

Thanks to the other two who posted some examples and some help just now, but it was less helpful and left me brain-hurt.

What I surmise is simply that I'm limited by my camera spelling, and that anything more than 1 to 1 isn't really going to happen unless I use a lens that is going to add some really bad distortion like a 90mm.

And for the subject matter at hand, which is normally not eyes, distortion would be a really bad thing.

There is a gentleman on here, who has a really nice toyo rail camera for like 200 bucks which I totally want to purchase, however he knows the subject matter that I'm shooting and feels that it's not something he wants his camera to be subjected to, which I thought was a really interesting turn of events however such is life and it's his choice because it's his camera

Larry Gebhardt
27-Feb-2014, 13:10
What I surmise is simply that I'm limited by my camera spelling, and that anything more than 1 to 1 isn't really going to happen unless I use a lens that is going to add some really bad distortion like a 90mm.

And for the subject matter at hand, which is normally not eyes, distortion would be a really bad thing.


A 90mm lens won't have much distortion, but probably won't be optimized for macro magnifications. It will also have a very short working distance. This short working distance will create a foreshortening effect where objects closer to the lens appear larger. This is the same as when a short lens is used for portraits. But at macro magnifications your depth of field is very small, so you may not notice it (things in the back will be very out of focus).

I use a 120mm Nikon AM and a 210mm Macro Sironar on a Canham MQC (with both front and rear focus). But I also have had good luck using my Chamonix (front focus only) with a macro focus rail. This lets you move the whole camera to focus (set the rear distance roughly right first). With the shorter lens you are really close to the subject for 1:1. Given you implied subject matter that could be awkward, so a longer lens would be better, assuming you have the bellows for it.

Bob Salomon
27-Feb-2014, 14:08
You would probably get the best results with a 120mm Apo Macro Sironar. This lens is corrected for 1:5 to 5:1 but would still need more extension then you probably have. But this lens was made for what you are trying to do. Close-up photography of 3-dimensional objects.

Tin Can
27-Feb-2014, 23:41
I have been meaning to try the macro eye shot. This is almost 4-1 using Sironar-N 180mm f5.6 lens. It's Plasticca's fake left eye, and the whole body is life size. Lens diaphragm to eye 8", diaphragm to GG 45". +/-

I used a heck of a lot of light, no human could take this much, this close. About 1600 watts of LED. 20 seconds at f22. BR/A 8x10 X-Ray, single sided.

Even with all this light, focus was difficult, I had 3 inches of bellows to choose where to put focus. It is hard to get everything lined up. I fooled with a couple lenses and was getting frustrated when this image kinda hove into view.

I would love to shoot a real eye like this, but that may be asking a lot. I would have to use flash, and I still need to focus...

Darn Flickr has changed and now I can't attach images like before. bah, cancel them too I wanted to this to pop full size. Oh well.

111316

StoneNYC
28-Feb-2014, 08:21
You would probably get the best results with a 120mm Apo Macro Sironar. This lens is corrected for 1:5 to 5:1 but would still need more extension then you probably have. But this lens was made for what you are trying to do. Close-up photography of 3-dimensional objects.

Thanks.

I think I will have to wait till I upgrade to the 8x10 and use my 4x5 reducing back to have enough extension to accomplish this.

It's been very... Eye opening... :)

Bernice Loui
28-Feb-2014, 10:17
There are times when using a smaller film size or image recording device works better than 4x5 or larger film size simply works better. This appears to be one.

Macro using a 4x5 or larger film size view camera for images greater than life size aka 1:1 is less than deal due to inherent problems with optics, film speed requirements, lighting, mechanical stability of the system, and more.

There are speciality microscopes designed and built specifically to address the problems of macro image recording which are far better suited to solve image recording problems like this.. A view camera is far from the ideal tool to create image of this type.

Most symmetrical view camera lenses work OK to life size or 1:1, but the other problems of DOF, lighting, bellows draw, mechanical stability of the set up and more remain.


Bernice

pasiasty
28-Feb-2014, 10:35
Problems with macro imaging are more or less the same for all film/sensor formats: for 1:1 you have the same lighting drop on 35 as on 8x10; in both cases you may need a specialised lens. It is however a difference of object size in both cases. So yes, LF is quite inconvenient for taking pictures of ladybugs, but might by good for a vase with a flower (say 50cm, 20", so you need some 1:2 on 8x10) - this is "macro" in LF world.

Bob Salomon
28-Feb-2014, 11:27
Thanks.

I think I will have to wait till I upgrade to the 8x10 and use my 4x5 reducing back to have enough extension to accomplish this.

It's been very... Eye opening... :)

This 120 macro will also cover 810.

StoneNYC
28-Feb-2014, 13:17
This 120 macro will also cover 810.

The 210 macro seems like a better choice, the 120mm is too wide.

Bob Salomon
28-Feb-2014, 14:23
The 180mm macro also covers 810. The 120 and the 180 replaced the older 210 and 300 Macro Sironars. With the 210 and 300 you had to switch the front and rear groups depending on which side of 1:1 you were on. With the 120 and 180 you don't swaitch the groups. The 210 and 300 werew optimized for 1:3 to 3:1. The 120 and 180 are optimized for 1:5 to 5:1. And, of course, the shorter ones require much less extension to reach a given magnification.

Also, for anyone considering new ones, the 120 and 180 Apo Macro Sironar lenses are no longer being made so availability is what is available from distributors like us or in our dealer's inventories.

The only currently manufactured analog lenses from Rodenstock are the 135, 150 and 210mm Apo Sironar-S lenses.

Tin Can
28-Feb-2014, 14:48
I don't see any response to my actual 4 to 1 macro image using a normal lens. I think the DOF is remarkable and detail is pretty good. The fake eye is life size and has depth. Even floating hair is visible in my shot and the paint grain near the eye corner is very well defined. I focused on the white paint drip.

Here's a couple set up shots to show the actual eye depth.

111344111345111346

Drew Bedo
2-Mar-2014, 06:25
Well this really isn't a feed-back or critique thread. The OP asked a question and most of us here are trying to help the OP deal with HIS situation.

With that said: Your image is really good—I wish I hade gotten that close.

Drew Bedo
2-Mar-2014, 06:30
To return to the OPs question:

What about close-up accessory lenses, the screw in plus diopters.

For a subject like an eyeball any distortion at the edges of the image would not be an issue and no exposure correcton would need to be made

Any thoughts on this technique?

Tin Can
2-Mar-2014, 07:15
It was my first attempt at this and I was trying to see if it was possible.



Well this really isn't a feed-back or critique thread. The OP asked a question and most of us here are trying to help the OP deal with HIS situation.

With that said: Your image is really good—I wish I hade gotten that close.

mdarnton
2-Mar-2014, 07:18
Drew-- I have tried using close-up lenses on macro lenses for 35mm, just to see what happens. Once you are in close with lens extension, as with a bellows camera or 35mm macro, you would be surprised how little extra a supplemental close-up lens--or even a stack of them--gives you. In fact, you'd be surprised to see how little extra you get from incrementally more bellows, too. That's why most people who shoot extreme closeups use shorter lenses to do it, rather than more extension. Check out some of the focal lengths listed in this piece: http://www.savazzi.net/photography/luminarversions.htm

It's only retrofocus lenses where too much extension results in the subject needing to be sitting on the front element, or within the lens, even. With a normal construction that doesn't happen. In this situation, I'd trot out my 90mm WA and see how it worked.

I think it's cute how no matter what the situation, Bob keeps trying to sell lenses. :-) People were doing a fine job with this kind of work before they had the latest and greatest from H P Marketing. A certain pepper photo from about 80 years ago comes immediately to mind. :-)

What will kill you in this type of work is not having the "wrong" lens--it's going to be diffraction from stopping down too far in an effort to get more depth of focus.

StoneNYC
2-Mar-2014, 08:09
Drew-- I have tried using close-up lenses on macro lenses for 35mm, just to see what happens. Once you are in close with lens extension, as with a bellows camera or 35mm macro, you would be surprised how little extra a supplemental close-up lens--or even a stack of them--gives you. In fact, you'd be surprised to see how little extra you get from incrementally more bellows, too. That's why most people who shoot extreme closeups use shorter lenses to do it, rather than more extension. Check out some of the focal lengths listed in this piece: http://www.savazzi.net/photography/luminarversions.htm

It's only retrofocus lenses where too much extension results in the subject needing to be sitting on the front element, or within the lens, even. With a normal construction that doesn't happen. In this situation, I'd trot out my 90mm WA and see how it worked.

I think it's cute how no matter what the situation, Bob keeps trying to sell lenses. :-) People were doing a fine job with this kind of work before they had the latest and greatest. :-)

What will kill you in this type of work is not having the "wrong" lens--it's going to be diffraction from stopping down too far in an effort to get more depth of focus.

Well my only two shorter focal length are 90mm but that's an F/8 which I think would be very very hard to focus, and I would think the Grandagon 75mm f/4.5 would be too wide even for this, but maybe I'm wrong heck I'll give it a try, but again as I was trying to mention before I'm not shooting eyeballs... The eyeball it was an example of something that I could show you that I was shooting close up... The actual subject matter is not the same....

I tried very hard to allude to, without showing an example, because this is a very private and personal peace, it is A very personal project about the celebration of the body and the idea that the most intimate and private parts of oneself that often become the subject of mockery and hurtful words simply because one might be different from the other, and somehow that is seen as shameful, when it really truly is not and all parts are beautiful given the right light. Anyway I've been at this project for two years, it initially started with 35mm with a macro lens on digital, and in an effort to expand on my perspective as well as give a fresh style of look I expanded to the Mamiya RZ67, which has been the best to shoot with so far the easiest, and has given me some really beautiful imagery. But finally I wanted to try for by five so that I could see if using large-format would give me another perspective and give me even more beautiful images for this project which has another year or so left before completion. So please want to share this image with you do not mock and do not comment negatively if you can hold back I'd appreciate it.

111461

Drew Bedo
2-Mar-2014, 08:49
Mdernton: thanks for your observations.


StoneNYC: Thanks for sharing. Best wishes on your project. Let is know how it turns out.

I have at times thought about a series of macro shots featuring the texture of skin with hints of contour alone. For various personal reasons this is not possible, and all-in-all I am content with that.

In self-mockery then, I quote an old joke: "Every time I tried nude photography I either cought a cold or got sunburned."

mdarnton
2-Mar-2014, 08:58
I would think the Grandagon 75mm f/4.5 would be too wide even for this,

A lens is not "wide"; the USE of a lens is wide. Your 75mm lens is just a 75mm lens that happens to have the potential to cover a larger piece of film than other 75mm lenses, and at high magnifications this potential is meaningless. You should try both the 90 and 75 in this context to see what happens. You don't need someone's face to do the test; try a flower or a coin or something.

Don't assume anything when it's so easy to clip on a lens and see what it will do. You may find that f/8 is fine for focusing, for instance.

StoneNYC
2-Mar-2014, 09:29
A lens is not "wide"; the USE of a lens is wide. Your 75mm lens is just a 75mm lens that happens to have the potential to cover a larger piece of film than other 75mm lenses, and at high magnifications this potential is meaningless. You should try both the 90 and 75 in this context to see what happens. You don't need someone's face to do the test; try a flower or a coin or something.

Don't assume anything when it's so easy to clip on a lens and see what it will do. You may find that f/8 is fine for focusing, for instance.

Well on the 150mmat full extension at f/5.6 it's hard focussing... So, f/8 would not be easy. But I'll try for the heck of it.

StoneNYC
2-Mar-2014, 09:30
Mdernton: thanks for your observations.


StoneNYC: Thanks for sharing. Best wishes on your project. Let is know how it turns out.

I have at times thought about a series of macro shots featuring the texture of skin with hints of contour alone. For various personal reasons this is not possible, and all-in-all I am content with that.

In self-mockery then, I quote an old joke: "Every time I tried nude photography I either cought a cold or got sunburned."

Thanks, and hah! That's a great quote :)

I once met a model who said "I will shoot nude in any location in any temperature, so long as the photographer is willing to shoot in the same conditions in the same amount of clothing..." Hah! Haven't taken her up on it yet...

Drew Bedo
2-Mar-2014, 11:15
I have, in the past, used an oscilloscope lens for macro work. It was a 75mm lens that only covered 6x6 cm at infinity. These lenses were used to image the trace on an oscilloscope CRT at about 1:1 ratios and the max aperture was f1.9. Focusing wide open at long extension was manageable and if pushed far eough out would cover 8x10. . I used it at the time because it cost me $10.

Probably not the world's best lens in the world's finest shutter for the things Stone wants to do, but it illustrates the point about extension, coverage and focal length.

Didn't Schneider make Xenars and Xenotars with a max aperature of f2.8?

Cor
3-Mar-2014, 06:48
I had good luck with my enlarging lens: a 150mm Companon S at f5.6, mounted REVERSE on my 8*10: in this set up I could enlarge a still live about twice as big as in real life on slow film. My object did not move though, so I could use a long exposure time

Good luck,

Cor

Liquid Artist
3-Mar-2014, 12:33
Well on the 150mmat full extension at f/5.6 it's hard focussing... So, f/8 would not be easy. But I'll try for the heck of it.
More DOF often makes focusing easier.

pasiasty
3-Mar-2014, 12:49
More DOF often makes focusing easier.
Are you sure? In extreme macro works - yes, wider (larger) DOF may help, if only you're able to see anything through small aperture. But in less extreme situation it's narrower DOF that helps focusing - that's why you usually focus with fully open aperture.

StoneNYC
3-Mar-2014, 13:55
Are you sure? In extreme macro works - yes, wider (larger) DOF may help, if only you're able to see anything through small aperture. But in less extreme situation it's narrower DOF that helps focusing - that's why you usually focus with fully open aperture.

What Pasiasty said.

I could hardly even see the GG under a sheet, let alone stopping down... Lol

Tin Can
3-Mar-2014, 14:03
Use more light. A lot more light. Even if only for focus.


What Pasiasty said.

I could hardly even see the GG under a sheet, let alone stopping down... Lol

Dan Fromm
3-Mar-2014, 14:11
Hint: effective f/ number, given magnification, for a lens with pupillary magnification = 1, is (f/number set) * (magnification + 1)

At 1:1, with f/5.6 set, effective f/number will be f/11.

Stone, I've lost track of what you're doing. How long is full extension? I ask because you should be able to see the GG at f/11.

StoneNYC
3-Mar-2014, 14:30
Use more light. A lot more light. Even if only for focus.

That isn't always available... I only have access to room light most of the time.

StoneNYC
3-Mar-2014, 14:30
Hint: effective f/ number, given magnification, for a lens with pupillary magnification = 1, is (f/number set) * (magnification + 1)

At 1:1, with f/5.6 set, effective f/number will be f/11.

Stone, I've lost track of what you're doing. How long is full extension? I ask because you should be able to see the GG at f/11.

See my previous post.. That is why I can't see...

Dan Fromm
3-Mar-2014, 14:53
Stone, for the second time, how much extension are you using? I ask because something doesn't compute at all. I looked for Toyo 45A specs, found 'em for the AII. If it is the same as the original A the max is 252 mm and you're not even at 1:1. If you're not shooting in poor light you should be able to focus an f/5.6 lens wide open at 1:1 with no difficulty. Been there, done that, in fact I've done it at 2:1.

What are you doing? If you want help you have to help us help you.

Tin Can
3-Mar-2014, 14:54
Do what night shooters do, put a tiny LED flashlight at the focus point. I always have a very small single AAA Fenix E05 on my keychain. I use it about 30 times a day. Rechargeable batteries.

jcoldslabs
3-Mar-2014, 15:04
I shot this last night with a 12" (non-macro) lens focused at 26". The light source was a single CFL bulb (60 watt equivalent). Focusing was no problem, not even when stopped down to f/8.


http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/5x7-TMY2-Batphone-r2.jpg

Jonathan

StoneNYC
3-Mar-2014, 15:13
Stone, for the second time, how much extension are you using? I ask because something doesn't compute at all. I looked for Toyo 45A specs, found 'em for the AII. If it is the same as the original A the max is 252 mm and you're not even at 1:1. If you're not shooting in poor light you should be able to focus an f/5.6 lens wide open at 1:1 with no difficulty. Been there, done that, in fact I've done it at 2:1.

What are you doing? If you want help you have to help us help you.

325, I mentioned it earlier, not sure what specs you're looking at but the toyo45a or toyo 45a II were never that short.

Dan Fromm
3-Mar-2014, 16:01
Thanks. 325 mm extension with a 150 mm lens puts you a hair over 1:1 with a 150 mm lens. When the lens is set at f/5.6, the effective aperture is a hair smaller than f/11. If that isn't bright enough to focus, turn the lights up.

StoneNYC
3-Mar-2014, 17:23
Thanks. 325 mm extension with a 150 mm lens puts you a hair over 1:1 with a 150 mm lens. When the lens is set at f/5.6, the effective aperture is a hair smaller than f/11. If that isn't bright enough to focus, turn the lights up.

Effective aperture?

EDIT: do you have a way to explain that without a lot of math, just explain the concept behind it without the math because everything that you proposed math oriented I don't understand and just skip passed it

jcoldslabs
3-Mar-2014, 17:47
Stone,

Any aperture setting is determined by the size of the opening divided into the focal length. Think of the term "f/stop" as "focal length / aperture opening diameter". Most marked f/stop numbers that you see are calculated for a lens focused at infinity, so if you are using a 200mm lens (focused at 200mm) and the aperture opening is 18mm, the corresponding f/stop is f/11 (200 / 18 = 11). But if you focus that same lens lens at 290mm in order to get in close to your subject, that same 18mm aperture opening gets divided into 290mm and the new f/stop is around f/16 (290 / 18 = 16). The size of the opening doesn't change, but the f/11 marking on your lens is no longer valid when the lens is 290mm from the film plane.

I think Dan calls this an "effective aperture" because it differs from the marked numbers on the lens or shutter.

Jonathan

Liquid Artist
3-Mar-2014, 18:23
That isn't always available... I only have access to room light most of the time.
I am just wondering what condition your ground glass is in. If it's dark or dirty it's no wonder your having issues. I belive that some older cameras came with a darker glass, which can often be swapped for something brighter. Other times they get dirty, and just need a good cleaning to easily see through.

Tin Can
3-Mar-2014, 18:28
The longer the tunnel, the dimmer and smaller the light at the end of tunnel.


Effective aperture?

EDIT: do you have a way to explain that without a lot of math, just explain the concept behind it without the math because everything that you proposed math oriented I don't understand and just skip passed it

jnantz
3-Mar-2014, 18:43
That isn't always available... I only have access to room light most of the time.

a clamp lamp with a bulb in it and a plug
and CINI FOIL might help
or portable lights ( like lowel lights )
they are cheap and work well

Dan Fromm
3-Mar-2014, 19:34
Effective aperture?

EDIT: do you have a way to explain that without a lot of math, just explain the concept behind it without the math because everything that you proposed math oriented I don't understand and just skip passed it Well, first you have to know how relative aperture is defined. Relative aperture is the f/number we all talk about and love. 5.6, for example. When we talk about it, we mean the lens' focal length divided by the diameter of the lens' entrance pupil. The f/numbers on a lens' aperture scale correspond to various sizes of the opening in the diaphragm. The entrance pupil is that opening's image as seen through the front of the lens; the image doesn't have to be the same size as the hole.

When we say focal length we mean the distance from the lens' rear node to the film plane when the lens is focused at infinity. In fact, this is a definition of focal length.

But when the lens is focused closer than infinity, relative aperture is the distance from the lens' rear node to the film plane (now greater than the lens' focal length) divided by the diameter of the lens' entrance pupil. Since focal length is a property of the lens that is fixed, we call relative aperture calculated this way effective aperture. Effective aperture is always smaller than relative aperture at infinity. This is why we have to compensate exposure when we focus very close and why diffraction bites harder in closeup work than when shooting distant subjects.

If you're going to do much work closeup you should educate yourself about what you're doing. Knowing what you're doing is much better than fumbling around and getting frustrated.

Questions and answers in forums like this one are a poor way to get much of an education. I don't think anyone is going to visit you and give you lessons. Second best to a good teacher is a good book. Buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography and study it. It isn't very expensive, can be bought used via abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, ... If you tell us that you're too stupid to learn from a book I'll zing you a really good one.

Liquid Artist
3-Mar-2014, 20:29
Here is a web page on the formula.
http://www.cookseytalbottgallery.com/photo_blog_article.php?blRecordNumber=24
It's honestly something that not everyone can learn. I would never ask my wife to since she is just lousy at anything math related. She's still a smart woman in most other subjects.
Although the math itself may frustrate you, I imagine the you've noticed that when you take photos of close up subjects the exposure appears darker. After a while you hopefully started adding a little exposure to compensate. The further the bellows is draw past infinity the more compensation you require. There is a good chance that you figured something out that works for you.
The math formula is just another way to figure that all out.

Tin Can
3-Mar-2014, 20:41
This guy makes it pretty simple in one page with pictures.

I use a Calumet Exposure Calculator, which this guy show in the 3rd image.

I USED to think it was a stupid thing, until I started using it all the time.

Now I don't need it, but it is a very handy learning tool.

Seriously look at this page, it's real fast with pictures.

http://markneylan.blogspot.com/2012/01/professional-practice.html

Tin Can
3-Mar-2014, 20:47
BTW, I did not mean this as a joke. This is the simplest analogy I can make and it is exactly what is happening.


The longer the tunnel, the dimmer and smaller the light at the end of tunnel.

Liquid Artist
3-Mar-2014, 21:08
BTW, I did not mean this as a joke. This is the simplest analogy I can make and it is exactly what is happening.
I like that explanation Randy, it is good.
You can also hold up a toilet paper roll + a roll from paper towels, plus a roll from wrapping paper (all the same inside diameter) and see the difference that way. It was how I was first shown.

Jim Andrada
3-Mar-2014, 21:29
Didn't see it mentioned in the thread (with my eyesight I could well have missed it though) but they do make focusing stages where you mount the camera and then rack the entire camera back and forth. Linhof made one that was an absolute beast - could have probably mounted my car on it if the tripod didn't break first. One came up for sale here a while back and I didn't jump fast enough:<((

If near zero DOF gets you down, check out focus stacking

Dan Fromm
4-Mar-2014, 05:52
If near zero DOF gets you down, check out focus stacking

With LF? Have you lost your mind?

Drew Bedo
4-Mar-2014, 06:45
OK: exposure correction for bellows extension "without math".
For critical work you may just have to crank through the formula.

I prefer not to when working in the field

I have pre-calculated a correction factor for several of my lenses so I don't have to actually do the math while shooting. A 150mm lens has a nominal focal length of 6 inches (150mm—right?), When the bellows is extended to 12" (300mm) the correction factor is two stops (magnification is 1:1). The shutter must be two shutter speeds slower or the diaphragm must be two f-stops wider (smaller numbers). If the metered exposure is, lets say, f22 at 1/125th, then two stops more exposure would be f8 at 1/125th or f22 at 1/30th . . .or some equivalent combination (I have picked easy numbers for the example).

The number that I keep fin my head for my 150mm lens is 1/3rd of a stop extra exposure for each inch of extension beyond 6". I measure the actual extension with a short piece of cloth tape and open the diaphragm to compensate or adjust the shutter. For macro shots of still-life subjects this sometimes works out to an open shutter(B or T) and multiple "pops" of the little strobes I use. For your project,(larger than 1:1 and continuous light source) your model may need SPF 50 sun-block.

It comes down to: Meter the subject, measure the extension, make the correction. I work in inches and thirds of a stop. . .others here use millimeters and work the formula. Another technique involves a ratio between the actual measured size of the subject compared with the measured size of the subject on the Ground Glass.

Find a method that works for you in the way you think and the way you work.

jnantz
4-Mar-2014, 07:31
quick and dirty bellows calculations seem easiest
and with as little math and ways to make mistakes ...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/bellows-factor.html

john cook's suggestions are the easiest ( 5th down )

along the same lines ..



this can be easy if you want it to be

if you got a 5.6 inch lens and you extend the bellows to 8 inches you need to add a stop
if you got a 5.6 inch lens and you extend the bellows to 11 inches you need to add 2 stops

if you got a 210mm lens and you extend 320mm you ain't gonna be far off if you add 1 stop
if you got a 210mm lens and you extend 450mm you ain't gonna be far off if you add 2 stops

koh303
4-Mar-2014, 08:27
A 150mm lens has a nominal focal length of 6 inches (150mm—right?),
actually 150mm is exactly 150mm.

In the US 150mm = 5.9 inches, which may not be true elsewhere in the world.


The number that I keep fin my head for my 150mm lens is 1/3rd of a stop extra exposure for each inch of extension beyond 6". I measure the actual extension with a short piece of cloth tape and open the diaphragm to compensate or adjust the shutter. For macro shots of still-life subjects this sometimes works out to /an open shutter(B or T) and multiple "pops" of the little strobes I use. For your project,(larger than 1:1 and continuous light source) your model may need SPF 50 sun-block. As the formula is exponential, and so is the inverse square law, that number will increase with every inch (especially if your metric conversion is rounded off by some margin).

koh303
4-Mar-2014, 08:32
Looks like this was all discussed in the past here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?57788-Exposure-Compenstation-for-Bellows-Length

StoneNYC
4-Mar-2014, 08:45
Stone,

Any aperture setting is determined by the size of the opening divided into the focal length. Think of the term "f/stop" as "focal length / aperture opening diameter". Most marked f/stop numbers that you see are calculated for a lens focused at infinity, so if you are using a 200mm lens (focused at 200mm) and the aperture opening is 18mm, the corresponding f/stop is f/11 (200 / 18 = 11). But if you focus that same lens lens at 290mm in order to get in close to your subject, that same 18mm aperture opening gets divided into 290mm and the new f/stop is around f/16 (290 / 18 = 16). The size of the opening doesn't change, but the f/11 marking on your lens is no longer valid when the lens is 290mm from the film plane.

I think Dan calls this an "effective aperture" because it differs from the marked numbers on the lens or shutter.

Jonathan

Thanks, so basically that's what is happening when we are adjusting for the bellows extension, is that we are compensating for the change in effective aperture? But instead of calling that we just call it bellows extension adjustment?

Dan Fromm
4-Mar-2014, 08:47
Thanks, so basically that's what is happening when we are adjusting for the bellows extension, is that we are compensating for the change in effective aperture? But instead of calling that we just call it bellows extension adjustment?

Exactly. I brought up effective aperture because it matters for exposure and diffraction.

StoneNYC
4-Mar-2014, 09:12
Okay I wanted to clear a couple things up because I think we're getting off track here, I completely understand the concept of the light loss issue as you extend the lens forward less light hits the film plane, this I understand it's not something new to me and I've understood it for a very long time, it was more about getting focused on the ground glass. It may simply be that my groundglass and the lighting situation in the moment just weren't good for shooting that type of photography. I have one of those Fresnel things inside of the groundglass, I'm actually not really sure of the relationship between the groundglass and the Fresnel except that most people have them in the camera and mine came with it, however my Fresnel is very scratched up, and usually it doesn't cause any issues for focusing because I'm shooting outside and I have a good loupe. I'm not sure of the purpose of the Fresnel, I'm not sure if it's to make the image brighter, or to make the image sharper on the groundglass I really honestly can't be sure, but the groundglass itself is certainly not scratched at all just the Fresnel.

To Dan, I want to say that I'm not too stupid to read a book and understand things, I'm more speaking about the in the moment situations where in those particular situations I'm not as apt to start doing mathematical calculations while a naked model is sitting there waiting for me either uncomfortable or bored out of her mind as her exposed areas are facing a lens that is extended like a phallus, it's just uncomfortable and inappropriate, and so I'd rather just shoot quickly as quickly as large-format can, and be done with it so I suppose that's part of the issue. And there may just be no way around that.

I would admit, that I'm much better as a doer then I am a reader, I would rather spend hours fiddling around and fumbling and messing up shooting then I would 10 minutes reading a book, I know a lot of you are going to bang your head against the wall for me saying this, but I just hate book learning, and only do it to an extent when I know that I have a book that I can look in three the info I'm currently looking to understand, and close it as soon as possible to then apply that knowledge and apply it multiple times so that my brain can both conceptually understand it, and retain it, if I don't physically do the action after learning it, it's gone within a day, but he is like a sieve lol

Ironically, I'm not actually that bad at math, believe it or not I actually did very well in math to the point where most of the equations in high school I could do in my brain with no calculator anything and I could do it without even looking at the info I could do the math in my head, that said if you don't use it you lose it and I haven't done this kind of math in a long time, I never did college math so I can't really speak to that.

I also wanted to admit that I've allowed myself to become lazy because I have an app on my phone called the reciprocity timer app which will do all of my bellows calculation extensions for me as well as of course the reciprocity calculations for each film type, I do understand that as long as my focal length is less than my extension for the most part I don't have to make any kind of calculated adjustment other than past the reciprocity failure point, but most of the time Reciprocity comes into play with a lot of my shooting, so I tend to use the app often even when I don't need to calculate for bellows extension. This app that I use on my phone, it came out just as I was beginning shooting large-format, so I've never actually learned the proper calculations for Bella's extension that traditional large-format photographers learning school, so I only have a vague idea of how to do it, and it some point I actually do and to open a book and read about it when I decide to make some kind of long backcountry trip when I'll actually have to know and understand it in case I either don't bring my phone, or that my phone battery might die so that I will still be able to make pictures properly but I probably won't learn that until the summer.

Anyway that's a little background on me, if I am in the situation again I will certainly try and bring some kind of additional lay with me just in case.

As for the actual exposure itself once everything is focused, I'm certainly not concerned about the brightness of my strobes, the strobes I use our Profoto strobes, mostly I use my 1200 WS 7B's with pro head, but if I really needed to I could always bring my larger Pri6 2400 WS FREEZE pack which is probably more than enough for most of my work even with all the bellows extension etc., that I wouldn't need to Papa stroke more than once, but I do understand the concept of pop and more than once if needed. I've never needed anything larger but I am aware that I can get something a little more powerful like a 4800 WS pack or dual pack dual wire head to reach 4800 WS but I just don't think it's necessary, I know in the olden days lots of photography guys used the ultra powerful packs, but I think it's overkill for most stuff and for my budget what I have is more than enough.

Liquid Artist
4-Mar-2014, 09:24
actually 150mm is exactly 150mm.

In the US 150mm = 5.9 inches, which may not be true elsewhere in the world.

As the formula is exponential, and so is the inverse square law, that number will increase with every inch (especially if your metric conversion is rounded off by some margin).

If you get right down to it a 150mm lens may not actually be a true 150mm. It could just as easily be 147mm or 153mm and they just rounded the numbers off. Which is why rangefinders have to be adjusted to the actual lens, not just the model number. If your nitpicking that much you may even want to test the shutter speed before the actual shot. It could easily change throughout the day as the temperature rises and falls changing the metals thickness and the viscosity of the lubricate inside.

I think that I'll stop thinking about this so much, and start taking some pictures. I may not have it down to an exact science yet, but I'm still enjoying myself out there and can usually get some decent results.

koh303
4-Mar-2014, 10:20
while a naked model is sitting there waiting for me either uncomfortable or bored out of her mind as her exposed areas are facing a lens that is extended like a phallus, it's just uncomfortable and inappropriate

If it so inappropriate, why do you subject your models to this situation?

This brings up a question with regards to the OP:

I was trying to take a photo of the models eye

Why does she need to be naked "as her exposed areas are facing a lens that is extended like a phallus," for you to photograph her eye?


I know a lot of you are going to bang your head against the wall for me saying this, but I just hate book learning
What kind of learning do you not hate? The knowledge gas to come from somewhere, or can everything be self taught?

StoneNYC
4-Mar-2014, 17:06
If it so inappropriate, why do you subject your models to this situation?

This brings up a question with regards to the OP:


Why does she need to be naked "as her exposed areas are facing a lens that is extended like a phallus," for you to photograph her eye?


What kind of learning do you not hate? The knowledge gas to come from somewhere, or can everything be self taught?

You obviously haven't read the entire thread, please do so, all your questions are contained therein. I remember you from APUG, please don't try and "help" as I ask that you refrain.

Anyway, I think this thread has reached it's conclusion since most of the problems seem to simply be light and my cameras limited extension, I tried using back focus and that did help some, thanks for that.

Can a moderator please close this thread before it attracts the trolls. Thanks.