PDA

View Full Version : Images at 1:1 or thereabouts



Ken Lee
29-Mar-2014, 04:24
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/2014-03-03a.jpg
Typewriter Keys, 2014
Sinar P, 150mm APO Nikkor
4x5 TMY, D-23

vinny
29-Mar-2014, 05:59
Well done, Ken.
Here's one, 250mm fujinon at 500mm on chamonix 45n-2, f45, 4x5 tech pan in rodinal, kentmere glossy fiber.


https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8050/8096903172_88ef6abb14_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/dkuKdQ)

Richard M. Coda
29-Mar-2014, 18:41
White Chrysanthemum
Nikon 120 Macro
Arca-Swiss 45 F Metric
TMax 100
http://www.pctype.com/rcphoto/test/White-Chrysanthemum.jpg

I have more at larger than 1:1... developing film this weekend.

Richard M. Coda
29-Mar-2014, 18:43
maybe 2:1
Yellow Viking Pom
Nikon 120 Macro
Arca-Swiss 45 F Metric
TMax 100

http://www.pctype.com/rcphoto/test/Yellow-Viking-Pom.jpg

Richard M. Coda
29-Mar-2014, 18:45
Purple Kale
Fujinon 210W
Arca-Swiss 45 F Metric
TMax 100

http://www.pctype.com/rcphoto/test/Kale001.jpg

Richard M. Coda
29-Mar-2014, 18:46
Baby Rattlesnake
Fujinon 210W
Arca-Swiss 45 F Metric
TMax 100

http://www.pctype.com/rcphoto/test/Rattler002.jpg

BetterSense
29-Mar-2014, 19:48
What does 1:1 mean? Reproduction ratio on the print, negative?

Richard M. Coda
29-Mar-2014, 20:28
I believe negative.

Jim Galli
30-Mar-2014, 00:35
What does 1:1 mean? Reproduction ratio on the print, negative?

The image on film is life size.

Mark MacKenzie
30-Mar-2014, 09:01
Cool stuff. I have a question. 1:1 occurs at double the lens focal length, right? That is, at 420mm bellows length for a 210mm lens. So would you get the same image with a shorter lens, say a 135mm at 270mm bellows extension?

As a generalization, what lens length do you reach for when shooting 1:1?
Thanks,
Mark

Amedeus
30-Mar-2014, 10:48
Depends on the format you want to cover as the latter is a consideration ...



As a generalization, what lens length do you reach for when shooting 1:1?
Thanks,
Mark

Ken Lee
30-Mar-2014, 10:49
Unless you're using a lens of special design (telephoto, zoom, retrofocus etc.) it takes 2x the infinity focal length to get a 1:1 image.

While it's often easier to use a shorter lens because less bellows draw is required and greater depth of field is available, there is a point at which we can get too close to the subject for convenience.

Coming in close with short lenses we often get foreshortening (http://www.pinterest.com/pin/142637513172384142/): a "look" that we may or may not appreciate.

Mark MacKenzie
30-Mar-2014, 13:55
Thanks, Ken, good points. Richard, I think your flowers are beautiful. What nice tonality! They seem to glow.

What exposures? Looks f32 or so?
and forward tilt on the typewriter keys?

Jim Galli
30-Mar-2014, 14:09
Thanks, Ken, good points. Richard, I think your flowers are beautiful. What nice tonality! They seem to glow.

What exposures? Looks f32 or so?
and forward tilt on the typewriter keys?

Mark, since the bellows is doubled, most 4X5 lenses will cover 8X10 at 1:1. Go take the 150mm off the enlarger and put it on the 8X10 and you'll be surprised and delighted.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/3ModelAs.jpg
3 model a's

I take a different approach. This was purposely done with a petzval because the out of focus area is allowed to just taper into oblivion. Petzval's are great at that. Just another approach to 1:1 stills.

Kirk Gittings
30-Mar-2014, 14:43
Baby Rattlesnake
Fujinon 210W
Arca-Swiss 45 F Metric
TMax 100

http://www.pctype.com/rcphoto/test/Rattler002.jpg

nice Richard.

Ken Lee
30-Mar-2014, 15:47
What exposures? Looks f32 or so?
and forward tilt on the typewriter keys?

I used tilt and swing on both front and rear standards.

Michael Alpert
30-Mar-2014, 16:24
While it's often easier to use a shorter lens because less bellows draw is required and greater depth of field is available . . .

Ken,

Just a little correction: Depth-of-field is a function of image height (the size of the image on the ground glass) regardless of the focal length of the lens. I am absolutely sure that you already know this, but I think your statement is worth correcting for the sake of people who are new to large format photography.

Ken Lee
30-Mar-2014, 17:04
Ken,

Just a little correction: Depth-of-field is a function of image height (the size of the image on the ground glass) regardless of the focal length of the lens. I am absolutely sure that you already know this, but I think your statement is worth correcting for the sake of people who are new to large format photography.

I'm no expert - so please correct me if I'm wrong - but mathematics professor Leonard Evens, one of our forum members, wrote the following in a previous thread entitled 8X10 depth of field. How bad is it? (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?14763-8X10-depth-of-field-How-bad-is-it) :


"One way to think about this is that you have to stop down two additional stops to get the same depth of field with 8 x 10 as you would with 4 x 5 if the angle of view is the same, i.e., the 8 x 10 focal length is twice the 4 x 5 focal length."
A 150mm lens at f/16 has the same depth of field as a 300mm lens at f/32 and a 75mm lens at f/8.

Michael Alpert
30-Mar-2014, 20:11
I'm no expert - so please correct me if I'm wrong - but mathematics professor Leonard Evens, one of our forum members, wrote the following in a previous thread entitled 8X10 depth of field. How bad is it? (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?14763-8X10-depth-of-field-How-bad-is-it) :


"One way to think about this is that you have to stop down two additional stops to get the same depth of field with 8 x 10 as you would with 4 x 5 if the angle of view is the same, i.e., the 8 x 10 focal length is twice the 4 x 5 focal length."
A 150mm lens at f/16 has the same depth of field as a 300mm lens at f/32 and a 75mm lens at f/8.

Although correct, I don't think Prof. Evens comment is the best way to conceptualize depth of field. (He is assuming that you will necessarily increase the image size when you change formats.) A more direct way of thinking about depth of field is as follows:

If you are photographing an object that is, let's say, four inches high and the image on your screen is two inches high, your will have the same depth of field at a given f-stop regardless of format or lens. It is the image-size that is important, not the camera size or the lens's focal length. An image in a larger format will have a smaller depth of field when the image on the ground glass has been enlarged. In this case, you need a smaller aperture to compensate. The image-size determines what is possible; the f-stop choices are secondary. Again, at a given f-stop you cannot change the depth of field by changing focal length or format. At a given f-stop, the only way to increase depth of field is to decrease the size of the image on your ground glass. Of course, a smaller image-size sometimes means choosing a smaller format. I know I am being redundant and a little pedantic; I hope this post is reasonably clear.

Richard M. Coda
30-Mar-2014, 21:35
Thank you Mark... my exposures are at least f32... most more.

Richard M. Coda
30-Mar-2014, 21:36
Thanks Kirk!

Richard M. Coda
30-Mar-2014, 21:38
Arizona Sycamore nuts (seeds)...
Arca-Swiss 45 F Metric
Nikon 120 Macro
TMax 400

http://www.pctype.com/rcphoto/test/Two-Nuts001.jpg

NancyP
1-Apr-2014, 09:01
Thanks for the images.

Randy Moe
1-Apr-2014, 09:44
Inspired by A-Bomb test images
1.25 to 1 macro
FP4+ 5X7
C1, 180mm lens
no spotting
-1 PS exposure to match contact print


113165

Peter Mounier
1-Apr-2014, 10:18
That's pretty cool Randy!

austin granger
1-Apr-2014, 21:02
Yes, very cool Randy. I've thought about trying something like this as well, maybe with one of these "Edison style" bulbs:
http://www.restorationhardware.com/catalog/category/products.jsp?categoryId=cat550006

Thanks for sharing. I'm glad you're up and photographing again.

Randy Moe
1-Apr-2014, 21:36
Thanks guys, feeling better, actually a whole lot better. My hands and feet are finally warm after years of very cold digits.

I triied fancy bulbs, but this is an old 15 watt bulb I removed from a contact printer when I installed 5 watt bulbs.

Then I dimmed it with a rheostat. It was still brighter than I wanted, but the concept worked so I move on.

I like macro.

photonsoup
6-Apr-2014, 08:33
This post is really pushing the boundaries of acceptability, but after reading the recent posts in polariods/fujiroids here goes.......
Cambo 4x5 Ledgend
Symmar 150/265mm convertible
Nikon D300

tulip bud
http://theplumberbryan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BJS_1800.jpg

feather
http://theplumberbryan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BJS_1810.jpg

Frankencamera (taken with a digital P&S
http://theplumberbryan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DSC_0042.jpg

Probably not the best lens for macro, but it was the only 150mm in captivity at the time!

Michael Kadillak
6-Apr-2014, 15:11
maybe 2:1
Yellow Viking Pom
Nikon 120 Macro
Arca-Swiss 45 F Metric
TMax 100

http://www.pctype.com/rcphoto/test/Yellow-Viking-Pom.jpg

Absolutely marvelously well executed. The tonal range is broad and very pleasing. I have to get that 120mm Nikkor Marco out of the bag as you surely have shown what it is capable of. I like the White Chrysanthemum shot as well.

Richard M. Coda
6-Apr-2014, 17:59
Absolutely marvelously well executed. The tonal range is broad and very pleasing. I have to get that 120mm Nikkor Marco out of the bag as you surely have shown what it is capable of. I like the White Chrysanthemum shot as well.

Thank you Michael!

StoneNYC
6-Apr-2014, 20:32
113435

Delta100, wide open, full front standard swing, full rear standard swing... Because it's a swing.... Duh!

Gary Sommer
6-Apr-2014, 23:32
Nice swing, Stone. Very smooth background.

Richard M. Coda
8-Apr-2014, 21:51
http://www.pctype.com/rcphoto/test/FairyDuster001.jpg

Fairy Duster
TMax 100
Arca-Swiss 45Field
Nikon 120 Macro

This is actually only about an inch in diameter in real life.