Shooting eggs - Lens recomendation

[Matthias St. John]

Trying to get eggs to fill the frame. Any suggestions as to purchase or rental of 1200mm hopefully that is not f 18

[ic-racer]

Are these eggs in your neighbor's kitchen? If not, and camera-to-subject distance is not a concern, try a shorter lens. That way you won't need so much bellows extension.

[Steve Goldstein]

What kind of eggs? This will certainly affect the answer. Ostrich eggs are way bigger than chicken eggs, which are way bigger than salmon eggs, which are way bigger than flying fish eggs, which are way bigger than most insect eggs....

Film size also matters. Filling a 4x5 neg with an image of a chicken egg is a different kettle of fish than doing it on 20x24!

With the simplifying assumptions of chicken eggs and 4x5, you might find a reversed enlarging lens to be just what the (veterinary) doctor ordered.

[Walter Calahan]

Shoot 4x5 and use a Nikon, Schneider or Rodenstock LF macro lens. Easy.

I have a Nikkor 1200 mm. You don't want to go there.:eek:

[Matthias St. John]

I am shooting 8 X 10 and Chicken eggs.

[John Kasaian]

B&W or color? How many eggs 'ya got to shoot?

[Matthias St. John]

one egg. being cracked. I want the egg crack to look similar to a mouth opening and the yolk the tongue.

[D. Bryant]

one egg. being cracked. I want the egg crack to look similar to a mouth opening and the yolk the tongue.

Photoshop.

[ic-racer]

I am shooting 8 X 10 and Chicken eggs.

A 150mm should do work fine (4x5 lens) with the bellows draw of most 8x10 view cameras I know of. Those 150s are as common as hen's teeth, so you shouldn't have trouble finding one.

[Matthias St. John]

Thank you all for the advice.
I live in Chicago so I'll be spending 15.00 to rent a 100mm
or I can get a 150 for the same.
HELIX! They got some options for me.

[Jim Jones]

Edward Weston might have used an ancient $5 Rapid Rectilinear.

[Ken Lee]

If you are going to rent, spend the extra few dollars and get a lens designed for close work: a macro lens. A 150 is rather wide for 8x10. The perspective you get, will look a bit exaggerated. Something longer would be better. For example, a 180 or 210, or more.

[walter23]

If you are going to rent, spend the extra few dollars and get a lens designed for close work: a macro lens. A 150 is rather wide for 8x10. The perspective you get, will look a bit exaggerated. Something longer would be better. For example, a 180 or 210, or more.

Depends on the magnification he needs though. To fill an 8x10 with an egg you'd need several times the focal length worth of bellows draw. So a 150 might be more practical.

[Jim Galli]

Do it on your flatbed scanner table. Oh wait, do it on your friends flatbed scanner table :D:D

[aluncrockford]

You might be better off with a 210 or 240 and slightly crop in, the problem with extreme wide lenses is the distance from subject to lens makes it tricky to light , you also should reverse the lens if you go beyond 1-1 and to make life even more perfect the distortion when you go to close will make your egg look a little odd

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/foreshortening.jpg

Here's what we get when we come in too close with a wide lens.

A 150mm lens on 8x10 is like a 75mm lens on 4x5, a 40mm lens on 6x6, and a 25mm lens on a 35mm camera: pretty wide.

[Jim Galli]

Here's what we get when we come in too close with a wide lens.

A 150mm lens on 8x10 is like a 75mm lens on 4x5, a 40mm lens on 6x6, and a 25mm lens on a 35mm camera: pretty wide.

Yeah........, but once you get out to 4:1 it isn't a 150mm lens any more. ;) It's more like a 600mm that says 150 on it. Somewhere I've got a pic of an antique Ford hubcap filling an entire 8X10 frame done with a 150mm Componar that wouldn't fetch the rental fee our friend is going to pay if it was sold on ebay.

The bigger question is why? Why not just shoot it with the D200?

[Ken Lee]

Please correct me if I'm wrong:

The focal length may be "600mm", but the lens is close to the subject.

The shorter the lens, the closer it gets to the subject. Distortion is proportional to that closeness.

[jb7]

Not another, em, eggsagerated perspective thread...

It may be close, but the angle of view is narrow-
certainly nothing like the angle of the same lens at normal distances...

I don't know, but at that magnification, won't the depth of field be tiny?
Might the egg turn out a bit, em, Parson's?

I think Jim's suggestion is a good one...

[Jim Galli]

Not another, em, eggsagerated perspective thread...

In Tonopah, we just put 'em on the back fence and shoot 'em with a 22.

[John Koehrer]

Let's see, Weston,Steichen,Stieglitz I don't think they used specialist lenses for their work. Weston with his $5. RR that he used so much. Steichen didn't he take over a thousand negatives learning to light an egg? Stieglitz, Don't recall much of his work with different lenses.
Technology can be overkill sometimes.

[Ken Lee]

If you took a 35mm camera, and used a 25mm lens - and got real close to an egg, would the perspective be normal ? I doubt it. It's simple geometry, no ?

[jb7]

A Curate's egg, not a Parson's egg-
What was I thinking of-
Egg on my face there...

Ken, with a 25mm lens on 35mm, extension will only be about 10mm to fill the frame.
Using the 150 on 4x5, let's go with the 600 mm extension-

The angle of view is decreased a lot- it's only the central part of the cone that's being used. True, alonger lens will produce a flatter perspective, but I doubt it'll be as extreme as the picture you referenced- plus, it'll probably still be ovoid, anyway...

[el french]

The lens won't change focal length no matter what you do to the bellows or the size of the film. Perspective won't change if you use a 25mm lens or a 250mm lens from the same position. The field of view will change, but the perspective won't. If you want the egg to fill the frame (keep the FOV constant), then the perspective will change when you change focal lengths.

It sounds like a rather interesting project to get an egg to crack in a particular way. Can you use a glass cutter to score the egg first?

[jp]

Perhaps an enlarger lens, maybe even backwards.

[cjbroadbent]

Seriously? Take a look at photoNet (http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00PbmS).
I use the reversible 210 Macro Sironar too - not often, its too long.
I've done eggs for Ilford and jewelry for Vogue and came to the conclusion early on that more than 1:1 is not worth the trouble.
Keep the format down to subject size, shoot just short of 1:1 and enlarge. The stuff looks better.

[ic-racer]

I think some folks are forgetting that when a lens is used for 1:1, the angle of view on the negative is one-half that of when it is at infinity. So, if you like the angle of view of a 300mm at infinity, you will have that same angle of view with a 150mm lens at 1:1.

(Note, the words 'perspective' and 'subject distance' are not present in the above post).

[Thebes]

Let's see, Weston,Steichen,Stieglitz I don't think they used specialist lenses for their work. Weston with his $5. RR that he used so much. Steichen didn't he take over a thousand negatives learning to light an egg? Stieglitz, Don't recall much of his work with different lenses.
Technology can be overkill sometimes.

Everyone likes to talk about that $5 lens. Back then 5 bucks was worth a lot more than today, now you might reasonably find a Tominon or even a barreled Artar for less actual monetary value once correcting for inflation using any reasonable method.

I'd shoot with a smaller format and enlarge. Calculate bellows needs before buying the lens. Figure lighting needs with the severe bellows factor. Figure reciprocity. Figure your DOF needs And I don't see how a camera with a 1200mm lens and the necessary bellows to fill the frame with an egg would fit into a standard residential room.

150mm sounds about right, presuming you can get your lighting right with the lens close. Much longer than that and you might run out of bellows unless you have extra bellows for a monorail system then a 210mm might offer a more pleasing perspective (vs angle of view). I don't think an egg would look odd from under a foot away, its a small item and commonly handled at less than an arm's length.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I would take it only in 4x5 or even better with a RF back on the 4x5 then you have only a bit larger then 1:1 and it gets easier as the Film gets smaller!


In Tonopah, we just put 'em on the back fence and shoot 'em with a 22.

Jim
Thats the reason why you never get chicken in Tonopah because you shoot them bevor they came out of the eggs;--))))

Cheers Armin