Improving your vocabulary for LF

[Vaughn]

Thanks for that Vaughn.
I've always had overexposed negs when calculating the B.E.F. by measuring the total distance. I thought my problem was due to a faulty measurement of the extension. I haven't shot close-ups in many years, so I haven't dealt with this in a long time, but I'll have to try again.

There are many ways to skin a cat; http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ws-factor.html

I just use the equation; bellows extension squared divided by the focal length squared = factor

If I am using a 180mm (7") lens and the bellows are extended 10" (from film plane to lens diaphram) then it is 10x10/7x7 = 100/49 = 2 So I double the exposure. I usually want to 'shoot' at a particular aperture, so I usually apply this to the length of the exposure.

[Peter Mounier]

I just use the equation; bellows extension squared divided by the focal length squared = factor

That's the same formula I was using with poor results. That's why I thought my bellows extension figure was too long when measuring the total ext.

[Vaughn]

That is odd, then. First time I have heard of the formula failing. I suggest trying some of the other methods in the link I provided and cross-checking the results. I do not do enough close-up work to trouble-shoot and find the possible error in your calculations. Good luck!

I also use B&W film and usually have resciprocity failure to deal with, so I expose a sheet, process it, then make any needed adjustments in focus and/or exposure.

PS -- probably not the problem, but the factor is a multiplier -- not the number of stops. So a factor of 2 equals one stop increase (or doubling ones exposure time).

[Heroique]

Speaking of darkroom work, mixing ratios, such as 1:3 and 1+3, cause occasional confusion.

For example, 1+3 is misunderstood as "one third" – as in one part A, two parts B, for a total of three.

One might call this a mixed-up solution. ;^)

[Vaughn]

After reading some long threads on that topic, there is no solution!

[Heroique]

Another important word that needs our help is the geometric term "plane" – as in plane of focus.

In many discussions, this "plane" mysteriously grows in thickness or depth, usually by "closing that puppy down" (Thanks, Vaughn).

But a plane, in a manner of speaking, is always infinitely flat.

Here is a case of misusing a word. A geometric plane, by definition, is two-dimensional. Having it be three-dimensional is simply wrong; use a different word!

Hmm, a case of misreading a reply that describes planes as always infinitely flat?

-----
I just have to share some more math vocabulary, since math is so much fun, and this seems to be a recurring phenomenon here:

Let's say someone enlarges a 4x5 negative to an 8x10 print.

Half the people here will describe this as a "2x enlargement," while the other half will describe this as a "4x enlargement." Strangely, each group seems to understand what the other group means, and with a good-natured snicker, will overlook what they consider to be inaccurate w/o offering any overly-precise comments.

Maybe this is a case of half the people being all right half the time, or all the people being half-right all the time. That's for Wittgenstein . But whatever the case, all the people can't be all right all the time.

And of course half of everyone here knows which is right, right? ;^)

[Michael Clark]

Hmm, a case of misreading a reply that describes planes as always infinitely flat?

-----
I just have to share some more math vocabulary, since math is so much fun, and this seems to be a recurring phenomenon here:

Let's say someone enlarges a 4x5 negative to an 8x10 print.

Half the people here will describe this as a "2x enlargement," while the other half will describe this as a "4x enlargement." Strangely, each group seems to understand what the other group means, and with a good-natured snicker, will overlook what they consider to be inaccurate w/o offering any overly-precise comments.

Maybe this is a case of half the people being all right half the time, or all the people being half-right all the time. That's for Wittgenstein . But whatever the case, all the people can't be all right all the time.

And of course half of everyone here knows which is right, right? ;^)

Hi Heroique, which is it ,a 2x enlargement or a 4x enlargement.I'll go for the 4x enlargement, 5x7 gotta be a 2x.?

[zelph]

One to start off – mainly for well-meaning beginners, or veterans who can't break the habit:

When comparing two aperture sizes, it's usually best to avoid the adjectives, "bigger," "larger," "smaller," "lesser," etc.

Better would be "wider" and "narrower."

Poor vocabulary: "I'm using a bigger aperture."

• Better #1: "I'm using a narrower aperture" (if by "bigger aperture" you mean a bigger f-number – for example, f/22 instead of f/16)
• Better #2: "I'm using a wider aperture" (if by "bigger aperture" you really do mean a wider aperture)

Poor vocabulary: "I'm using a smaller aperture."

• Better #1: "I’m using a wider aperture" (if by "smaller aperture" you mean a smaller f-number) – for example, f/8 instead of f/11)
• Better #2: "I'm using a narrower aperture" (if by "smaller aperture" you really do mean a narrower aperture)

In the spirit of improving discussions around here, what's your top suggestion about the many problematic words of LF?

"wider" and "narrower"? Are you talking slot canyons or lenses?

How about open up and stop down?

[Vaughn]

Hi Heroique, which is it ,a 2x enlargement or a 4x enlargement.I'll go for the 4x enlargement, 5x7 gotta be a 2x.?

Going from 4x5 to 8x10 is doubling the dimensions...

[Heroique]

I'll go for the 4x enlargement… [4 x the area]

How about open up and stop down?

Going from 4x5 to 8x10 is doubling the dimensions...

Like it! Like it! Like it!

The clarity around here is spreading like the rays from a rising sun...

Hope we can address some additional LF terms – important and problematic ones – before this party ends...