A Sinar F is great for macro because you can screw on additional sections of rail and attach additional standards, so that another length of bellows may be added. I can shoot 1:1 with my 450mm if I want, but I never have because the bellows would be a sail at such an extension.Originally Posted by Ken Grooms
Most people here are patient with beginner questions. At least they were when I was asking them. Better to ask and get started now.
You have gotten good advice, including an admonition to read a book or two on the subject before jumping in.
But let me address one further point. The picture you linked to, taken with your Nikon D200, has a 2:3 aspect ratio. The 4 x 5 frame has close to a 4:5 aspect ratio. So to get exactly the same picture, you would need to crop your 4 x 5 image in the short dimension. Of course, you probably didn't mean that you want exactly the same picture, but I thought I would mention it. Also, you apparently were using a multiplier of 3 1/3 to get from 75 mm in 35 mm to 250 mm in 4 x 5. Since the aspect ratios are different, the multiplier depends on which dimensions you compare. 3 1/3 comes from comparing the long dimensions (120 mm over 36 mm), which might be a plausible choice. In any case, as several people explained, for a relatively flat subject, like that in your picture, the focal length is not particularly relevant. You would get essentially the same picture from many different focal lengths. But, since the picture is close-up, you would want to choose a relatively longer focal length to have a reasonable working distance.
Here's a "reverse" way of thinking about it:
For shooting things flat on the ground (or floor), you want to be able to look in the ground glass in some comfort. How high that is, depends on your own height - I'm 193cm, so the highest "comfortable height of the ground glass" for me is about 160cm. The lowest is about 80cm, or I'll be too close to the subject.
Now the closest you can get the ground glass to the subject is at 1:1. At that scale, the distance from GG to subject will be (very close to) 4x the focal length. So I don't want to use lenses shorter than 200mm for this. A 200mm lens with the GG at 160cm gets you far enough from the subject that you will need some kind of ceiling support to avoid getting the legs of the stand in the frame, so that's not a problem. Also, since 1.60m allows 1:1 with a 400mm lens those are my limits: A focal length between 200mm and 400mm works fine. My personal preference is a 240mm Symmar, which not only has exellent close-up capabilities but also covers all the formats I use at these distances.
Ole, you always have such a strange though very effective way of looking at things. Thank you!
Ken: Are you aware that for close ups you will have to make an exposure adjustment based on how far you extend the bellows? Not hard to do, and there is a nifty disc system on the web that makes it easy, but if you just meter and get really close and don't compensate for how far out there the lens is, you will get underexposed film. It is best not to discover this effect for yourself.
Re: Can bellows "stretch" lens?
Frank Petroniohad a great chuckle at this parting bit of advice. I hadn't thought of this before but definately the single most important beginner advice I have ever read!Open the film box in the DARK!
Ken obviously you have to come up with your own ideas, but FWIW:
Like any skill, only those with experience can afford to rush LF (and like you I am definately a beginner).
I would advise being happy with digital captures for this autumn (fall). It will come around again. take your time to work out the right equipment and focal lengths, and buy without this sense of rush.
Once you have your equipment, then take even more time to consider focal length composition, lighting and exposure (including exposure compensation for bellows factor). Practice setting different compositions. If what you see on the groundglass isn't quite right, or the light not what you were after, try a different composition, or wait for the right light - every camera setup is good practice.
If you are like me you will still get things a little wrong, but with enough of an image recorded to work out how to tweak things next time to get a truly professional quality image. If you rush in at the moment, I suspect many negatives/positives will be ruined and autumn will be long gone.
Enthusiasm is great, and LF photography really rewarding, but high quality LF equipment and film is expensive, and an unwise choise could be a great waste of money.
good luck and enjoy
Last edited by Brent McSharry; 25-Oct-2006 at 09:07.
One more bit -- Consider taking a workshop where you can see people in action. If you aren't a book learner, seeing people using large format first hand is so much more powerful.
Most of the older, white, upper-middle class, technically-educated, bearded men who participate in these workshops (let's be honest here) are also into nature photography. (Pipe smoking is optional.)
There are all kinds of workshops, from free to luxury expeditions. Sometimes the free ones are more valuable.
Last edited by Frank Petronio; 25-Oct-2006 at 09:37.
I'm not sure I fully understand the question and when I saw the tone of some of the responses I didn't bother reading the rest so if this is repetitive or isn't the answer you were looking for, my apologies. But FWIW, you can get an approximate 35mm >4x5 lens equivalent by multiplying the 35mm length by 3.5. So the 4x5 lens that's approximately equivalent to a 75mm lens is 260mm. You could round down to 240 or up to 300 for two commonly available 4x5 lengths. Of course there isn't an absolute equivalent between 35mm and 4x5 because of the different aspect ratios of the two formats.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
http://www.salzgeber.at/disc/disc.pdf
Thanks!
Thanks for adding that link, Ken. It is pretty slick!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks