Upgrading to LF, dealing with filter's above 77mm

[StoneNYC]

So I just got my first LF camera Toyo 45a, and a schneider 135mm lens, it has a 77mm thread, copal-0, smaller than I thought for LF and as I understand, just a good enough image circle to work for my field camera.

So I tend to standardize on 4 lenses in a kit (like many I'm sure) the 3 normal people get, a wide, normal, and telephoto ... for me the others will be a 90mm or 75mm and a 250mm-350mm lens, and finally for me, I like a lot of macro, and I want a macro specific lens, I'm to understand they are usually in the 150mm realm, I know you can use the bellows to get macro on any lens really, but I want the added depth of field options that macro lenses are designed around as far as the lens elements etc.

ANYWAY, the point (get to the point Stone!) is that, I had standardized on 77mm filter thread size for everything I own, almost all my lenses even the 35mm stuff comes in 77mm as the filter thread, or I have a step down ring...

Now I approach LF and many of the lenses are in the 80mm range, which means purchasing larger, more expensive versions of everything I've come to rely on for a good image, color filters, ND, Circ Pol, Grad density, etc.

How do LF shooters deal with this adjustment, do you just suck it up, or is there a system? if I'm shooting a landscape, can I use a STEP DOWN ring and use a 77mm on say an 85mm lens thread and be ok because the image circle is larger than the surface area? or will I still have issues when trying to tilt/shift etc with vignetting from the edge of the step down area?

Also, I know people say since LF has such a large surface area that the lens quality and such isn't AS important as it is for smaller formats, but I'm not sure that's true, and so does this also apply to filters? can I buy cheaper filters and not lose image quality? Right now I really prefer B+W filters, I've had such issues on foggy days with Hoya and Tiffen brands with all the coatings attracting moisture or when wet bubbling in a bad way instead of a good way that allows the light to get through. I know with LF this is less of an issue as I wouldn't be shooting in a hurricane like I might with my 35mm equipment, but still, rather be prepared then have to upgrade later, I'm of the opinion if I want to do something start with the equipment that's right for the job rather than the "upgrade later" mentality, but only if there will be a need to upgrade in the first place, get it?

Thanks guys! Sorry this was long winded, I just wanted to be clear.

[Otto Seaman]

I'd try the lenses out first and see how well everything sticks before investing in more filters. I don't know of any 135mm 4x5 lens that would have a 77mm thread but maybe you found one (or made a typo)?

Once you get into larger filters then the large squares from Lee or the old Kodak, Sinar, Wratten gels or poly can be used.

But frankly, for most 4x5 lenses there aren't that many that are larger than 77mm thread unless you got the really expensive wide angles and 8x10 coverage lenses... in which case you'll probably end up swapping down in size once you actually use them.

[Alan Gales]

I shoot 8x10 as well as 4x5 and none of my lenses have a filter thread larger than 77mm. In fact only my SA 121mm has 77mm threads.

My point is that you don't have to buy large pieces of glass if you don't want to. There are a lot of options out there.

[Alan Gales]

If you can afford some of those wide angles Otto is talking about, you can afford buying more filters. ;)

[Jim Jones]

. . . can I use a STEP DOWN ring and use a 77mm on say an 85mm lens thread and be ok . . . .

To the point, yes! There are a few disadvantages.

With the lens' aperture wide open and a smaller filter acting like an additional aperture in front of the lens, aberrations and focus shift may occur. Unless this is determined to be no problem, compose and focus without the filter. Then add the filter and stop down. In the unlikely event of doing this for macro photography with a wide aperture and very shallow DOF, you may need to make a slight focus correction to allow for introducing the filter.

Miniature cameras with full aperture automatic metering may give the wrong exposure in addition to aberration and focus shift.

[ROL]

I use 67mm B&W on all (four, :)) of my LF lenses from 110 to 450, shooting 5x7 – the same filters I use for 120 (MF). I step up, not down, with the largest lens being the 67mm 110 (and a 43mm MF). Not dropping names on the lenses, but the LF's are probably the same makes as many here use. I wouldn't recommend stepping down as an encompassing strategy, unless you're certain you have sufficient coverage.

[John Kasaian]

What I don't have glass filters for, Lee polyesters gets called into service. Lee Polyester sounds like a character in a bad sitcom, doesn't it?:rolleyes:

[Alan Gales]

What I don't have glass filters for, Lee polyesters gets called into service. Lee Polyester sounds like a character in a bad sitcom, doesn't it?:rolleyes:

Or a 1970's porno. :D

[Brian Ellis]

"I want the added depth of field options that macro lenses are designed around as far as the lens elements etc."

I've never heard that LF macro lenses produce greater depth of field than a non-macro lens at the same aperture, focal length, and distance from subject. I know of course that they're optimized for close-up photography and have relatively small ranges within which they produce the best results (e.g. 3x reduction to 3x enlargement) but I don't offhand see how the optimization would include greater DOF than non-macro lenses, assuming the above three factors affecting DOF are the same.

With respect to filters, FWIW I've tried pretty much everything you can try for b&w photography - buying a separate set of filters for each different diameter lens I owned, buying one set of the largest diameter lens I owned and using step-up rings, and once using a step-down ring when the difference between the lens diameter and the ring was small. I also used some Lee 4"x4" filters that I just held up to the lens by hand and didn't worry about adapters, step-up or down rings, or anything else except making sure my hand wasn't in the picture.

I don't know that any of these methods was "the best," they just happened to be what I used at various different times. All of them worked fine, it was mostly just a question of how much trouble and expense I was willing to accept. From a pure ease-of-use standpoint the Lee filters held up to the lens by hand were probably the best but those filters are also expensive.

[vinny]

I standardized on 82mm filters for glass ans lee filters for grads, nd's and others. All my lenses that don't have 82mm threads wear step up rings and Tamron snap on lens caps. My lee hood wears a 82mm ring. This setup works for lf and mf of which I have 4 lenses which use 82mm threads.
Your other questions have been covered here in other threads.

[tgtaylor]

Save yourself time and money by investing in a rectangular filter system such as the Cokin or Lee. I use a Cokin X-Pro filter system for 35mm to 8x10 lens which works for all of my lens except for a 400mm 6x7 lens and a 360mm 8x10 (actually 11x14). The largest adapter ring for the X-Pro is 82mm and the thread on the latter two lens are 100mm and 120mm respectively. The Cokin X -Pro filter holder would also accommodate the latter two lens but to date I have not been moved towards its purchase. It's gigantic!

Finally, if I were starting out on acquiring a filter system I'd concentrate on good glass filters rather than resin. Especially for the polarizer, UV, Grad and ND.

Thomas

[StoneNYC]

Hey guys, thanks for all the responses.

Ok I'll try to reply to all rather than one by one.

So yes now that I've been researching more, the lens they I was looking at was a Nikkor 250mm copal-3 and had an 80(something) mm thread, but it's image circle covered 8x10.

Now it's not that I plan to prepare to step up to that size or anything and so I want to buy bigger, it's just the price was good $250 I mean.. I think it was an f/5.7 or something, so I was considering it then I saw the thread size and thought maybe many of the LF lenses were larger than 77mm, as it turns out they aren't so that's good, just a few of the really big ones.

I will not use cheap resin filters period... Haha

I own a set of step up rings just like the other poster (who I'm going to blow up his spot and tell everyone [like we don't already know] that he has a Mamiya 7 43mm lens with a 67mm thread haha, because I have that system too which is why I own the step up rings since I had the 77mm system first).

I tend to ramble.

I discovered that a few canon lenses that in the future I plan on getting have 82mm filters (this is for work that requires digital and those lenses...16-35mm and possibly the newer 24-70mm which both take an 82mm thread). I find it a little ironic that the tiny formats have larger threads than many of the LF lenses.

Hmm I think that's it mostly... Thanks for the help and advice.

In addition, I don't normally move into a format or camera system unawares. I study and learn, and then buy, so I'm here to stay in LF for sure.

For now I've kept my Mamiya RZ67 system, and will always keep the Mamiya 7 as a walk around, it's really amazing. But my work is getting more specific and demands more control, and I looked at some of the tilt/shift lenses and adapters for the RZ and the price was more just to get the lens and adapter than to buy a whole system in 4x5. So I'm here, and I'm staying! Haha

[StoneNYC]

"I want the added depth of field options that macro lenses are designed around as far as the lens elements etc."

I've never heard that LF macro lenses produce greater depth of field than a non-macro lens at the same aperture, focal length, and distance from subject. I know of course that they're optimized for close-up photography and have relatively small ranges within which they produce the best results (e.g. 3x reduction to 3x enlargement) but I don't offhand see how the optimization would include greater DOF than non-macro lenses, assuming the above three factors affecting DOF are the same.

With respect to filters, FWIW I've tried pretty much everything you can try for b&w photography - buying a separate set of filters for each different diameter lens I owned, buying one set of the largest diameter lens I owned and using step-up rings, and once using a step-down ring when the difference between the lens diameter and the ring was small. I also used some Lee 4"x4" filters that I just held up to the lens by hand and didn't worry about adapters, step-up or down rings, or anything else except making sure my hand wasn't in the picture.

I don't know that any of these methods was "the best," they just happened to be what I used at various different times. All of them worked fine, it was mostly just a question of how much trouble and expense I was willing to accept. From a pure ease-of-use standpoint the Lee filters held up to the lens by hand were probably the best but those filters are also expensive.

Well I'm not quite sure I'm correct on the macro lens, but as an example, Mamiya sells a macro lens for its RZ67 system, supposedly has a greater DOF when used with the two extension tubes. Now even at f/22 on my 180mm lens and two extension tubes, my DOF is crazy shallow, and I'm often not able to get the entire subject in focus. I don't own the 150mm but I'm to understand it has a greater DOF because the lens elements are specifically designed for Macro.

I assumed that LF macro lenses are similar, but I could be wrong about all of it...

Anyone who own both a macro and non-macro lens in LF care to comment?

I mean, what's the point of buying a macro specific lens then for LF if the bellows take care of the focusing, there has to be another reason and I can't think of anything else but the DOF but I'm also not a lens technician and I could be all wrong.

[Steve Goldstein]

Depth of field is determined by basic physics, not by lens design. It's a function of magnification and aperture.

Lens design involves tradeoffs arising from the real-world characteristics of available optical glasses and the predominant use of spherical surfaces, which are easier to fabricate. Designers do the best they can to minimize residual aberrations while maintaining manufacturability and meeting cost objectives. A common tradeoff is the magnification for optimal image quality. Most lenses are optimized for performance at 1:10 or 1:20, which gives good results from infinity to maybe 1:5 (generally speaking, there are exceptions). The image can turn quite mushy at macro distances because of the effects of the remaining uncorrected aberrations.

Macro designs are optimized for use close up and give their best performance there. They may not perform as well at infinity as a non-macro, but they will usually far outperform a standard design at 1:1 and thereabouts.

The above is generalization, but is not that far off. There are lenses like G-Clarons that seem to work well over a much wider range. I suspect the designers happened to hit a sweet spot that gave them much more range than they had designed for.

[Otto Seaman]

Using a Toyo 45a - a fine field camera - isn't really going to allow you to do optimal close-up work. It can be done, I've shot with the bellows maxed out on a little Wista, but it pushes the camera out past its design intent and limits the movements and stability that you'll likely want. The cheapest and best option is to also pick up a good monorail camera body - since you started with a Toyo, a Toyo G body is excellent and not going to cost more than a few hundred bucks (i.e. less than a lens).

Bare in mind that lens coverage goes up as you extend the bellows and get closer, so that lens that has marginal or not enough coverage for 4x5 at infinity will be fine at close-ups.

And for years I used whatever worked for macro commercial shots. Often times you're stopping down to f/45 just to hold some depth of field and at that point the lens design doesn't matter, it is almost a pinhole. So go ahead and try whatever is at hand. At macro distances on a 4x5 I've used shorter lenses to keep the maximum extension down to reasonable distance - a 90mm wide - and gotten good results. But you will also see really impressive results from people with studio Sinars (and Toyo Gs) using extensions to get 3-4 feet of bellows. But H@## I've also seen excellent (not too) close ups from a Crown Graphic and a simple 135 press lens used at maximum extension.

Frankly I would start with the 45a and just a couple basic, common, traditional lenses and shoot a lot, then you'll know whether something like the 120mm HM-Symmar or some of the older process lenses might be good additions. It's not like 35mm or medium format where you absolutely need a certain lens to get the job done - with large format you can often get the job done with whatever is at hand.

The biggest factor in 4x5 macro work is having a very steady (strong, heavy) tripod or studio stand and a really stable set-up. Sandbags are not unheard of.

[StoneNYC]

Using a Toyo 45a - a fine field camera - isn't really going to allow you to do optimal close-up work. It can be done, I've shot with the bellows maxed out on a little Wista, but it pushes the camera out past its design intent and limits the movements and stability that you'll likely want. The cheapest and best option is to also pick up a good monorail camera body - since you started with a Toyo, a Toyo G body is excellent and not going to cost more than a few hundred bucks (i.e. less than a lens).

Bare in mind that lens coverage goes up as you extend the bellows and get closer, so that lens that has marginal or not enough coverage for 4x5 at infinity will be fine at close-ups.

And for years I used whatever worked for macro commercial shots. Often times you're stopping down to f/45 just to hold some depth of field and at that point the lens design doesn't matter, it is almost a pinhole. So go ahead and try whatever is at hand. At macro distances on a 4x5 I've used shorter lenses to keep the maximum extension down to reasonable distance - a 90mm wide - and gotten good results. But you will also see really impressive results from people with studio Sinars (and Toyo Gs) using extensions to get 3-4 feet of bellows. But H@## I've also seen excellent (not too) close ups from a Crown Graphic and a simple 135 press lens used at maximum extension.

Frankly I would start with the 45a and just a couple basic, common, traditional lenses and shoot a lot, then you'll know whether something like the 120mm HM-Symmar or some of the older process lenses might be good additions. It's not like 35mm or medium format where you absolutely need a certain lens to get the job done - with large format you can often get the job done with whatever is at hand.

The biggest factor in 4x5 macro work is having a very steady (strong, heavy) tripod or studio stand and a really stable set-up. Sandbags are not unheard of.

Thanks Steve and Otto,

I don't know how to explain this any other way than to say it, I've been working on a Macro Parts project for the last year. I've been using a combination of my digital and film SLR with a 1:1 capable macro lens, as well as my MamiyaRZ67 body and Macro extension tubes to also go as much as 1:1. Being that I've already been working with the Mamiya which is essentially like a tiny crown graphic with no movements haha. So I'm already familiar with the focal length I like best, which is the 180mm lens on the Mamiya RZ body with the larger of the two extension tubes. This almost always is the proper combination I need for the subject matter... which in essence ... is ... genitalia... I was trying to say "portraiture" or macro work to make you assume flowers, but it's a different kind of blooming object. I feel like this community doesn't know me very well, so I was trying to avoid the particular subject matter and still get the info I need, but I can see that it would probably help if you understood what I was going for to a certain extent. this combination of lens's and extension tubes (which I don't need tubes on the toyo45a but I'm just mentioning it to explain how close I'm going) seems to give the best perspective of the said subject as well as makes it the most flattering, it is a project with the intent to make the subject appreciate their own selves and see the subject as something beautiful when they are often ashamed of it (for whatever personal reasons). So the closest I can come to 180mm in Medium format is a LF lens in the 300-350mm range which is about the largest the toyo manual says should go on the toyo45a. The bellows are brand spankin new, and they will be ok.

I'm not trying to be a snob about this, and I certainly don't know everything (by a long stretch) especially when it comes to LF gear and perspective control etc etc.but I've been shooting with a film SLR of some kind for 19 years, with MF for only 2, but I've also been shooting on this project for the past year, about one subject a week, so I'm already very familiar with the focal length I use and would like to stay fairly consistent even if moving to LF for some of the work.

Fair enough?

As far as the camera... well I'm not buying a separate 4x5 rail, I know I can get the results I want from this camera even if it's at the limits of what the camera is capable of, and often I'm on location and not shooting in studio, which is why I chose this, because it's "portable". Someday, if I ever end up doing Collodion work, then I'll get a studio / rail camera.

One last thing about macro work, why I had the perspective I had about depth of field with regards to macro, is that the 35mm macro lens I have goes to f/32 and even at that f stop, I have a very shallow DOF, but was told that other macro lenses with different element designs would give me greater depth, this was from the canon lens dealer. I'm sure I just misunderstood what he meant, or said, or I"m missing some key info, but the lens I own is a 50mm, the current canon macro lenses are in the 100mm range, what would confuse me is that the 50mm would have much more depth I THOUGHT than the 100mm at a given aperture, but I'm not seeing those results, so I was under the assumption that the lens element design actually allowed for greater DOF, obviously as you said Steve I'm wrong, so thanks for explaining and correcting my bad understanding.

Hope I didn't come off too harsh, or to difficult, but I do generally know what I want, so I'll be in search for a 300mm lens :)

[pasiasty]

Depth of field is determined by basic physics, not by lens design. It's a function of magnification and aperture.
That is of course true, but apparent DOF might be also determined by lens design, mostly by how (un-)sharp it is within DOF. In 19th century there were lenses purposely design a bit blur, to achieve greater apparent DOF.

[pasiasty]

I shoot 8x10 as well as 4x5 and none of my lenses have a filter thread larger than 77mm. In fact only my SA 121mm has 77mm threads.
Well, I stick to 4x5 and 5x7 and two of my five lenses have M95x1 thread (Xenar 240/3.5 and Tele-Arton 360/5.5). Fortunately, M95x1 filters aren't that expensive if you buy old Soviet-made; of course only basic ones, nothing as warming or cooling ones for colour or centre-filter.

Half of current Schneider's lenses has also filter thread larger than 77mm, but if you can afford any, you need not to bother filter prices :)

[Otto Seaman]

Well go for it... although doing 1:1 macro with a 300mm on a Toyo 45a will mean you'd do better with XXL elephant genitalia than humans'. You'll see....

[jb7]

I use 82mm filters where possible, all lenses are fitted with an appropriate step ring and pinch type lens cap. Standardization is good...

Sorry, was that the question?

[BrianShaw]

I still use Kodak Wratten gel filters in a filter holder on my lens hood. They don't seem to care what the diameter of the lens.

[LF_rookie_to_be]

Another 82mm filters user here. Mine are a mixture of Hoya, Heliopan and Kaiser-branded "Made in Japan", about 15 in total. They screw directly on 90mm, step-ups for 121mm to 480mm. All were bought either used or NOS/BNIB and were pretty cheap and in great shape. But the key step-up, 77-82 Heliopan, surely wasn't cheap.

[StoneNYC]

Another 82mm filters user here. Mine are a mixture of Hoya, Heliopan and Kaiser-branded "Made in Japan", about 15 in total. They screw directly on 90mm, step-ups for 121mm to 480mm. All were bought either used or NOS/BNIB and were pretty cheap and in great shape. But the key step-up, 77-82 Heliopan, surely wasn't cheap.

Seems like 82mm is a good standard, I wish I had just realized that before I standardized on 77mm but as many mentioned the newer lenses that take larger filters are much more expensive so I'll stick with 77mm for now and then try and choose good, cheap, NON-larger than 77mm thread lenses for now.

[StoneNYC]

Well go for it... although doing 1:1 macro with a 300mm on a Toyo 45a will mean you'd do better with XXL elephant genitalia than humans'. You'll see....

Hmm so if 180 works on the RZ with bellows extended you're saying the 300ish lens WON'T? Why? Can you explain?

[Otto Seaman]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?89946-1-1-on-8x10-bellows-length-question

How long is the bellows of your 45a? I believe the newer 45ax has a 324mm bellows. So you'd be doing good to use a 300mm lens at infinity to about two meters.

Not knocking the camera and heaven knows we need more clinical, detailed pictures of vaginas since they are distant memories to many of us, but you would have to use a much shorter lens, like a 150mm, to get 1:1.

Focal lengths that work well for smaller formats do not necessarily scale up proportionately with large format. Lots of people shoot 35mm/DSLR portraits with 85-105mm lenses but find that hanging a 450mm lens on their 4x5 cameras is very cumbersome ~ and surprisingly a shorter lens won't look or feel as short as you fear in actual use.

[BrianShaw]

... since they are distant memories to many of us...

Speak for yourself, please. :)

[Leigh]

... you would have to use a much shorter lens, like a 150mm, to get 1:1.
Any lens will deliver a 1:1 image when the distance from its rear node to the film = twice its focal length and the subject is in focus.
That's true whether the FL is 10mm or 1000mm.

Cameras designed for accurate ratio work (reproduction and process cameras) fix the lens position relative to the film
for the desired ratio, then move the subject to focus the image.

With smaller (view) cameras this can be done by locking the front standard at the right distance and moving the entire camera to focus.

- Leigh

[Otto Seaman]

Any lens will deliver a 1:1 image when the distance from its rear node to the film = twice its focal length and the subject is in focus.
That's true whether the FL is 10mm or 1000mm.

Cameras designed for accurate ratio work (reproduction and process cameras) fix the lens position relative to the film
for the desired ratio, then move the subject to focus the image.

With smaller (view) cameras this can be done by locking the front standard at the right distance and moving the entire camera to focus.

- Leigh

That's nice but it's not really relevant.

The guy simply wants to get a tight pussy onto his sheets, not for reproductive purposes but for art's sake. Hasn't that been a universal theme for artists since the first cave drawings? Is there any higher calling?

As a practical matter, shooting real close with large format is a matter of diminishing returns... the longer lenses, vibration, bellows factor, etc. all conspire against you making a sharp, well exposed photo. Especially with a live subject that will move ever so slightly, you will often find the best "printed on the page" photo quality from a smaller format. It also allows you to shoot that live subject with variations far easier/faster and perhaps better.

I'd also consider working distance of the lens, considering the personal hygiene and sexual harassment issues. Cocking a shutter might get you in trouble.

[StoneNYC]

That's nice but it's not really relevant.

The guy simply wants to get a tight pussy onto his sheets, not for reproductive purposes but for art's sake. Hasn't that been a universal theme for artists since the first cave drawings? Is there any higher calling?

Hey, if the shot is good, I may use it for reproductive purposes ;) it will cost you though...

This is art to me though, it's not a perv thing, in fact, part of how it started was all the cheesy porno vag shots I've seen, so I wanted to make art from it.

The instruction manual says at full extension it's 304.1mm on the specs for the extension, yet the text says 324mm, but perhaps that's including the fact the lens board adds an extra 20mm? The Toyo45aII which is identical to the 45a, the toyo site also says the toyo45ax is identical to the 45aII so it should be the same.

There's also apparently a 100mm extension bellows you can attach to the BACK of the 45a to use up to a 500mm telephoto lens according to the manual. The huge amount of flexibility and options with this field camera is why I got it.

So maybe I won't get 1:1, I guess I'll just have to shoot with my Mamiya for now and test out the lens on the next model to see how it fairs. All I know was I didn't like the look of peoples faces from the portraits I had with my 135mm schneider and it's the same thing that bothers me about 40mm lenses for portraits, so I'm guessing I won't like vaginas with the lens I have either... they will look too warped I think.

Thanks for being cool Otto, if you're near NY/CT/MA (New England area) let me know, would love to geek out and learn.

[Michael Cienfuegos]

That's nice but it's not really relevant.

The guy simply wants to get a tight pussy onto his sheets, not for reproductive purposes but for art's sake. Hasn't that been a universal theme for artists since the first cave drawings? Is there any higher calling?



This pussy was getting uptight early on in the photo shoot. As a retired RN I saw enough of the other kind to last a lifetime. Other than the one I live with, I really don't want to see any others. :(
99491

[Leigh]

The instruction manual says at full extension it's 304.1mm on the specs for the extension, yet the text says 324mm...
There are two lens parameters that are similar but unrelated.

First is the optical focal length (aka OFL) of the lens. This is the distance from the rear node to the film when focused at infinity.
While this is an accurate and useful value from an engineering standpoint, it's useless for photographers because you don't know where the rear node is located.

Second is the "flange focal distance" or "flange focal length" (FFD or FFL).
This is the distance from the front of the lensboard* to the film when focused at infinity.
You could preset the front standard at that distance, mount the lens, and an infinity image would be focused accurately.

The optical focal length and the FFL are both fixed by the lens design, and cannot be changed.
However, their relationship can be changed by altering the design.

The rear node, which determines the optical focal length, can be anywhere inside or outside of the lens.
With telephoto designs the rear node is usually far in front of the front element.

For your lens, I expect 324mm is the true optical focal length (nominal being 325mm), and 304.1mm is the FFL.

- Leigh

*NB: It's really measured from the rear mounting surface of the shutter, which is the front of the lensboard for flat boards
when no lens extensions are used at the back. Extensions may be present on Copal #3 shutters and others.

[Alan Gales]

That's nice but it's not really relevant.

The guy simply wants to get a tight pussy onto his sheets, not for reproductive purposes but for art's sake. Hasn't that been a universal theme for artists since the first cave drawings? Is there any higher calling?

:p

[StoneNYC]

There are two lens parameters that are similar but unrelated.

First is the optical focal length (aka OFL) of the lens. This is the distance from the rear node to the film when focused at infinity.
While this is an accurate and useful value from an engineering standpoint, it's useless for photographers because you don't know where the rear node is located.

Second is the "flange focal distance" or "flange focal length" (FFD or FFL).
This is the distance from the front of the lensboard* to the film when focused at infinity.
You could preset the front standard at that distance, mount the lens, and an infinity image would be focused accurately.

The optical focal length and the FFL are both fixed by the lens design, and cannot be changed.
However, their relationship can be changed by altering the design.

The rear node, which determines the optical focal length, can be anywhere inside or outside of the lens.
With telephoto designs the rear node is usually far in front of the front element.

For your lens, I expect 324mm is the true optical focal length (nominal being 325mm), and 304.1mm is the FFL.

- Leigh

*NB: It's really measured from the rear mounting surface of the shutter, which is the front of the lensboard for flat boards
when no lens extensions are used at the back. Extensions may be present on Copal #3 shutters and others.

Ahh, this makes sense, so basically what I suspected except said correctly hahaha

[StoneNYC]

This pussy was getting uptight early on in the photo shoot. As a retired RN I saw enough of the other kind to last a lifetime. Other than the one I live with, I really don't want to see any others. :(
99491

At first I was trying to figure out ho Michael was a girls name... then I realized you were speaking of your wife haha (or cat?).

As a retired male RN not sure you had as much experience with women complaining about the look of their vagina but I've heard story after story of women who are ashamed of their own and think some minuscule design difference between theirs and the one they saw on the internet means theirs is ugly or broken. A few women I've encountered who had larger than normal inner labia had also been raped as children, and they thought the reason they were so "messed up" was because of that terrible thing that happened to them somehow "disfigured" them, but truly none of that was the cause, and this is where this project began, to make women feel good about themselves and not ashamed. Anyway to be fair men have similar issues and so I decided to do both.

Anyway thanks for helping, I've shot a lot, but none on LF and so I can't post them here, and APUG starts crying sometimes when I show boobs so I'll share when I have someone comfortable with me sharing it on the web (the plan is a book so I've allowed people to give me preferences on what they are comfortable with and not as far as where the images go with exception of the book itself and any print shows I might have to promote the book) so many I won't put on the web.

Thanks.

[Leigh]

I've shot a lot, but none on LF and so I can't post them here
You can post them in the "Safe Haven for Tiny Formats" thread in the Lounge. We'd love to see them.

- Leigh

[StoneNYC]

You can post them in the "Safe Haven for Tiny Formats" thread in the Lounge. We'd love to see them.

- Leigh

Eh, I posted there a few times and no one said anything so I won't now LOL :)

I may, but let me shoot some LF first :)

[Otto Seaman]

Eh, I posted there a few times and no one said anything so I won't now LOL :)

I may, but let me shoot some LF first :)

It's the same three guys on that thread and they compliment each other back and forth. It's like the motion of using a push-pull zoom lens ;-p

[Michael Cienfuegos]

Was talking about my GF, that's her kitty. I've been widowed for eleven years. I worked mostly with geriatric patients, many of them were all together between the ears and a delight to care for. As for the photography, women are much easier than cats, this little Persian has quite the attitude, worse than most women I have had to deal with.

LF macro is a challenge. My Kodak 2D has plenty of bellows extension, I just don't have the patience for doing it with the large format. I've done some with my Mamiya RB67, but would just as soon use my Nikon D700 and the macro lenses I have for that kit, it's one of the reasons I bought it. Good luck with your project.

[StoneNYC]

Was talking about my GF, that's her kitty. I've been widowed for eleven years. I worked mostly with geriatric patients, many of them were all together between the ears and a delight to care for. As for the photography, women are much easier than cats, this little Persian has quite the attitude, worse than most women I have had to deal with.

LF macro is a challenge. My Kodak 2D has plenty of bellows extension, I just don't have the patience for doing it with the large format. I've done some with my Mamiya RB67, but would just as soon use my Nikon D700 and the macro lenses I have for that kit, it's one of the reasons I bought it. Good luck with your project.

Thanks, the Mamiya SLR is a great system, I almost wish I had gotten the RB as I've run into trouble with long exposures on cold nights, the battery dies and the shutter closes while I'm in my car warming up and I don't know it even happens. So now I have the LF which means I don't have to worry shoot that. Apparently it makes me legit too, I just did my first night exposure and usually the cops tell me to pack up after dark, this one saw the bellows and said "oh you're a real photographer! Ok carry on" and left.. Hah!

[StoneNYC]

One correction I have to make, I was filling in my info about what camera I own (since I finally own a LF camera) and realized the lens I have is not a 135mm it's a 150mm ... I don't know how I confused this, but I got it 6 months ago and haven't looked at it since so I'm sure it has something to do with that.

BUT this means that I can do exactly 1:1 macro if I want (according to the manual) so I guess I'll try it out and see... :)

[StoneNYC]

*sigh* I was out doing night exposures last night, I REALLY need a GG Loupe.. Focussing was near impossible...

Anyone care to educate me on what's out there? Which is better of there are different magnifications I would probably want a higher one, and prices? I don't have much left to spare but realize I need this. I also need a real dark cloth but have been using some duvytine cloth I had lying around from when I used to breathe fire which works ok for now.

[Otto Seaman]

The magnification depends on your eyes and also the texture of the ground glass and fresnel. Most people use 4x to 8x but it depends so you either try a higher and lower powered one or just settle for what's at hand and adapt yourself to it.

A simple $8 plastic loupe will work fine in most cases but with wider angle lenses, the corners of the ground glass tend to get dark and some people prefer a tilting Silvestri style loupe because then they can see into the corners. If you have a focusing hood then you may want a longer "hood" loupe that extends deeper than the shade. Otherwise, the design doesn't matter much but it is nice to have a attachment for a cord or necklace, and diopter adjustment is necessary as you get older/need glasses.

In most cases the loupe you use for looking at film on a light table will do a nice job as well. Even a 50mm SLR lens reversed will be a nice loupe.

Dark cloths are the same way - some people like towels, jackets, black t-shirts. Others swear by custom Goretex ones with Velcro and elastic openings. I think the fancy ones are a stupid waste of money myself but YMMV.

[Bob Salomon]

*sigh* I was out doing night exposures last night, I REALLY need a GG Loupe.. Focussing was near impossible...

Anyone care to educate me on what's out there? Which is better of there are different magnifications I would probably want a higher one, and prices? I don't have much left to spare but realize I need this. I also need a real dark cloth but have been using some duvytine cloth I had lying around from when I used to breathe fire which works ok for now.

What might be the most educational for you would be to go to Foto Care Ltd when you are in Manhattan. They are very knowledgable. They have experience with people who have done similar projects as yours, except with different subjects, and they rent cameras and lenses which is the easiest way for you to see which lens will work best for you.

As for DOF, No lens of a given focal length using an aperture like your lens has will have greater DOF then another lens of the same focal length at the same aperture.

But what your view camera can do is control the plane of sharp focus. You do that by tilting or swinging the lens standard or the back. If you do it on the back that will also change the shape of the subject. Doing it from the front does not change the shape.

When you stop down to increase DOF to those very small apertures on your shutter (or your lens with your Mamiya or digital camera) you will degrade the image due to diffraction. That you usually do not want to do unless it is for an artistic reason.

A 180mm lens on 6x7cm has a horizontal angle of view of 21°. Since a 300mm lens on 4x5" has a horizontal angle of view of 23° you would need an even longer lens to match the 180 and your camera does not have that capability. Close, but not quite.
Just as an example, a Rodenstock 300mm Apo Sironar S has a flange focal length of 277mm. So you could reach infinty with your camera and be able to focus a little closer with the 23+mm of bellows not needed for infinity. To reach 1:1 with that 300mm lens you would need 554mm of extension.

One thing you might consider is using a 180mm lens on your view camera and a 6x7cm roll back. That will give you what you get on your Mamiya but you could then use your camera's tilts and swings to control your plane of sharp focus and stop down to f22 to get maximum depth of field without diffraction. Using a 180mm macro for a view camera like the Apo Macro Sironar you would need 356.5mm of bellows extension to reach 1:1 so you might be able to obtain this with that extension bellows you mentioned.

You also mentioned having a problem at night. Your camera does have a Fresnel screen installed, correct?

[Ed Bray]

I adapted a Horseman Bellows hood to fit my Canham as the Horseman hood is much more versatile than the Canham version. It has both a front gelatine/vignette slot along with a rear filter slot (takes 125mm filters) and also rotates to allow the use of graduated filters.

I bought a number of Hitech and Lee 100mm filters and mounted them in 2mm Styrofoam sheets to take them up to the 125mm I need to use them in the Bellows hood. It also encourages me to use the hood more than I would otherwise.

[StoneNYC]

What might be the most educational for you would be to go to Foto Care Ltd when you are in Manhattan. They are very knowledgable. They have experience with people who have done similar projects as yours, except with different subjects, and they rent cameras and lenses which is the easiest way for you to see which lens will work best for you.

As for DOF, No lens of a given focal length using an aperture like your lens has will have greater DOF then another lens of the same focal length at the same aperture.

But what your view camera can do is control the plane of sharp focus. You do that by tilting or swinging the lens standard or the back. If you do it on the back that will also change the shape of the subject. Doing it from the front does not change the shape.

When you stop down to increase DOF to those very small apertures on your shutter (or your lens with your Mamiya or digital camera) you will degrade the image due to diffraction. That you usually do not want to do unless it is for an artistic reason.

A 180mm lens on 6x7cm has a horizontal angle of view of 21°. Since a 300mm lens on 4x5" has a horizontal angle of view of 23° you would need an even longer lens to match the 180 and your camera does not have that capability. Close, but not quite.
Just as an example, a Rodenstock 300mm Apo Sironar S has a flange focal length of 277mm. So you could reach infinty with your camera and be able to focus a little closer with the 23+mm of bellows not needed for infinity. To reach 1:1 with that 300mm lens you would need 554mm of extension.

One thing you might consider is using a 180mm lens on your view camera and a 6x7cm roll back. That will give you what you get on your Mamiya but you could then use your camera's tilts and swings to control your plane of sharp focus and stop down to f22 to get maximum depth of field without diffraction. Using a 180mm macro for a view camera like the Apo Macro Sironar you would need 356.5mm of bellows extension to reach 1:1 so you might be able to obtain this with that extension bellows you mentioned.

You also mentioned having a problem at night. Your camera does have a Fresnel screen installed, correct?

Yes but sadly I have the RZ system not RB so the lens shutter is electronic and can't be fired manually, I may purchase a 180mm RB lens since they do attach to my extension tubes (which is how I get 1:1 on the Mamiya) so that will give me a lot of room but the tubes may limit the area of light hitting the 4x5 film, I may just use the shorter one which might allow a full image without vignette.

The night exposure was at 2 am (well 1:30am to 4 am with two exposures) with no moon light, I'm not sure if anything even exposed as the longest exposure was an hour and 20 minutes at f/11 but I'm used to using Acros100 and this was Foma100 so I'm not familiar with it's reciprocity failure curve over an hour period.

I also had a companion with me and got distracted and went over my time, it was supposed to be one hour only, but I was distracted... Haha so that may have benefited my exposure, if she didn't knock the tripod leg.. Which I can't be sure if she did or not.

[Bob Salomon]

Yes but sadly I have the RZ system not RB so the lens shutter is electronic and can't be fired manually, I may purchase a 180mm RB lens since they do attach to my extension tubes (which is how I get 1:1 on the Mamiya) so that will give me a lot of room but the tubes may limit the area of light hitting the 4x5 film, I may just use the shorter one which might allow a full image without vignette.

The night exposure was at 2 am (well 1:30am to 4 am with two exposures) with no moon light, I'm not sure if anything even exposed as the longest exposure was an hour and 20 minutes at f/11 but I'm used to using Acros100 and this was Foma100 so I'm not familiar with it's reciprocity failure curve over an hour period.

I also had a companion with me and got distracted and went over my time, it was supposed to be one hour only, but I was distracted... Haha so that may have benefited my exposure, if she didn't knock the tripod leg.. Which I can't be sure if she did or not.

You could not use your Mamiya lens. You would need a view camera lens.

To make a meaningful difference in exposure you would have had to been at least 15 minutes distracted on a one hour B&W exposure. 2 hour exposure would have only been 1 stop over.

[StoneNYC]

You could not use your Mamiya lens. You would need a view camera lens.

To make a meaningful difference in exposure you would have had to been at least 15 minutes distracted on a one hour B&W exposure. 2 hour exposure would have only been 1 stop over.

I don't understand your first statement.

I was 28 minutes distracted to be exact ;) it was a very good 28 minutes to be distracted...

[John Kasaian]

This is quite an entertaining thread!

[redrockcoulee]

Seems like 82mm is a good standard, I wish I had just realized that before I standardized on 77mm but as many mentioned the newer lenses that take larger filters are much more expensive so I'll stick with 77mm for now and then try and choose good, cheap, NON-larger than 77mm thread lenses for now.

I have only one LF lens that takes 77mm and two for my Pentax that takes that size, everything else is smaller. So I got two sets of filters, 49mm which some of them are decades old and the 77mm and use step up rings. Guess I should say three sets of filters as Hasselblad had some Bay60 for sale really cheap so when with them as well.


There are tons of great lenses that use 77 or smaller filters. No need regretting your choice at this point.

[StoneNYC]

I have only one LF lens that takes 77mm and two for my Pentax that takes that size, everything else is smaller. So I got two sets of filters, 49mm which some of them are decades old and the 77mm and use step up rings. Guess I should say three sets of filters as Hasselblad had some Bay60 for sale really cheap so when with them as well.


There are tons of great lenses that use 77 or smaller filters. No need regretting your choice at this point.

Yes we got that cleared up earlier thanks :)

[StoneNYC]

This is quite an entertaining thread!

Yea I should have called this "hi I'm new to LF and have lots of problems and questions" instead hahahahaa

[Bob Salomon]

I don't understand your first statement.

I was 28 minutes distracted to be exact ;) it was a very good 28 minutes to be distracted...

So if you were making a 1 hour exposure you were a half stop over.

[Bob Salomon]

I don't understand your first statement.

I was 28 minutes distracted to be exact ;) it was a very good 28 minutes to be distracted...

Mamiya lenses do not work on a view camera.

[StoneNYC]

Mamiya lenses do not work on a view camera.

Why? The RB's are manual aren't they? You can open an aperture on it and shutter right? Just make a custom board that locks the RB lens (hack an RB body for the mount maybe) and it should work just fine, the image circle should be good at macro because of bellows extension.

[Dan Fromm]

Oh my. Misleading topic. Not about filters at all, not really. More about porn, sorry, art and how to make it with a view camera and macro. I've read the thread from start to finish (post #54), am surprised that no one has suggested that the OP try reading a book instead of getting somewhat random answers to random questions ...

Stone, spend some of your wealth on a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography. Available used from booksellers all over the internet, they can be found via, in alphabetical order, abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, ... And then read the book closely.

[Otto Seaman]

Or just buy the Mapplethorpe book and save yourself a lot of trouble ;-p

I know I've suffered from getting hit with the elephant ears while personally suffering the ignobility of having an unattractive ball sack but I still take my blows with gratitude. Good luck on your quest.

[erie patsellis]

Why? The RB's are manual aren't they? You can open an aperture on it and shutter right? Just make a custom board that locks the RB lens (hack an RB body for the mount maybe) and it should work just fine, the image circle should be good at macro because of bellows extension.

Yes, in fact they do. Quite well in fact.


Erie

[photonsoup]

I bought the books, but I had more fun figuring it out myself. Well, I've actually been to busy with real life to solve my LF macro challenges, However.... here's some sample images. Warning not strictly LF! I mounted my Nikon d300 to my Cambo Legend for quick feedback.

Remember these were taken with a 1.5 crop sensor. all were in full afternoon sun. ISO was 400
i50mm Schnieder Symmar Bellows extended to the maximun distance on the rail, ~400mm + ~20 to 30mm from regular film plane to digital sensor
These are the f-stops marked on the lens, at this extension they are nowhere near what the actual f-stop will be. If I had the actual focal length used it would be easy to calculate actual f-stops were.
The first one is 1.3 seconds f32
The second is 1/30 second f5.6
The third just shows the entire tulip bud for reference probably about 2" tall
995559955699557

As you can see, stopping down for greater depth of field really costs image quality in diffraction. There was no wind to cause movement, but 1.3 seconds is a long time for such a small subject.
I used Liveview to focus and eliminate mirror slap, and a remote shutter release.

[photonsoup]

I forgot to add a picture of FrankenCamera
99558

[StoneNYC]

I forgot to add a picture of FrankenCamera
99558

Hah!! Good name!

[StoneNYC]

Oh my. Misleading topic. Not about filters at all, not really. More about porn, sorry, art and how to make it with a view camera and macro. I've read the thread from start to finish (post #54), am surprised that no one has suggested that the OP try reading a book instead of getting somewhat random answers to random questions ...

Stone, spend some of your wealth on a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography. Available used from booksellers all over the internet, they can be found via, in alphabetical order, abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, ... And then read the book closely.

Thank you Dan for your thoughts, but opinions on one brand over another or one technique over another cant often be discussed with a book.

This is a forum for discussion is it not? Sometimes threads have a mind of their own, there was one thread I saw once that was originally about developer temperature and migrated to bread baking, and stayed that way for a year. And that was ok. The original topic's answer was given, and rather then start 10 new topics, I continued my quarry. I cannot change the topic thread, and those who don't want to continue can unsubscribe can they not?

I do value books, but I'm not a book learner, I do better with discussions and real world experiences, we all learn differently.

Anyway again I do value your insight into reading, and I do plan to pick up the view camera book - bible thing... But for now, I need to know what loupes are out there.

I need to be able to see the ground glass in super dark barely visible light. I will try the reverse 35mm lens trick, I just hope the breach lock doesn't poke my eye out...

[Dan Fromm]

Stone, you haven't read the book and don't know what's in it. You're not qualified to dismiss it.

[Otto Seaman]

You won't see anything on the ground glass in the dark, no matter what loupe or gadgets you use. You have to set up earlier, in dusk, or focus on light sources like street lamps, or get an assistant to hold a flashlight at the focus distance so you can focus on its point of light.

Books are great but some of this is basic photography and common sense.

[StoneNYC]

You won't see anything on the ground glass in the dark, no matter what loupe or gadgets you use. You have to set up earlier, in dusk, or focus on light sources like street lamps, or get an assistant to hold a flashlight at the focus distance so you can focus on its point of light.

Books are great but some of this is basic photography and common sense.

Actually even at night from 1-4 I could see the horizon and the island out in the distance and just did my best to manually focus, we shall see... I'll develop this weekend.

I have very good night vision, so it was more that I couldn't get my face close enough to the GG to tell when the dark/light area was finally in focus perfectly, I could tell when it went real blurry and when it was probably sharp but not perfectly so. And I could definitely see the whole image and frame it etc. the lens is an f/5.6 which helps. If I used a polarizer I would be screwed haha.

I've discovered the camera has "infinity stops" that are adjustable. I assume this changes per lens, but I only have one lens right now so I'll set those for now, that should help.