PDA

View Full Version : Switching from Small to Large Format and Relative Focal Lengths.



TrePiedi
9-Jul-2017, 20:56
I recently bought a 4x5 camera to begin shooting LF landscape and nature scenes mostly. I have been shooting 35mm and 120 film off and on for years - most recently just shooting 120. Back when I shot 35mm I exclusively used a 50mm fixed focal length lens. With 120 I shoot on a Rolleiflex 2.8F with a fixed 80mm lens. Both these are the "normal" perspective focal lengths for their given format. I have always preferred shooting this way - embodying the perspective of the camera when taking my shots.

My question is whether people who have come to LF from 35mm and Medium Format have found that they continued to use the same relative focal length after they switch to LF - in the case of 4x5 a 150mm lens. Should I invest most heavily in a 150mm lens for my 4x5 since I preferred to use 50mm and 80mm for small and medium formats respectively? Or have people found that when they move to LF the relative focal lengths they were using in the smaller formats no longer applies? I was thinking of investing in a higher end 150mm lens for my 4x5 since I assume I'll mostly be using that focal length.

I'm just curious to hear other people's experiences.

Two23
9-Jul-2017, 21:22
My question is whether people who have come to LF from 35mm and Medium Format have found that they continued to use the same relative focal length after they switch to LF -.


No. I found I tend to shoot different stuff or compose differently with 4x5 & 5x7 than I do with 35mm or 120. With my Nikon DSLR I find I often use my 24mm PC-E lens. With my Chamonix 045n I find I gravitate more to the Nikon 90mm f4.5 instead of a 75mm lens. As far as a 150mm lens, I have one but ended up getting a 135mm, and now pretty much leave the 150mm at home. Not a big difference, but again, I find I shoot differently with LF.


Kent in SD

Jim Andrada
9-Jul-2017, 21:34
+1 on shooting differently and not trying to think in terms of what things looked like on a different camera. Sort of like not translating when speaking a different language I guess. Even when the aspect ration is the same (ie 4 x 5 and 8 x 10) things look different to me. Not to mention that lenses are often not really exactly the nominal focal lengths engraved on them.

Phil_F_NM
9-Jul-2017, 22:26
Kind of apples and pears comparison. I recently moved into shooting 4x5 and happened to get a 180mm Fujinon W. It is mathematically on the slightly "longer" side of "normal" but with the fact that the camera has movement capability, I find the 180mm is just about perfect for me, personally. Now that I can control my DOF and perspective with movements of the standards I find less need to have a wide angle to account for needed DOF. I just compose how I want the image to look and expose. Granted, I DO want to find a shutter for these old Ilex 90mm Caltar optics I have but it's not dire. Just like using a 21mm on a 35mm camera, I'm going to have to do some real work getting a composition I like with that 90mm. I'm taking it slow though. Find your "normal" and get used to shooting with it, I'd say. I'm still learning my 180mm lens, while occasionally popping on an old Kodak meniscus for a specific look to a shot.

Phil Forrest

xkaes
10-Jul-2017, 05:30
This proves what I would have predicted -- If you ask 10 photographers a question, you will get 20 answers. Make that 30.

Think about 35mm for a second. Some photographers recommend using a "normal" lens that is the same length as the diagonal of the film format -- for 35mm, that is 46mm. Others claim that the angle of view closest to human vision is a 43mm lens. So there is no "clean" definition of what "normal" is or should be. That's why in 35mm, photographers can consider lenses from 55mm down to 45mm to be "normal". Some prefer, 57mm, 58mm, and even 40mm. So there really isn't a perfect normal lens in 35mm, and the same is true for medium format and larger formats.

So for 4x5, most photographers will probably use anything from 150mm to 210mm -- and some use lenses wider or longer -- as "normal". In short, what is normal for you will not be normal for me.

I like a slightly wider view. One reason is that I often do a little bit of cropping in the darkroom (much easier in 4x5 that 35mm). You can always remove things from a picture, but you can't add in what isn't there. My most often used lens in 35mm is 45mm, and in 4x5 it is a 150mm, so perhaps that's "normal" for me. Maybe, maybe not, for you. Think about what you prefer to use in 35mm. If you tend to use wider lenses, consider a lens in the 125-150mm range for 4x5. If you tend to use longer lenses, consider a 180, 210, or 250mm.

Your thinking is on the right track, but just like in 35mm, others will try to convince you (for some unknown reason) that you should do it the way they do it. Do it the way YOU should do it!!!

Alan9940
10-Jul-2017, 07:12
I tend to pick LF lenses based on the camera and the types of images I anticipate making with that camera and/or what range of lenses makes the most sense given bellows extension/compaction restrictions, etc. For example, with my Crown Graphic I use a 90/135/240 set. With my Toho, I use a 75/135/200/300 set. All lenses for the Toho, for example, are very small lightweight glass because I pack this camera over long distances.

John Kasaian
10-Jul-2017, 07:21
This is your first LF lens you're selecting, right?

I would be more concerned over the condition of the shutter than the precise focal length. Budget in the cost of a CLA (clean-lube-adjust) just in case. A modern (say 1970s or newer) respected lens by Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon or Fuji in a good shutter will give you a place to start. I'll suggest using it exclusively for about a year---you'll learn a lot about what you want out of a LF lens.

If you're wanting a concrete suggestion for a specific make/model/focal length, then take a look at the works of other photographers who do similar work to what you want to accomplish and find out which lens works for them.

j.e.simmons
10-Jul-2017, 08:29
I had a nice conversation with Clyde Butcher a few years ago. He was still using several sizes of large format cameras. He said that he had lenses for each camera that gave him an equivalent view regardless of camera size. That way he could walk into a scene and determine where to put the camera.

That said, get a somewhat normal lens for the 4x5- say 135 to 210- and shoot with it for six months. You'll know if you frequently wished for a wider or longer lens most often.

Jac@stafford.net
10-Jul-2017, 08:50
I can't speak for others, but to me a normal lens for 4x5 feels wider than a normal for 35mm. It's the aspect ratio which in a horizontal composition is wider on the vertical dimension. It is not all about the arithmetic. It is about the look. Regardless, a 6" or 5.5" lens which allows adequate rise and a little rear tilt will probably be a good introduction to LF. You might even find it the lens for you.

Good luck!

TrePiedi
10-Jul-2017, 08:51
Thanks for all the responses, everyone.

I already picked up a 105mm Nikon and I plan on getting a 150mm copal style shutter lens as well. There are a lot more options in the 150mm range than for 105 so I'm spending more time researching what I want to get for the 150mm. The 105mm was about $200. I might splurge a little more on the 150 since I anticipate using it the most, but who knows.

I think I'll stop at 2 lenses for now and see how I like those before getting anything else. I feel like 105 and 150 are a good starting place. I know a lot of people use 90mm but I have never liked the look and image distortion of really wide angle lenses, so I felt like 105 was a good compromise for going wide but not too wide. I never crop my negatives, preferring to do all my composition in camera.

If I were to go for a third lens in the future it would probably be a 210 or maybe a bit longer, but I wanna see how things work out with the 150 first. Maybe I'll have no desire for a longer lens.

Vaughn
10-Jul-2017, 09:04
Good way to start! I went from 120 to 4x5 -- then slowly up to 11x14 via 5x7, 8x10 (and 4x10). Until I was using the 8x10 for many years, I always used the 'normals' for the formats. In retrospect, I appreciated learning how to see photographically with just the normal lenses.

A nice little Caltar IIN 150mm/5.6 in a Copal 0 shutter is what I have been using for 4x5 ever since I bought it new in the early 80s.

Have fun!

xkaes
10-Jul-2017, 09:07
That sounds like a great price on the lens -- I'm assuming you are talking about the Nikon W 105mm f5.6. Be aware that it has an image circle of 153mm, so you will have basically no ability for movements for exposures at any distance. Check on your ground glass, at infinity, stopped down, to make sure the image is falling exactly in the middle of the screen. I use a Fujinon CM-W 105mm f5.6. It has a slightly wider image circle of 174mm, and even that can be a challenge to work with at distance.

Jim Noel
10-Jul-2017, 10:21
If you are just starting with 4x5, or other LF, I think it a good idea to use a similar focal length until you get used to the system then add focal lengths if you desire.
Since you tend to use a 50mm lens with 35 mm , get a 150 mm for 4x5. There is no need particularly to invest in a "high end" lens.There are dozens of makes of moderately priced 150mm lenses available used. A good starting point is with a Tessar design which were made by basically every lens manufacturer. You should not have to pay more then $200 for a very good 150.

David Lobato
10-Jul-2017, 10:21
The different aspect ratio also affects the relative focal length comparisons. 4x5 will be either taller, or less wide, compared to 35mm. Be aware the 105mm Nikon will just barely cover 4x5.

See here: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf

TrePiedi
10-Jul-2017, 13:24
That sounds like a great price on the lens -- I'm assuming you are talking about the Nikon W 105mm f5.6. Be aware that it has an image circle of 153mm, so you will have basically no ability for movements for exposures at any distance. Check on your ground glass, at infinity, stopped down, to make sure the image is falling exactly in the middle of the screen. I use a Fujinon CM-W 105mm f5.6. It has a slightly wider image circle of 174mm, and even that can be a challenge to work with at distance.


Yeah it's the Nikkor W 5.6 105mm. Thanks for the heads up about the image circle. That's kind of a bummer to hear though. I'm confused about the rational of manufacturing a lens that can barely cover a 4x5. Was it meant for another format???

Vaughn
10-Jul-2017, 14:11
I guess I'll have to take back my "Good way to start!" I was not familar with the 105mm lens, but liked your idea of getting the 150mm. The 105mm probably would make a fine 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 inch format lens.

Can you return it (after checking out the limitations it might have on your camera)? Perhaps trade it for a 150mm and get use to it before deciding which way to go for the next lens?

Alan Gales
10-Jul-2017, 15:10
I own a 180mm for 4x5 and a 14" (358mm) for 8x10 which are equal focal lengths for those formats. I prefer the slightly longer normal for portraits. My friend Ari and I discussed this. He much prefers a 300mm for portraits on 8x10.

A lot of it depends upon what you shoot. Of course we vary anyway. I've always liked wide angles for getting in close and moderate long lenses for landscape.

Your idea of trying a 150mm is sound. If you do decide to later sell and buy another focal length, you won't be out much money doing so.

TrePiedi
10-Jul-2017, 15:33
Ok, I just requested a return for my 105mm lens. The seller has an unconditional 30 day return policy. Except that I have to send it back to Japan which is annoying.

I've been thinking about this today and I've decided I'm just going to get a 150mm lens for now and shoot with that for awhile and not worry about wide or long lenses while I'm learning LF. Then I'll have a better idea of which to get next. Also, in a few weeks I'll be on a week long vacation in the Smokey Mountains and I've convinced my uncle to bring his Deardorff (4x5 backed) so that I can get some lessons. He will probably have a few lenses I can experiment with.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

xkaes
10-Jul-2017, 17:12
I'm confused about the rational of manufacturing a lens that can barely cover a 4x5. Was it meant for another format???

Manufacturers know what they are doing. They know what film sizes shutterbugs use. They have to fight a battle between cost, size, weight, aperture, resolution, etc. AND image circle. Some move in one way and some in the other -- based on what they think will fit the largest needs for the most photographers. The consumer needs to choose based on their needs.

I used to own a 90mm f8. Great lens. Great results. Great Image circle. But too large and heavy.

I decided to go with a 105mm f5.6. Great lens. One f-stop faster. Much lighter and smaller. But smaller image circle -- but then I have a preference for smaller, lighter, faster women, as well!

I decided to make the switch. Others would not have done the same thing.

In the end, the decision is up to the match between what the various manufacturers offer and what you want. YOUR decision. Knowledge is power!

Jac@stafford.net
10-Jul-2017, 19:45
I'm confused about the rational of manufacturing a lens that can barely cover a 4x5. Was it meant for another format???

Simple. The manufacturers make what they can get away with. Speaking here only of a lens I own, I'm puzzled by the 135mm f/3.5 Planar which has just enough coverage to apply a little rise. Sure it is bright but it does not strike me as a lens for perspective control nor a rangefinder press camera lens because few press photographers back then used a wide-open aperture. I have similar questions regarding the 75mm Biogon for 4x5, even though I have some kind of irrational love of Biogons.

Corran
10-Jul-2017, 20:06
My personal opinion and experience is that I use similar angle of view lenses across formats. 55mm on 6x7 and 90mm on 4x5 are my typical wides, and 25/28mm on 35mm (though the aspect ratio is different of course). 90mm and 150mm lenses are really cheap on the used market so no reason not to grab both and see if you like them and resell if not. Or add more lenses as time goes on.

Jim Andrada
11-Jul-2017, 00:34
By the way, I got the 105 Nikon for my baby Technika 2 x 3. But I put it on the 4 x 5 and rather liked it and it's really small and light, so I use it fairly often. But as far as what seems "normal" to my somewhat worn out mind, I mostly have the 203 Ektar 7.7 on the 4 x 5.

TrePiedi
11-Jul-2017, 06:53
By the way, I got the 105 Nikon for my baby Technika 2 x 3. But I put it on the 4 x 5 and rather liked it and it's really small and light, so I use it fairly often. But as far as what seems "normal" to my somewhat worn out mind, I mostly have the 203 Ektar 7.7 on the 4 x 5.

Jim, do you think I should keep the Nikon 105? I do like the fact that it's small and light. I will use it for back packing.

Jim Noel
11-Jul-2017, 07:01
Yeah it's the Nikkor W 5.6 105mm. Thanks for the heads up about the image circle. That's kind of a bummer to hear though. I'm confused about the rational of manufacturing a lens that can barely cover a 4x5. Was it meant for another format???

Yes it was meant for 2,25x3,25 or 6x9 cm.

xkaes
11-Jul-2017, 10:02
Jim, do you think I should keep the Nikon 105? I do like the fact that it's small and light. I will use it for back packing.

There are a couple of 105mm f5.6 lenses that are small and light -- because they have smaller image circles. I've owned the Fujinon NW 105mm f5.6 with an image circle of 162mm. Great lens, but not much movement for 4x5. I finally "upgraded" to the Fujinon CM-W 105mm f5.6 with an image circle of 174mm. A little larger, but not heavier -- important for a backpacker like myself. It's still not a lot of movement, but I don't use that much movement with a lens that wide. Great lens with a perspective I like. There are others as well to consider. Check out

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm (http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm)

When researching any lens it is important to consider all of the factors. Not just in large format. I've got a 28mm f2.8mm Minolta Rokkor-X for 35mm. Great lens. Great results. I've also got a 28mm f2.0mm Minolta Rokkor-X for 35mm. Great lens. Great results. It is twice the size, twice the weight, and cost twice as much. Now I just need to figure out which one to let loose or keep!!!

AtlantaTerry
11-Jul-2017, 20:53
Ok, I just requested a return for my 105mm lens. The seller has an unconditional 30 day return policy. Except that I have to send it back to Japan which is annoying.

I've been thinking about this today and I've decided I'm just going to get a 150mm lens for now and shoot with that for awhile and not worry about wide or long lenses while I'm learning LF. Then I'll have a better idea of which to get next. Also, in a few weeks I'll be on a week long vacation in the Smokey Mountains and I've convinced my uncle to bring his Deardorff (4x5 backed) so that I can get some lessons. He will probably have a few lenses I can experiment with.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

If I may add my thoughts... keep the 105mm lens and use it for a while. You may find that the cost to ship it back to Japan with insurance, etc. will be costly. If after using it for a while you decide it is not for you, put it up for sale - there is always a market for quality lenses since very few are being made these days and there seems to be a resurgence in interest in analog photography. Or just keep it for backpacking.

TrePiedi
12-Jul-2017, 08:55
If I may add my thoughts... keep the 105mm lens and use it for a while. You may find that the cost to ship it back to Japan with insurance, etc. will be costly. If after using it for a while you decide it is not for you, put it up for sale - there is always a market for quality lenses since very few are being made these days and there seems to be a resurgence in interest in analog photography. Or just keep it for backpacking.

Good points. I might just keep it. It's not that expensive.

jim10219
12-Jul-2017, 18:48
I wouldn't hesitate to invest in a good 150. They're cheap enough, and really versatile. That being said, I use my 90mm most with my 4x5's. But I use my 28mm's most with my 135 cameras.

In any case, stick with the one you have for now. LF takes so much time to set up, it's usually no big deal to move the camera closer or further away to compose your shot. Use the first year figuring out the process before growing down the lens acquisition spiral. If you're like me, you'll soon discover you always need different focal lengths from what you own to get the shot you want, no matter how many lenses you own.

neil poulsen
12-Jul-2017, 19:06
If you like the 105mm focal length for 4x5, there always the Fuji SW.

Out of curiosity, what's prompting you to move from MF to 4x5?

TrePiedi
12-Jul-2017, 21:10
If you like the 105mm focal length for 4x5, there always the Fuji SW.

Out of curiosity, what's prompting you to move from MF to 4x5?

In part, curiosity. I want to try something new, and I like the challenge and learning. My uncle shot it for years and he encouraged me to try it since I had been expressing an interest. I mostly shoot landscape, nature and some architecture and it seems well fit for that. I want to see what it's like to have more detail and control. It's not that I'm unhappy with the results I get with my Rolleiflex - in fact it's been really great for what I shoot, and I will continue to shoot 120. I am printing my medium format prints at 20"x20" and framing them and they look really great. I can't wait to see how LF looks enlarged to these sizes and even bigger. I'd love to do a 40x50 print someday.

TrePiedi
13-Jul-2017, 08:38
Update: I shipped the Nikon 105mm lens back today. I'm just going to get a 150mm and take it from there. If I decide I want another 105 in the future I'll probably look into getting the Fuji CM-W which has a slightly larger image circle and isn't much heavier. Thanks for the advice and information, guys. That 4x5 format Lens chart (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html) posted above has been helpful and I was studying it last night.

I'll update again when I get a 150mm.

xkaes
13-Jul-2017, 12:31
My CM-W 105mm is actually the same weight as my NW 150mm. The CM-W 105mm would probably have been lighter than the NW 150mm, but Fuji decided to increase the filter size for its 105mm NW from 46mm to 67mm on the CM-W. Talk about overkill -- almost an entire inch! Plus the increase makes the lens much larger, and as heavy as the 150mm. My only explanation is Fuji felt it made the CM-W 105mm look more impressive. It certainly doesn't need a filter thread THAT large, but since my filter standard is 77mm, it's no BIG deal.

I hope you like the perspective of the 105mm as much as I do. It's much like the perspective of one of my favorite 35mm lenses -- a 24mm f2.0 Kiron.

JMO
13-Jul-2017, 15:02
If you've got the dough, and can find a good used example for an acceptable price, the Schneider 110mm Super-Symmar XL ASPH is really close to the 105mm focal length and an excellent choice for 4x5 cameras with a 288mm image circle. ...

xkaes
13-Jul-2017, 15:21
Makes sense. Checking the recent EBAY sales on used lenses, the Schneider 110 XL goes for $1,000 to 1,500, while the Fujinon 105mm CM-W goes for $150-300. No comparison. Think of the Schneider as an investment.

TrePiedi
13-Jul-2017, 15:26
My CM-W 105mm is actually the same weight as my NW 150mm. The CM-W 105mm would probably have been lighter than the NW 150mm, but Fuji decided to increase the filter size for its 105mm NW from 46mm to 67mm on the CM-W. Talk about overkill -- almost an entire inch! Plus the increase makes the lens much larger, and as heavy as the 150mm. My only explanation is Fuji felt it made the CM-W 105mm look more impressive. It certainly doesn't need a filter thread THAT large, but since my filter standard is 77mm, it's no BIG deal.

I hope you like the perspective of the 105mm as much as I do. It's much like the perspective of one of my favorite 35mm lenses -- a 24mm f2.0 Kiron.

Yeah, I was looking at pics of the Fujinon MC-W 105mm and wondering why the filter thread was so large compared to the relatively small lens element. It still weights less than half a pound though, so it's just unnecessary plastic around the lens.

The Schneider 110 is almost a pound which is a little on the heavy side for backpacking.

xkaes
13-Jul-2017, 16:53
Unfortunately, the Fuji expanded filter thread is ALL metal -- not lightweight plastic. So it adds to the size and weight. Fuji did that to all of its new CM-W lenses up to 250mm. I guess that was an idea to standardize the filter thread. Nice. I like the idea, and it is not HUGE problem for me, but for the shorter focal length lenses, it added to the weight and size, which can be important to some guys & gals, like me.

Once again, it's important to check out all of the specs to make sure the lens you buy is the BEST for YOU!!!

TrePiedi
13-Jul-2017, 19:46
Unfortunately, the Fuji expanded filter thread is ALL metal -- not lightweight plastic. So it adds to the size and weight. Fuji did that to all of its new CM-W lenses up to 250mm. I guess that was an idea to standardize the filter thread. Nice. I like the idea, and it is not HUGE problem for me, but for the shorter focal length lenses, it added to the weight and size, which can be important to some guys & gals, like me.


Fortunately, according to the chart, it still only weighs .49Lbs

xkaes
14-Jul-2017, 05:46
Fortunately, according to the chart, it still only weighs .49Lbs

Whether it's a 105mm or a 150mm, the CM-W weighs a couple of ounces more than the NW version. So the extra large filter thread does add a little weight to both. It also increases the size of each, too. Nothing Earth-shattering, for sure.

And in both series, the 150mm is a couple of ounces heavier (and larger) than its 105mm brother.

167245

So the 150mm CM-W is a little less than 1/4 pound heavier (and larger) than the 105mm NW.

TrePiedi
14-Jul-2017, 16:30
Update:

I ordered a Rodentstock Sinaron SE 150mm f5.6 lens. Should be here next week. Been reading a lot about lenses and this seems to be one of the better ones for its size. It's the equivalent of a Sironar S. I decided to splurge a bit, but think I got it for a decent price.

Anyone have experiences with these?

I'd like to get a yellow filter for it. Any recommendation on best brands for these? If I'm going to have a super sharp quality lens I want to get a good filter.

docw
15-Jul-2017, 20:11
Thanks for all the responses, everyone.

I already picked up a 105mm Nikon and I plan on getting a 150mm copal style shutter lens as well. There are a lot more options in the 150mm range than for 105 so I'm spending more time researching what I want to get for the 150mm. The 105mm was about $200. I might splurge a little more on the 150 since I anticipate using it the most, but who knows.

I think I'll stop at 2 lenses for now and see how I like those before getting anything else. I feel like 105 and 150 are a good starting place. I know a lot of people use 90mm but I have never liked the look and image distortion of really wide angle lenses, so I felt like 105 was a good compromise for going wide but not too wide. I never crop my negatives, preferring to do all my composition in camera.

If I were to go for a third lens in the future it would probably be a 210 or maybe a bit longer, but I wanna see how things work out with the 150 first. Maybe I'll have no desire for a longer lens.

I also use a "normal" lens for MF and my favourite 35mm lens (long ago) was a 50mm. Not surprisingly my favourite 4x5 lens is a 150mm. I use my 210mm about half as much as the 150mm. It is just the way I tend to see things.

TrePiedi
19-Jul-2017, 20:09
So my first lens arrived today, the 150mm Rodenstock Sineron SE pictured below, and I felt inspired to go out and expose a few sheets of film. This was my first time ever using a large format camera so I really didn't know what I was doing. I loaded ten sheets of Ectar 100 into 5 Fidelity Elite holders in the changing bag recently bought. Hopefully that went ok. I decided to do my trial run at a rather conspicuous spot in Brooklyn overlooking the East River and the NYC downtown skyline. I arrived via the ferry shortly before sunset. I only brought two film holders with me as I just wanted to get a feel for setting up and operating things without worrying too much about the pictures. At times I had a small audience of people curiously watching me. I was trying not to look like an idiot as I bumbled around setting up my shot, juggling light meters and loupes. Before I knew it I had exposed all four sheets in a few different locations along Brooklyn Heights Promenade. I should have been more patient because as I finished I feel like the best light was just dawning. I guess I'll have to go back again.

I came away with some initial thoughts. First of all I need to get better at operating the various dials and knobs on my camera and remembering to lock them down well before loading the film. I brought a dark cloth but I found that I didn't really need it. The ground glass was bright enough that I could compose and focus without it, but I didn't spend a long time on my compositions as I was so focused on technical things, so I should probably keep bringing it. This was my first time using a spot meter. I picked up a beat-up Pentax Digital and I'm pretty sure I was using it correctly... Overall, it was fun. A bit of a blur, I should probably slow down more and worry less about losing my light. My goal was just to get my feet wet, not so much worring about what's on the negative. I'm looking forward to shooting more and seeing what some of these exposures look like.


http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/fotografiamia/D842D349-8BE6-44A5-AF4F-5A2035CDEBF2_zps6hjcqsdr.jpg (http://s115.photobucket.com/user/fotografiamia/media/D842D349-8BE6-44A5-AF4F-5A2035CDEBF2_zps6hjcqsdr.jpg.html)

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/fotografiamia/C05C556D-D3C2-4E99-99F6-A0934C71B8DC_zpsdgp4fenk.jpg (http://s115.photobucket.com/user/fotografiamia/media/C05C556D-D3C2-4E99-99F6-A0934C71B8DC_zpsdgp4fenk.jpg.html)

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/fotografiamia/23FB25E3-A5C9-4D2D-A901-B4E86C8C9780_zpsi8qxjxp8.jpg (http://s115.photobucket.com/user/fotografiamia/media/23FB25E3-A5C9-4D2D-A901-B4E86C8C9780_zpsi8qxjxp8.jpg.html)

biedron
19-Jul-2017, 20:51
Congratulations on your first exposures. It may take a few times for things to become more-or-less second nature, though there is always opportunity for mistakes! You might find things a bit more relaxed without an audience - I know I do.

Bob

JMO
20-Jul-2017, 09:34
Even though I've been using my 4x5 field camera for several years now, and to make probably 500+ films in US locations from coast to coast, I NEVER like to have other people hovering around me and asking questions while I'm working with the camera. If there are people nearby who want to get chatty I tell them (in a polite manner) "this type of camera takes concentration to use correctly, and I'll be glad to talk when I'm finished after a few minutes." That usually does the trick, and it's rare that someone is so curious they will still be around after several minutes. ...