How does one do Macro work in LF?

[6x6TLL]

Special lenses needed? Extra bellows draw?

What considerations and kit is needed to do macro work?

I'm thinking insects, plants, things I find outside, etc.

Thanks!

[Bob Salomon]

One way is to use dedicated macro lenses like Luminars or M Componons. Another way is to use reversed enlarging lenses. Another way is to use dedicated LF macro lenses like the Macro Sironar and Apo Macro Sironar lenses. Lastly is to use regular lenses for LF totally out of their optimization ranges.

First and second ways use less bellows but will put the lens very close to the subject which may make lighting very difficult unless you have dedicated macro cold light lighting like the Novoflex or Kaiser or Zeiss systems. Third and fourth systems will need considerable bellows extension and will pull the lens far further away from the subject so, depending on focal length, lighting would be easier.

First and fourth choices will deliver the best results optically, second would be next best, third would deliver inferior results optically compared to the other choices.

First and second choices will deliver the highest magnifications with the least bellows draw.

[photog_ed]

First and fourth choices will deliver the best results optically, second would be next best, third would deliver inferior results optically compared to the other choices.

Bob, by my count you got "third" and "fourth" reversed in this comment.

Ed

[Pfsor]

Indeed. One way, another way, yet another way and lastly - Bob, do you think that somebody will count your ways to see which you mean by the first, second, third and fourth one? Even you yourself got lost in your counts!

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, by my count you got "third" and "fourth" reversed in this comment.

Ed

Sorry, you are correct, thanks!

[Dan Fromm]

OP, shooting closeup out-of-doors with a view camera is very difficult. Unless the subject is very steady, as in well nailed down, and the camera and support are very steady the plane of best focus will move between the time the shot is focused and composed and the time it is taken. Remember all that happens between focus and compose and shoot. If the subject isn't well nailed down wind will move it. The slightest breeze will do it. And stopping down, cocking the shutter, inserting the film holder and withdrawing the dark slide can all shift the camera.

On the whole you'd be better off doing macro work in the field with an SLR.

If you insist on trying to do it in the field with a view camera, work on technique and master it before worrying much about equipment.

And before you start working on technique go to the literature on closeup and photomacrography to learn what you need to master. I've posted a list of links to useful information that includes a list of books on these topics with brief reviews. The first post in http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses has a link to it.

Before you spend a penny on gear buy a copy of Lefkowitz or Bracegirdle. I have both, think Lefkowitz is better for beginners.

[Pfsor]

Sorry, you are correct, thanks!

You might be sorry, but it won't do. If you really want to be comprehensible and correct, edit your post again, number the "ways" and don't let the future readers read, count your ways, then read the whole tread, find out you made a mistake and go back and try mentally to correct your count and your mistakes. In your shoes, I would be deeply sorry for the readers if I forced them to do so. But that is maybe just me.

[Pfsor]

OP, shooting closeup out-of-doors with a view camera is very difficult.
On the whole you'd be better off doing macro work in the field with an SLR.

If you insist on trying to do it in the field with a view camera, work on technique and master it before worrying much about equipment.

And before you start working on technique go to the literature on closeup and photomacrography to learn what you need to master.

Before you spend a penny on gear buy a copy of Lefkowitz or Bracegirdle. I have both, think Lefkowitz is better for beginners.

I agree, LF macro makes more sense in studio conditions where it is unfortunately limited by the "natural" reasons. Small format macro can achieve much easier excellent results that a view camera can just dream about, in the best case.
There are good reasons that nature macro photographers do not choose LF view cameras as they tools. (The best exception was the guy-Wilson A Bentley-who was photographing snow flakes, though... even if he died from it :()

[Leigh]

I posted this in the FoV thread, but will repeat it here:

Hi 6x6TLL,

That's correct. You can do macros with any lens.

The only difference is that the optical design of a Macro lens is optimized for close work, while the design of regular lenses is optimized for more distant subjects. The difference in the image quality on film will vary from slight to not significant at all.

The bellows extension from infinity focus to full-size (1:1) image on the film equals the lens focal length, for all lenses regardless of design or type.

- Leigh

[Dan Fromm]

That's correct. You can do macros with any lens.

The only difference is that the optical design of a Macro lens is optimized for close work, while the design of regular lenses is optimized for more distant subjects. The difference in the image quality on film will vary from slight to not significant at all.

Close, but no cigar. That any lens can be focused at any distance is true. But that's not enough. Way back when I tested a number of lenses to find out how well they performed at magnifications > 1:1. Short answer, most have a range of magnifications at which they perform best and even in their best ranges some lenses are basically unusable.

The best lenses for photomacrography -- the ones I tested included Luminars, Mikrotars (not all all that good, but some are), one projection Summar, MacroNikkors, a 100/6.3 Neupolar -- are significantly better than everything else. I didn't test any relatively low magnification macro lenses like the ones Bob suggested above or any Photars. I b'lieve that Photars are as good as Luminars and MacroNikkors.

OP, don't even think about buying any lenses for closeup work until you've read and understood Lefkowitz.

[CreationBear]

I'm curious if anyone has ever tried one of the better achromatic close-up filters (e.g. the Canon 500D) as a field expedient solution. Probably not the best option for technical, studio work of course, but I'm always looking for ways of leveraging my MF kit...:)

[Dan Fromm]

CB, there are many ways to get the magnification. Your suggestion has worked on 35 mm cameras, there's no reason why it wouldn't work on a roll film SLR.

That said, the big problem with closeup work out of doors is stability. This is where a small format SLR shines, especially with electronic flash illumination, and a view camera doesn't.

[CreationBear]

a view camera doesn't.

Thanks for the input--no doubt the DOF issues complicate matters as well.:) I was curious mostly because I've thrown a "bellows challenged" Horseman HF in the pack to take along on my hikes here in the GSMNP, though I expect my Fujinon 180A will get me close enough for any "detail" work I might want to tackle. (FWIW, I've only seen one reference to using the 500D on a LF lens--in this case, a Nikkor 270/6.3 T ED--but no sample images.)

[Peter De Smidt]

I believe that Craig Blaylock had a book on flower photography with a 4x5, often shooting about 1:1. As other have said, depth of field will be small. There will also be light loss from bellows extension that leads to longer exposures, which itself leads to problems with the subject moving. If I remember Craig correctly, he used to use a light tent in the field to try and minimize wind. It might also help to shoot at the time a day were wind is minimized. Exposure time could be reduced by using flash lighting setups, but this adds bulk and complexity. Shooting such pictures with large format successfully is a real challenge.

[Dan Fromm]

Peter, flash rigs don't have to be very complex. I've got decent flower shots on 2x3 with a 2x3 Graphic (not LF, but subject to the same problems as a 4x5 camera) lighted by a single hand-held Vivitar 283 with VP-1. Sometimes, when there's been no wind and I haven't moved the tripod or camera on tripod when closing and cocking the shutter, stopping down and inserting the roll holder.

[CreationBear]

Sometimes, when there's been no wind and I haven't moved the tripod or camera on tripod when closing and cocking the shutter, stopping down and inserting the roll holder.

Are there any labs that just charge for your E 6 "keepers"?:) At any rate, thanks Peter for the reference--if you were referring to Craig Blacklock, he definitely seems to turn out some nice work. I'll try to turn up the publication you mention.

[Dan Fromm]

Are there any labs that just charge for your E 6 "keepers"?:)

What a nice fantasy! I never found one.

[Mark Sawyer]

Are there any labs that just charge for your E 6 "keepers"?:)

With great film size comes great responsibility...

[Jac@stafford.net]

With great film size comes great responsibility...


That's almost worthy of a tattoo.

[Jac@stafford.net]

What a nice fantasy! I never found one.

That was popular in places of the US in the Fifties for consumer roll film processing. Those were different days when we had two mail deliveries a day, fresh milk delivered to the door ...

[photog_ed]

There is also an article on the subject at

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/macro.html

[Dan Fromm]

That was popular in places of the US in the Fifties for consumer roll film processing. Those were different days when we had two mail deliveries a day, fresh milk delivered to the door ...

Jac, might you be thinking of color negative film? There used to be, may still be, labs that wouldn't print obviously bad negatives and that charged for developing and prints made.

[Dan Fromm]

There is also an article on the subject at

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/macro.html

Indeed there is. And there's a reason it isn't in "the list."

[Greg]

2 suggestions

First get 2 books: The Manual of Close-Up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz, and Close-up Photography, the Kodak Workshop Series. Both available on eBay now for under $10.00 each. both have different strengths and will answer all your questions.

Second... if you are using a 4x5 view camera, invest in a Horseman 6x9 exposure computer with its 4x5 adapter or a Horseman Exposure Meter 45. Think they average around $200.00 each. You will own a "behind the lens" meter. If you shoot color, the meter will pay for itself very quickly. If you shoot B&W, the meter will pay for itself in little time. I've owned and used these over the years. When you get the meter, test it out. Most of them will read ZONE V, but I have used ones that read up or down by a full ZONE. Also consider a (Gossen) Sinar SIX. This meter in effect is a behind the lens spot meter. Lot more challenging to use over the Horseman though. Own and use both with a Nikon Multiphot and each has its strengths over the other. Non OEM batteries for both meters still available if you look around.

good luck

[Peter De Smidt]

So at one time I worked for a big studio, one that regularly shot national campaigns. Back in the 90s, they used film, having their own Kodak Q-Lab. They used Sinar P2s and Arca Ms for product photography, completely with film plane meters......Despite all of this, they used a ton of Polaroids for proofing.

[Bob Salomon]

2 suggestions

First get 2 books: The Manual of Close-Up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz, and Close-up Photography, the Kodak Workshop Series. Both available on eBay now for under $10.00 each. both have different strengths and will answer all your questions.

Second... if you are using a 4x5 view camera, invest in a Horseman 6x9 exposure computer with its 4x5 adapter or a Horseman Exposure Meter 45. Think they average around $200.00 each. You will own a "behind the lens" meter. If you shoot color, the meter will pay for itself very quickly. If you shoot B&W, the meter will pay for itself in little time. I've owned and used these over the years. When you get the meter, test it out. Most of them will read ZONE V, but I have used ones that read up or down by a full ZONE. Also consider a (Gossen) Sinar SIX. This meter in effect is a behind the lens spot meter. Lot more challenging to use over the Horseman though. Own and use both with a Nikon Multiphot and each has its strengths over the other. Non OEM batteries for both meters still available if you look around.

good luck

It isn’t quite that easy. If you are going to use a meter to measure through the gg you first need to make sure that your camera has a Fresnel lens to ensure even light distribution. That means a proper Fresnel for a camera, not a Fresnel magnifier from Staples!
Then you need to measure the light loss from the absorption of the gg. And then use that as a filter factor on your meter. Otherwise you will always have an incorrect exposure!

[Greg]

It isn’t quite that easy. If you are going to use a meter to measure through the gg you first need to make sure that your camera has a Fresnel lens to ensure even light distribution. That means a proper Fresnel for a camera, not a Fresnel magnifier from Staples!
Then you need to measure the light loss from the absorption of the gg. And then use that as a filter factor on your meter. Otherwise you will always have an incorrect exposure!

Both meters measure light coming from the lens in front of the GG.

Back in the 1970s, I was a student doing Photomicrography and Photomacrography with an 8x10. Tried many times to measure the light coming through the GG with a hand meter... very inconsistent results as I remember, wasted a lot of film.

[Bob Salomon]

Both meters measure light coming from the lens in front of the GG.

Back in the 1970s, I was a student doing Photomicrography and Photomacrography with an 8x10. Tried many times to measure the light coming through the GG with a hand meter... very inconsistent results as I remember, wasted a lot of film.

No problem measuring through the gg if you figure the absorption.

1 set up a gray card.
2 meter the gray card directly.
3 meter the gray card through the gg.
4 note the difference in the two readings. That is your light absorption from the gg.
5 enter that difference as a filter factor on your meter.

If you are shooting at macro distances then you also need to also add the bellows factor to the reading.

Once you have found the absorption factor it will not change, unless you replace the gg and/or the Fresnel.

[6x6TLL]

So what I'm hearing is that macro work is not especially easy in LF, especially in the field.

Begging the simple question, what types of photography/subjects/assignments is LF best suited?

[Bob Salomon]

So what I'm hearing is that macro work is not especially easy in LF, especially in the field.

Begging the simple question, what types of photography/subjects/assignments is LF best suited?

It is what you want to use it for.
Have you seen that picture of Jackie Robinson stealing home against the Yankees? That was hand held LF.
How about Ty Cobb sliding into third? That was hand held LF.
How about John Sexton landscapes? They are LF.
And don’t forget all those crime shots by Weegee, also hand held LF.

Once you learn and master your camera it can be used for almost anything. But not, necessarily, as easily or conveniently as smaller formats.

[Pfsor]

It is what you want to use it for.


Like underwater photography, microscope photography, sport photography and so on. The sky is your limit. (yeah, don't forget the drone photography) :)

[Bob Salomon]

Like underwater photography, microscope photography, sport photography and so on. The sky is your limit. (yeah, don't forget the drone photography) :)

You are right!

We sold several Linhof 45 Aero Technika EL cameras to the Navy for use on the Space Shuttle.

Microscope photography was commonly done on 45. Either with a 45 back as Leitz sold or with cameras like a 23, 45 or 57 Technika with the Micro Tube board.

[Pfsor]

You are right!

We sold several Linhof 45 Aero Technika EL cameras to the Navy for use on the Space Shuttle.

Microscope photography was commonly done on 45. Either with a 45 back as Leitz sold or with cameras like a 23, 45 or 57 Technika with the Micro Tube board.

Space shuttle? What's that? Ah, it used to fly, up to a certain point, a sad story indeed. Hope the OP doesn't need the 45 Aero. Ah, those were the times...:)

[Leigh]

(yeah, don't forget the drone photography) :)
Drone photography is certainly possible, if you can find a drone that can
- insert the film holder
- set shutter speed and aperture
- cock the shutter
- remove the darkslide
- fire the shutter
- insert the darkslide
- remove the film holder
- not drop the film holder

- Leigh

[Jim Jones]

Decades ago I had a short mount pre-set Vivitar 135mm on a Nikon PB-3 bellows. It was light and fast to use from infinity almost to 1:1 magnification with the bonus of beautiful bokeh. I preferred it to my 55mm Micro-Nikkor for work afield, mostly for the longer focal length enabling better control of the background. Bellows factor calculation becomes a trivial problem with use.

[Pfsor]

Indeed, that's what I think too. (referring to the post n 34)

[Jac@stafford.net]

We sold several Linhof 45 Aero Technika EL cameras to the Navy for use on the Space Shuttle.


Too bad you could not package weightlessness with ordinary Linhofs.

[Bob Salomon]

Too bad you could not package weightlessness with ordinary Linhofs.

Compared to the Aero Technika EL cameras 45 Technika cameras are almost weightless.

But the an Aero Technika EL is almost weightless compared to the 70mm Aerotronica!

[LabRat]

One big issue you will deal with is that at a magnification such as 1:1, that means that your shooting area will be the frame size also, so some would be surprised that if you wanted to get very up close and personal, the larger the format, the room around your point of interest is larger... So be aware that very tiny items require very long extension just to get 1:1, so many new problems arise...

Sometimes smaller formats are your friend...

Steve K

[Bob Salomon]

One big issue you will deal with is that at a magnification such as 1:1, that means that your shooting area will be the frame size also, so some would be surprised that if you wanted to get very up close and personal, the larger the format, the room around your point of interest is larger... So be aware that very tiny items require very long extension just to get 1:1, so many new problems arise...

Sometimes smaller formats are your friend...

Steve K

Not if you use M Componons, LUminars, or similar lenses or reversed enlarging lenses. They require very little bellows extension and, depending on focal length, can easily get you up to about 18x magnification.

[Dan Fromm]

So be aware that very tiny items require very long extension just to get 1:1, so many new problems arise...

At 1:1, the image of a tiny item on film will be tiny.

Extension from the infinity position needed for 1:1 is one (1) focal length. At 1:1 front node to subject distance is two (2) focal lengths. This is why longer focal lengths are often better for skittish live subjects.

[Dan Fromm]

Not if you use M Componons, LUminars, or similar lenses or reversed enlarging lenses. They require very little bellows extension and, depending on focal length, can easily get you up to about 18x magnification.

Bob they require as much extension, measured in focal lengths, to get a given magnification as any other lens. If they need your "very little bellows" it is because they're short. Because they're short, they won't cover large formats (4x5 and larger) at low magnification.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob they require as much extension, measured in focal lengths, to get a given magnification as any other lens. If they need your "very little bellows" it is because they're short. Because they're short, they won't cover large formats (4x5 and larger) at low magnification.

Dan, I sold them for 45 Technika for decades. On a 45 Technika, with its 16” bellows 18x was obtainable! The drawback, of course, was lens to subject distance made most lighting tricky.

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, I sold them for 45 Technika for decades. On a 45 Technika, with its 16” bellows 18x was obtainable! The drawback, of course, was lens to subject distance made most lighting tricky.

Yeah, sure, with the 16 mm. Not very practical in the field. Remember, this discussion is about macro work in the field.

[Vaughn]

Drone photography is certainly possible, if you can find a drone that can
...
- Leigh

There was a 100 sheet auto-loader for 4x5 -- think of the possibilities (with a drone the size of a small helicopter!) LOL!

[Bob Salomon]

There was a 100 sheet auto-loader for 4x5 -- think of the possibilities (with a drone the size of a small helicopter!) LOL!

Vaughn, the 45 Aero Technika 45 takes 5” roll film, shoots 1 frame per second, could be shot with a radio, IR or an invelometer, shoots up to 150 5x5” shots per roll and can be used with a data module, if you can find one and have someone modify and install it.

You just need a drone capable of handling 20 to 40 pounds, depending on the lens and how you deliver 24v DC to it!

[Tin Can]

Vaughn, the 45 Aero Technika 45 takes 5” roll film, shoots 1 frame per second, could be shot with a radio, IR or an invelometer, shoots up to 150 5x5” shots per roll and can be used with a data module, if you can find one and have someone modify and install it.

You just need a drone capable of handling 20 to 40 pounds, depending on the lens and how you deliver 24v DC to it!

B&H to the rescue. This drone can fly 100lbs payload. (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1239699-

REG/xfold_rigs_dragon_12urtf_dragon_x12_u11_drone.html)

[Myriophyllum]

Microscope photography was commonly done on 45. Either with a 45 back as Leitz sold or with cameras like a 23, 45 or 57 Technika with the Micro Tube board.

Hi Bob,

... or with cameras like the Zeiss MC63. I love to do photomicrography with this system in 4x5".

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4553/37703524185_ee5a5a4fc7_c.jpg

Some photos made this way here, if you are interested:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136145166@N02/albums/72157701589192565

Greetings
Jens

[Tin Can]

Very interested!

Great work!


Hi Bob,

... or with cameras like the Zeiss MC63. I love to do photomicrography with this system in 4x5".

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4553/37703524185_ee5a5a4fc7_c.jpg

Some photos made this way here, if you are interested:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136145166@N02/albums/72157701589192565

Greetings
Jens

[Bernice Loui]

Wild-Leica M420 Macroscope. Most any image recording device can be adapted.
182698

This one is currently configured to accept a digital camera to 4x5 sheet film. The image recorder attaches to the top of the M420.

M420 has a magnification range about 6x to 32x or 12x to 64x with the other main objective or add a 0.5x Barlow lens to reduce magnification by half. The Volpi ring light illuminator system solves the marco illumination problems nicely. There is an in-line with optical path illuminator (beam splitter) that can be applied if needed.

This macro system essentially solves many macro imaging needs nicely. It nicely replaces a set of Zeiss Luminars or Leica Photars easily with equal or many times better image quality in the magnification range of the M420.


Behind the M420 is a Zeiss Universal Research. It can be configured to take images with the camera adapter that sits on top of the head. Image recorder can be a digital camera to 4x5 film back. More about that Zeiss system here (primarily about polarized lighting, does contain relevant info):
http://www.science-info.net/docs/zeiss/Zeiss_Instruments_For_Polarizing_Microscopy.pdf


For lower magnifications, use a reverse mounted enlarging lens like a Schneider Companion S or Rodenstock APO Rodagon. On a Sinar, these could be easily used with a Sinar shutter. A long rail (say 36" or less or more as needed) can support the camera and aux standard to support the item being imaged with another aux standard to support lighting if needed. In most cases, get a fiber optic ring light of the required diameter and matching illuminator. These are plentiful and not expensive on eBay. These will solve a host of macro lighting problems.


Bernice

[LabRat]

B&H to the rescue. This drone can fly 100lbs payload. (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1239699-

REG/xfold_rigs_dragon_12urtf_dragon_x12_u11_drone.html)

Keep 'em flying!!!

(Because I wouldn't want an Aero Tek falling towards 'me head!!!) :-0

Steve K

[David Lobato]

I'm thinking insects, plants, things I find outside, etc.



I have done many 4x5 photos up to 1:1 magnification with a 135mm Nikkor-W lens. I've had much gratification with that as my limit. Setting aside all the discussion of best optics, at 1:1 your subject field is 4x5 inches if that is your format. It's 8x10 inches for an 8x10 camera. And the required bellows extension will be twice the focal length of your lens. So my 135mm lens at 1:1 needed (approximately) 270mm of bellows extension. A 210mm lens will need 420mm of extension. Furthermore, getting close as in the realm of the 35mm format involves magnifications much more than 1:1 and more like 4X or 5X magnification with 4x5. Getting this additional magnification will add a more complex set of issues, and cost, which is why I limit myself to 1:1 magnification.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Long ago I met a university Entomologist who had a set-up for photographing live specimens, for example flying insects. He had a thin steel enclosure of 5 sides, an electronic flash on each side, and a 4x5 camera with no bellows on a pair of rails. He could therefore use whatever extension he needed. He placed a blanket between the lens-board and body and usually exposed with room lights turned off.