Unable to achieve focus

[ndwgolf]

Hi
I am using a Chamonix 8x10 along with my Kowa Graphic 350mm lens. I was attempting to shoot a close up of a white rose but it didn't matter how far i extended the bellows I could not achieve focus,,,,,,,,I was trying to fill the frame with a rose that was about 2 inches x 2 inches.
What am I doing wrong?

Neil

[jp]

Way too much lens.. Use a shorter wider angle lens, and with the bellows factor for a close up it won't be a short lens.

[ndwgolf]

Way too much lens.. Use a shorter wider angle lens, and with the bellows factor for a close up it won't be a short lens.
Unfortunately its the only 8x10 lens that I have.
Neil

[Pere Casals]

You just need some practice: With dim ambient light, place a table near a wall, place a lamp on the table, with the lens in your hand practice with projecting the sharp image of the lamp on the wall. You will find the working distances, lens to object vs lens to wall.

[Dan Fromm]

Hi
I am using a Chamonix 8x10 along with my Kowa Graphic 350mm lens. I was attempting to shoot a close up of a white rose but it didn't matter how far i extended the bellows I could not achieve focus,,,,,,,,I was trying to fill the frame with a rose that was about 2 inches x 2 inches.
What am I doing wrong?

Neil

Doing before thinking. That's what you're doing wrong.

Lessee now. 2x2 expanded to fill 8x10. Image four times as large as the subject. Extension needed, 5 focal lengths. What extension did you have? You need 1.75 m. Subject to front node distance, 1.25 focal lengths. How far was the subject from the shutter? You need approximately 450 mm. What did you have? Film to subject, 6.25 focal lengths. Same questions.

The general rule for focusing close up is to set extension to obtain the magnification desired, then move camera/lens assembly to focus.

[jp]

Once I tried macro with a 210mm on my 4x5 and could not focus... I ended up with decent photos using a 75mm lens on it and was still further back from the subject than most DSLRs with a macro lens. It didn't look wide like a 75mm did since the bellows extension and subject distance from the camera made it look fairly normal. If you have any MF/LF enlarger lenses you could try them backwards.

[ndwgolf]

I have the Chamonix extension board that adds about 250mm so all up about 750mm max. I will try extending to about 730mm then move the camera in until I am close then fine tune with the extra 20mm.

Neil

[ndwgolf]

Once I tried macro with a 210mm on my 4x5 and could not focus... I ended up with decent photos using a 75mm lens on it and was still further back from the subject than most DSLRs with a macro lens. It didn't look wide like a 75mm did since the bellows extension and subject distance from the camera made it look fairly normal. If you have any MF/LF enlarger lenses you could try them backwards.I also have the Chamonix 4x5 and more lenses 120, 210, 600mm and that's it. The problem is I want to shoot 8x10 so I will persevere with the 350mm lens and see how I get on

Neil

[Dan Fromm]

I have the Chamonix extension board that adds about 250mm so all up about 750mm max. I will try extending to about 730mm then move the camera in until I am close then fine tune with the extra 20mm.

Neil

That will get you to a little over 1:1. If that's what you want, great. But if you want to more or less fill the 8x10 frame with a two inch square subject you're going to have add extension or use a shorter lens.

The list contains discussions of books on closeup and photomacrography. Buy a copy of Lefkowitz and study it.

[Lachlan 717]

I also have the Chamonix 4x5 and more lenses 120, 210, 600mm and that's it. The problem is I want to shoot 8x10 so I will persevere with the 350mm lens and see how I get on

Neil

Try it with the 120mm. Coverage increases with extension, so there’s a good chance that it will easily cover the format.

[Bernice Loui]

8x10 with a 350mm lens for 1:1 will require a bit more than 2 x 350mm or over 750mm. There is more add two f-stops of light loss, how will the subject be lighted, over sized image circle from a 350mm lens at 1:1 will reduce contrast due to stray light bouncing off the sides of the bellows, the DOF-F will be small and camera-set up stability will be a very serious issue.

Alternative is to use your 210mm lens and most if not all these problems will be significantly reduced.

Increasing the f-stop in the struggle to achieve DOF-F will be a challenging learning experience and as the f-stop is increased to smaller apertures the resolution will continue to be reduced. This could be ok for 8x10 contact prints, enlargements can be an issue. Awareness of this and having clear goals of the finished print matters here.



Bernice

[ndwgolf]

The lens is actually 360 not 350. Here you can see the bellows at 780mm with about 150mm spare
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190211/9dbac7017c5f296a12b88d4f9cfdae9a.jpg
Today I will get a nice backdrop and give it a go.

[ndwgolf]

I have the Chamonix extension board that adds about 250mm so all up about 750mm max. I will try extending to about 730mm then move the camera in until I am close then fine tune with the extra 20mm.

Neil

950mm max not 750mm

[ndwgolf]

Negative is hanging in the drying cabinet. I ended up shooting it wide open at f9 as I wanted the feeling of sharp to soft falloff.......we will see tomorrow how it all turned out
Neil

[Cor]

If you have a good 150 mm enlarger lens, you can invert it and use it as a taking lens (exposure time will be long anyway, so a lens cap is sufficient), I used it on my 8*10 with good succes, enlarged the object 2 times to fill the frame.

Good luck,

Best,

Cor

Cor

[Tin Can]

Unable to find my efforts on iPhone last night. There are many other examples on multiple threads here.

2 Macros shot about like yours with details. I wish I had documented the extreme lighting which was at least 2 studio strobes at close range full power.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?120079-Post-Your-Photos-Made-At-Close-Distance&p=1332805&viewfull=1#post1332805

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?120079-Post-Your-Photos-Made-At-Close-Distance&p=1332956&viewfull=1#post1332956

We can't wait to see your results.

I like LF macro!

[Doremus Scudder]

Keep in mind that many lenses that won't cover 8x10 at infinity will with enough bellows extension. You might try your 210mm lens, or even the 120mm, and see if it will cover once you've racked out lots of bellows.

Best,

Doremus

[Jim Noel]

I also have the Chamonix 4x5 and more lenses 120, 210, 600mm and that's it. The problem is I want to shoot 8x10 so I will persevere with the 350mm lens and see how I get on

Neil

YOu should be able to focus and cover the negative area with the 210, maybe even the 120. Remember that lenses throw a cone of sharpness which widens as it moves away from the film.

[Heroique]

…I was trying to fill the 8x10 frame with a rose that was about 2 inches x 2 inches…

Just for comparison, a quarter (the coin) at 1:1 magnification basically fills the frame on 35mm film (that is, fills the short side of the 24mm x 36mm frame).

One can imagine how much additional magnification would be needed for a quarter to fill the frame on 8x10 film (!), and all the attending difficulties – DOF, diffraction, working distance, bellows extension, reciprocity, exposure compensation, etc.

A two-inch rose is merely two quarters wide, and nowhere near as flat. ;^)

Nonetheless, I patiently await your results!

[Joe O'Hara]

My first thought was that when you are doing close-up work, after a certain point (magnification), you are
better off with (or even have to) use focusing with the rear standard than the front, since in the front-focusing case
the movement of the lens towards the subject is so significant that it defeats the purpose of increasing the lens-to-film distance.
The impression you get is there is no point of sharp focus, but you are actually changing the magnification significantly
as the lens moves relative to the subject.

This doesn't come into play at more "normal" distances because the movement of the lens is so small compared to the lens-to-subject
difference.

Those more experienced in macro work, please clarify or correct as needed!

[Joe O'Hara]

I meant, "lens-to-subject distance". Sorry.

[Tin Can]

Yes as someone already posted achieve a calculated bellows draw for magnification and move the whole camera to and fro. Then futz with the rear focus.

Took me days to shoot my magic mushroom

Winter work

[Andrew Plume]

My lenses for LF macro/still life work:-

135mm - 4 x 5;
180 - 5 x 7; and
210 - 10 x 8

Andrew

[Tin Can]

Yes and many here told me I HAD to use expensive Macro lenses.

I want 2 of them but $$$$$$$

[Andrew Plume]

My thinking................

Initially, it's obvious that you go for a longer mm lens

But in fact I found that it was the shorter focal length lens that were easily the best

good luck and regards

Andrew

[Tin Can]

Agree

[Dan Fromm]

Randy, you'll die if you try closeup work and don't use a real macro lens. Die. You'll end up dead if you try it. Dead. Don't risk your life. Do it right right right or don't do it.

The shorter MP-4 Tominons (<= 75 mm) aren't the best but are quite usable. Not what the OP needs, but one of them might do for you, depending on what you're trying to accomplish. Same goes for Schneider Comparons, and the 150/5.6's cells are direct fits in a #0. Same goes for most enlarging lenses -- not, in my experience, f/4.5 Raptars -- but not all have cells that are direct fits in shutters.

Joe, for all film-to-subject distances but 4 focal lengths plus the lens' internodal distance -- this is the minimum -- there are two pairs of extensions (also lens-to-subject distances) at which the subject will be in focus. One at lower magnification (extension < lens-to-subject distance), the other at higher (extension > lens-to-subject distance). This is why setting extension to get the desired magnification and then moving the camera to focus is recommended.

If you start out with the subject approximately in focus, fiddling a little with magnification by moving either standard can work, but overdo it with either and you'll be lost.

We don't get into trouble when working at "normal" distances because lens-to-subject distance is much longer than the extension available.

[ndwgolf]

Heres my first attempt
Chamonix 8x10 Kowa Graphic 360mm Ilford HP5+ Developed in LC29
F9
1/10
Bellows @760mm
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0encidccbd6tj8i/Neil%27s-Photography032.jpg?raw=1

[Tin Can]

Awesome!


Heres my first attempt
Chamonix 8x10 Kowa Graphic 360mm Ilford HP5+ Developed in LC29
F9
1/10
Bellows @760mm
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0encidccbd6tj8i/Neil%27s-Photography032.jpg?raw=1

[Joe O'Hara]

Thanks, Dan, I learned something today!

And a very nice rose portrait there, ndwgolf.

[Tin Can]

Randy, you'll die if you try closeup work and don't use a real macro lens. Die. You'll end up dead if you try it. Dead. Don't risk your life. Do it right right right or don't do it.

The shorter MP-4 Tominons (<= 75 mm) aren't the best but are quite usable. Not what the OP needs, but one of them might do for you, depending on what you're trying to accomplish. Same goes for Schneider Comparons, and the 150/5.6's cells are direct fits in a #0. Same goes for most enlarging lenses -- not, in my experience, f/4.5 Raptars -- but not all have cells that are direct fits in shutters.


Dan, there is a song, LEDGER: Not Dead Yet (https://youtu.be/AyvFpD55c6c) I have been almost dead more than once. I come back. So far...

I had a Polaroid MP-3 Land Camera with everything. I did many things with it. Tryed the crappy Tominons, used Polaroid and 4X5 film, the horrible copy lights.

I was trying to do serious copywork. In the end I kept the Tominons for the shutters, the nice wood baseboard and the magnifier bino. I gave away the rest to an experimenter.

After trying many store bought copy stands I made my own huge one with far better lighting.

One day i will get the 120 and 240 mm macro LF lenses. IF I NEED THEM.

Peace be with you