Need More LIGHT: Should I start PUSHING?

[AdrienneCatanese]

Brand brand new to LF, but not to photography: finding that LF seems to require a TON more light to get a good negative (as compared to 35mm film, or to digital):

Shooting Ilford HP5 400 at f/11 (for sharpness on my f/6.8 210mm Calumet lens) for 1/30 in open shade and getting THIN negs!? 4x5 Calumet monorail cam.
I will admit: I've been bad and haven't really used a light meter...but still!

Should I start push developing all my film?
Can't use a much slower shutter as I am shooting portraits!
And my lens wide open at f/6.8 is too soft for my liking

Googled "large format needs more light" and found an article describing LF cams with bellows as "Light-Eaters"...I am inclined to agree!

[Two23]

Why would 4x5 require more exposure than 35mm etc. if you are using the same film? I use the same Minolta V meter for all my cameras, 35mm to 8x10.


Kent in SD

[Bernice Loui]

Get a proper light meter, use it to it's fullest abilities.

Majority of LF view camera images are made using a tripod rendering the camera essentially fixed. Typical LF view camera subject is also mostly fixed.

Why force the exposure to be 1/30 in open shade?

Hint, fastest shutter speed on a Sinar shutter is 1/60 down to 8 seconds then B.

As for portraits, 2 second exposures are ok. This is a matter of style and portrait sitter knowing what they are dealing with.
If pressed for short shutter speeds and need for a given f-stop. apply electronic flash as needed.
Leaf shutters sync at all shutter speeds allowing controlled exposure of ambient light relative to flash light output.


Bernice

[Peter De Smidt]

Sure, you can try pushing. Deardorffuser, a member here, regularly pushes Foma 200 to EI 800 with great results.

[maltfalc]

Why would 4x5 require more exposure than 35mm etc. if you are using the same film? I use the same Minolta V meter for all my cameras, 35mm to 8x10.


Kent in SDthe film itself still requires the same amount of light per square inch, but the larger the format, the higher the magnification needs to be to fill the frame with your subject. higher magnification=dimmer image. having to use smaller apertures doesn't help either.

[jim_jm]

Also, if you're focusing on anything closer than infinity, you need to compensate (overexpose) for the bellows factor. The longer the bellows is extended past the position it was at infinity focus, the more you need to compensate.
With your 210, the distance from the film plane to the lensboard is probably around 210mm focused at infinity. If you focus on a closer subject and your bellows extends to about 260mm, that's about 25% more, which would require an additional 1/2 stop more exposure.
I'd strongly suggest you get a good light meter and learn how to use it. Spot meter is probably the best for LF, given the cost per sheet of film.
Otherwise, the light sensitivity of LF film is the same as in other formats. You can push it if needed for your purposes.

[Jim Michael]

In open shade I would expect an exposure around 1/iso @ 5.6. Rating your film at half iso and allowing a one stop bellows factor I would think 1/30 would be sufficient. A light meter would say for sure. You didn’t mention whether a filter was used which would be an additional factor.

Re longer lenses being used the f stop is based on focal length.

[Tobias Key]

Shoot a test shot with a digital camera to check your exposure really is in the ballpark. There are lots of things that can be slightly off that can add up to a big overall error. So meter 1 stop off, have a shutter that's 1/2 stop off and forget to compensate for bellows extension and suddenly you are two stops out. You have to be much more methodical with large format to get everything out of it.

[Ulophot]

Adrienne, welcome, and thanks for posting. I used to live somewhere across the Sound from you in CT. I shoot portraits, too, and as I was coming back into LF some years ago with location portraiture in mind, film speed, shutter speeds, etc., were at the top of my list of considerations. I use HP5, usually rated between 200 and 400 in LF, depending on lighting conditions.

Don't be discouraged. I suspect that what jim_jim wrote above may be a large contributing factor to your immediate problem. Let's look at an example, assuming your lens is clear, shutter speeds are accurate, and light meter (yes, a necessity, whether you choose to go the spot meter route or adapt a 30-degree or incident reading approach) reasonably well-calibrated.

With a 210mm on 4x5 film, an upper body portrait (~ 2'10" in framed subject height with the long film edge vertical) will put the lens about 5 ½ feet from the subject. Due to the bellows extension, you'll need to add about a half-stop to your exposure. However, if you're framing a head and shoulders portrait, the lens will probably be about 3'10" from the subject, requiring a bit more. And, if you are framing a "head shot" (~ 11" in vertical subject height), you will need to add more than a stop.

Of course, open shade can vary very considerably, depending how much light is reflected in from the surroundings. Pushing a stop in soft lighting may be an option for you; that depends entirely on your vision and total equipment and processing train from exposure technique to print, as with any format. The extra development will boost the lower vales a bit, but, of course, won’t recover those around exposure threshold.

At the same time, as Bernice noted above, LF, due to the smaller apertures typically used, portends longer shutter speeds. For LF we need to adjust our portrait intentions, unless using action-freezing strobe as the primary light source. And, here we might shoot at f/4 or 5.6 in 35 or MF, f/11 on our 4x5s slows the shutter and, at the upper body framing given above with our 210 lenses, DOF is only 5"—and less than 2 ½ at head -and-shoulders distance.

I spent decades with studio strobes for portraits. My decision to leave them behind for natural light has presented plenty of new challenges, but lots of fun.

[Exploring Large Format]

Brand brand new to LF, but not to photography: finding that LF seems to require a TON more light to get a good negative (as compared to 35mm film, or to digital):

Shooting Ilford HP5 400 at f/11 (for sharpness on my f/6.8 210mm Calumet lens) for 1/30 in open shade and getting THIN negs!? 4x5 Calumet monorail cam.
I will admit: I've been bad and haven't really used a light meter...but still!

Should I start push developing all my film?
Can't use a much slower shutter as I am shooting portraits!
And my lens wide open at f/6.8 is too soft for my liking

Googled "large format needs more light" and found an article describing LF cams with bellows as "Light-Eaters"...I am inclined to agree!As a fellow newbie, I can tell you that that post about LF cameras being "light eaters" rattled me at first too. However, I find no contradiction between his observations about LF and all the comments in this thread by the experienced old hands of LF. Just trade offs.

I do portraits with both ambient and strobe. Bellows Extension seemed like a complicated wild card at first as I struggled to get all the other exposure (and operational) factors under predictable control.

Bottom line for me is that if I MUST have short shutter speed for portrait of family with wriggling dog, then strobe is a must. For relaxing spouse (now trained on LF modeling to stay still), I can often use ambient light easily. Other bottom line is facility with a solid meter as others have said.

To remove Bellows Extension Compensation from my worry list, I keep the Quick Disc handy. No math, just a quick check. Then you get it. There are other such tools. Here's the link: salzgeber.at/disc/

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

[Benjamin]

Just did a few pics of friends in a park this weekend with a 4x5. Overcast day. Was using Fomapan 100. Aperture was generally f/22, and had no problem with shutter speeds between 1/8s and 1/2s.

As Bernice mentioned, with large format portrait, you have to instruct your sitters much more. You have to tell them in advance that you're going to ask them to be very still for a short while, and tell them again just as you're finishing your focus. For a normal adult, being very still for two or three seconds is no problem, especially if they understand why.

Most important, I realized the hard way, is to keep talking to them between the moment you've finished the focus and the moment you press the shutter, or have them think or focus on something specific. I had one sitter who was easily distracted by the other members of the group and I had to redo the focus a couple of times (once after I had just put in the film holder).

[Willie]

Do you know how to tell an underexposed vs an underdeveloped negative? Your Thin negatives - maybe some basic testing to be sure of the reason?

[AdrienneCatanese]

Sure, you can try pushing. Deardorffuser, a member here, regularly pushes Foma 200 to EI 800 with great results.

Great, will check out that user and their images :) thanks so much!

[AdrienneCatanese]

the film itself still requires the same amount of light per square inch, but the larger the format, the higher the magnification needs to be to fill the frame with your subject. higher magnification=dimmer image. having to use smaller apertures doesn't help either.

this makes sense--your response validates my very unscientific "I can feel in my BONES that this thing is eating the light" LOL. I could just tell intuitively...

[Peter De Smidt]

Great, will check out that user and their images :) thanks so much!

For examples, see: https://www.instagram.com/dendorff_bw/

[AdrienneCatanese]

Do you know how to tell an underexposed vs an underdeveloped negative? Your Thin negatives - maybe some basic testing to be sure of the reason?

Yes, great point! and yes, I have seen the difference--in fact in this batch of 6 sheets all processed together, one sheet from a previous shoot on a brighter day came out perfectly developed...so the developing yielded one perfect neg (sunny day) and 5 thin ones (low light shady day)--but yes thanks for the good reminder to consider ALL STEPS in the chain when trouble shooting!

[Neal Chaves]

Years ago I learned an excellent method to find the correct developing time and EI for any film. The source was an article by William Mortensen. Mortensen wrote some excellent books and articles about basic sensitometry. The last time I did this test was when I abandoned Tri-X and switched to HP5+ due to cost about five years ago. I proceed as follows.

I set up my trays with my favorite developer HC110B (1:31), now Ilfotec HC (1:31). I pull out a sheet from the package in the dark. and then when the package is sealed again I turn on the room lights. This part of the test is done under the lights. I cut the sheet into five strips and mark them 1-5 by punching holes with a paper punch. Lets say the recommended time is 5:00. I want to see 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 and 7:00, so I throw all the strips into the developer and agitate as usual until 3:00 when I move the No.1 strip over to the stop bath. Then I pull No.2 at 4:00, No.3 at 5:00, etc. I fix, wash and dry the strips as usual. What we are looking for is the best usable film DMax value. Obviously the film has been fully exposed! When strips dry lay down a page of news print on a table in good light. Find the strip through which the news print is barely visible. That's your developing time. Now to find the film speed.

Go outside in unchanging light conditions and expose five sheets and expose one at the manufacturers rating and then the other four at one half a stop and one stop less and one half a stop and one stop more. In the dark, develop them all together for your newly derived time. Contact print them together exposing and developing the paper for maximum usable paper DMax value through the film base plus fog negative rebate area. Pick out the best-looking contact print and you have your film speed.

Because my 7:00 negative looked the best on the first test, I did the test again with 7:00 as the central developing time and found that 8:00 was indeed too dense. This HP5+ time was the same as the as the developing time I had been using for Tri-X and film speed was also the same, EI400. I have also switched to Ilfotec HC developer due to cost and availability and find it to be a clone of HC110.

Many of the last generation of B&W gurus favored a development time of 5:00 for Tri-X and suggested an EI of 64-100. You can do the above test backwards, developing for 5:00 minutes and finding the film speed. I like 100. The difference between negatives exposed at 100 and developed for 5:00 and those exposed at 400 and developed for 7:00 is quite subtle. Both could be considered "normal" or N negatives. The 100 negative has slightly greater shadow and highlight detail that only a careful, knowledgeable viewer could detect. This slight improvement might not be worthwhile trading for two stops in the field. I do routinely rate HP5+ at 100 under powerful strobe light in the studio and it produces beautiful skin tones.

From here, if you are still with me, you can derive expansion and contraction schemes for both the 100 and 400 "normal negs". I do this by changing dilution rather than time. Make sure you have at least 1 oz. of the concentrated sauce for each 8X10 sheet or equivalent. For contractions I found that 3/4 oz. concentrate to 31 1/4 ozs. H20 yields an N-1 neg at a one stop loss in film speed and 1/2 oz. concentrate to 31 1/2 ozs. H20 yields an N-2 neg at a two stop loss in film speed. For expansions, 1 1/4 oz. of concentrate to 30 3/4 ozs. H20 yields an N+1 neg at a one stop gain in speed and 1 1/2 ozs. concentrate to 30 1/2 ozs. H20 produces an N+2 negative with a two stop gain in speed.

If you look at the chart of Tri-X film speed in Phil Davis' BTZS book you can easily pick out the film speed in HC110B 5:00 as EI 64.

Don't apply reciprocity exposure and development corrections for long exposures (1/2 sec. +) based on published data. Test for yourself and you may be surprised. I wasted a lot of time and effort producing long exposure negatives that were thick and flat. When I finally tested, I found no compensation was required for TXP or now HP5+ out to one minute.

[Ari]

Best to check first that other variables are performing properly: accurate light meter, accurate shutter speeds, proper development times before you start introducing another variable (push/pull development).
I can safely say that your problem has nothing to do with using the format unless you're using your 4x5 to shoot macro at 2x or more bellows extension.

[lenicolas]

Why force the exposure to be 1/30 in open shade?

Hint, fastest shutter speed on a Sinar shutter is 1/60 down to 8 seconds then B.


Not to start a whole thing, but I think the opposite opinion should also be stated.
Too many on this forum preach speeds of 1s and slower, and in the same breath complain about wind ruining their pictures!?!

It’s perfectly ok to want tree branches and leaves sharp in your landscape pictures, or to want pedestrians not to turn into mashed potatoes in your city scenes... Or simply to want short exposures to minimise the chances of wind moving the camera.
f/11 happens to be one of my most used apertures (together with f/8!). I shoot between 1/8 and 1/125 depending on the film speed and light in the scene.
I don’t think forcing 1s or 2s would achieve anything.



As for portraits, 2 second exposures are ok. This is a matter of style and portrait sitter knowing what they are dealing with.
If pressed for short shutter speeds and need for a given f-stop. apply electronic flash as needed.
Leaf shutters sync at all shutter speeds allowing controlled exposure of ambient light relative to flash light output.


Damn, Film must be cheap where you live. No way I would ever risk a sheet of colour 8x10 on a 2s exposure for a portrait, unless the sitter is laying down and asleep.
OP mentioned they are not new to photography -only to large format- so I assume they’re over their phase of thinking soft photos are romantic and arty.

For the sake of diversity of opinions, here are my portrait speeds : I won’t go slower than 1/8s for sitting portraits, and 1/30 for a standing subject without any support (like a shoulder against a wall)

[Doremus Scudder]

the film itself still requires the same amount of light per square inch, but the larger the format, the higher the magnification needs to be to fill the frame with your subject.higher magnification=dimmer image. having to use smaller apertures doesn't help either.

Wrong. Sorry, but the only difference in exposure for LF film is usually due to the smaller apertures used. If your meter calls for f/16 at 1/30th sec. for the whatever film you are using, it doesn't matter which camera or format you use; it's the same exposure from Minox through ULF.

The fact that most LF users work with smaller apertures to get the desired depth of field (e.g., in the range of f/22 and smaller for 4x5 - even smaller for larger formats) is what makes for longer exposure times.

@OP,

Better than pushing is using a faster film, that is, if you are not already. Next would be to simply use slower shutter speeds (like most of us do when needing to use smaller apertures).

If you find yourself constantly dealing with subject movement and slow shutter speeds due to the depth of field you desire, the best solution may be to use a smaller format. There are roll film backs for 4x5 cameras that are 6x7 or 6x9cm; these will allow the use of a larger aperture for the same depth of field, thereby allowing a faster shutter speed, albeit with a smaller negative, and still retaining the advantage of having LF movements to work with. Note that using a shorter focal-length lens and cropping gets you the same result.

Pushing, by definition, sacrifices shadow detail. That may work for you if you like that look.

However, there are no free lunches...

Best,

Doremus

[Vaughn]

...
...There are roll film backs for 4x5 cameras that are 6x7 or 6x9cm; these will allow the use of a larger aperture for the same depth of field, thereby allowing a faster shutter speed, albeit with a smaller negative, and still retaining the advantage of having LF movements to work with. Note that using a shorter focal-length lens and cropping gets you the same result. ...Doremus
That is a little confusing, but I think you mean that using a shorter focal length lens is the key...either using one on a smaller format to get the same view, or on a larger format and cropping.

The common saying is the larger the format, the more depth of field problems one has. Which is true, due to the longer lens required to get the same view one has on a 4x5, on an 8x10, for example. But the saying does cause confusion as it does not reference focal length.

[Bernice Loui]

Much a question of portrait style.

Given a portrait ~sitter~ is sitting down for a portrait, this means time to set up lighting and related. This means tungsten lighting, no flash as experience has proven flash is ok for a particular style of portraits dependent on the portrait maker. That said, using 1,000 watt tungsten or similar constant lighting with black & white only (mixed lighting is well tolerated in various ways for B&W images) will alter the exposure needs. Add to this a typical taking aperture of f8 for 5x7. Will the exposure be in seconds, possible but more often much less. Given this style of portrait making, the portrait sitter can indeed remain still enough for a longer than 1/30 sec exposure.

Then we get into connection with the portrait sitter and not focusing on the camera (this is where an assistant makes all the difference). Portrait maker makes eye contact and communicates and emotionally connects with the portrait sitter to capture an expressive aspect of the portrait sitter.

If one is going to do rapid fire fashion photography, LF view camera might be the improper tool.

Not long ago done a series of engagement portraits outdoors with the 5x7 Sinar Norma for daughter and hubby to be. No issues with both of them holding still for 1/2 second exposure outdoors. Personality involved has a very real effect on what is possible and what is not possible for portraits and the related stuff like exposure time.

Essentially, there are a LOT of variables involved with portraits, from style to the many. many methods and ways to achieve effective portraiture.

To generalize exposures of 1 second or more is too long for portraits is ... a generalization.

As for film cost, that is a given for sheet film. Not shy about using as much film as needed to achieve the portrait goal. This usually means no more than four sheets for a given portrait image goal, typically two sheets is enough.



Bernice




Not to start a whole thing, but I think the opposite opinion should also be stated.
Too many on this forum preach speeds of 1s and slower, and in the same breath complain about wind ruining their pictures!?!

It’s perfectly ok to want tree branches and leaves sharp in your landscape pictures, or to want pedestrians not to turn into mashed potatoes in your city scenes... Or simply to want short exposures to minimise the chances of wind moving the camera.
f/11 happens to be one of my most used apertures (together with f/8!). I shoot between 1/8 and 1/125 depending on the film speed and light in the scene.
I don’t think forcing 1s or 2s would achieve anything.



Damn, Film must be cheap where you live. No way I would ever risk a sheet of colour 8x10 on a 2s exposure for a portrait, unless the sitter is laying down and asleep.
OP mentioned they are not new to photography -only to large format- so I assume they’re over their phase of thinking soft photos are romantic and arty.

For the sake of diversity of opinions, here are my portrait speeds : I won’t go slower than 1/8s for sitting portraits, and 1/30 for a standing subject without any support (like a shoulder against a wall)

[ic-racer]

"Push Processing" B&W film only increases contrast. Do you want to make high-contrast portraits?

[Peter De Smidt]

"Push Processing" B&W film only increases contrast. Do you want to make high-contrast portraits?

William Mortensen wasn't too shabby at portraits. He developed to completion, the ultimate push. Do his portraits look overly contrasty? They don't to me. He didn't over-expose, and he photographed in low contrast light, neither of which is that hard to do. His aim was to maximize tonal separation in the tones that matter most for a portrait. I used to dismiss pushing film. Then I saw some great examples on this site. The proof is in the pudding.

[Two23]

Wrong. Sorry, but the only difference in exposure for LF film is usually due to the smaller apertures used. If your meter calls for f/16 at 1/30th sec. for the whatever film you are using, it doesn't matter which camera or format you use; it's the same exposure from Minox through ULF.




That's what I was thinking. I taken shots with my 4x5 on FP4+ using my Minolta meter for a reading, then used exactly the same reading to take a shot with my Rolleiflex. The images looked the same. My thinking was same emulsion, and since an f-stop is a ratio it's letting the same amount of light through.

Kent in SD

[maltfalc]

Wrong. Sorry, but the only difference in exposure for LF film is usually due to the smaller apertures used. If your meter calls for f/16 at 1/30th sec. for the whatever film you are using, it doesn't matter which camera or format you use; it's the same exposure from Minox through ULF.

The fact that most LF users work with smaller apertures to get the desired depth of field (e.g., in the range of f/22 and smaller for 4x5 - even smaller for larger formats) is what makes for longer exposure times.

@OP,

Better than pushing is using a faster film, that is, if you are not already. Next would be to simply use slower shutter speeds (like most of us do when needing to use smaller apertures).

If you find yourself constantly dealing with subject movement and slow shutter speeds due to the depth of field you desire, the best solution may be to use a smaller format. There are roll film backs for 4x5 cameras that are 6x7 or 6x9cm; these will allow the use of a larger aperture for the same depth of field, thereby allowing a faster shutter speed, albeit with a smaller negative, and still retaining the advantage of having LF movements to work with. Note that using a shorter focal-length lens and cropping gets you the same result.

Pushing, by definition, sacrifices shadow detail. That may work for you if you like that look.

However, there are no free lunches...

Best,

Doremus

*sigh* ok, time for a math lesson. let's say you have a subject the same size as the image area of 4x5 film. to photograph it with a 4x5 camera requires a 1:1 magnification ratio. a 1:1 magnification ratio requires double the distance from film to lens and gives you a projected image that's 2 stops darker compared to being focused at infinity, regardless of what focal length or film format you're using. creating the equivalent image with a 35mm camera requires a much smaller magnification ratio than 1:1 and therefore much less than double the distance from film to lens and much less than a 2 stop drop in brightness. so if your meter says f/16 and your cameras are both set to f/16, the 4x5 is effectively f/32 and the 35mm is much closer to f/16. see the problem?


That's what I was thinking. I taken shots with my 4x5 on FP4+ using my Minolta meter for a reading, then used exactly the same reading to take a shot with my Rolleiflex. The images looked the same. My thinking was same emulsion, and since an f-stop is a ratio it's letting the same amount of light through.

Kent in SDread my reply to doremus above. the f-stops printed on your lenses are only accurate at infinity. when you focus closer, you increase "f" but the diameter of the opening at the front of the lens stays the same, so the ratio changes and f/16 isn't f/16 anymore, and that change in ratio scales up with the format. so if you're shooting landscapes, no significant difference in metering between formats, but the closer the subject is the more significant the difference gets and on average large format requires a larger adjustment to your f-stop (or shutter speed) to compensate than smaller formats do.

[Ulophot]

George, I don't like to enter these controversies generally, but here I question whether you are correct regarding 1:1. Having used Nikon extension rings to accomplish 1:1 with my 35mm Nikon, and recalling the exposure-increase printed on each ring with instructions for using more than one ring, my recollection is that indeed the same exposure increase was needed as it would be in another format. Perhaps another variable pertains?

[cowanw]

I suspect the difference is that 1:1 in 35mm involves a subject of 1 inch and 1:1 in 4x5 involves a subject of 4-5 inches. One view of the issue is that magnification is the same and the other view is that subject size stays the same.

[ic-racer]

William Mortensen wasn't too shabby at portraits. He developed to completion, the ultimate push.

His film would be mostly black.

[Bernice Loui]

Reproduction ratio light loss is often compensated in the modern roll film camera (35mm, digital and similar) by the internal exposure system which automatically compensated for light loss due to reproduction ratio.

Or, the modern 35mm film camera or digital camera's internal exposure system compensated as needed regardless of image ratios from infinity to life size ( 1:1 ) or other optics that could be attached to the camera.

This is NOT true for a LF view camera where there is no automatic exposure control system. It is completely up to the image maker to set and adjust as needed for exposure and light loss due to differences in image reproduction ratio.


Bernice

[maltfalc]

I suspect the difference is that 1:1 in 35mm involves a subject of 1 inch and 1:1 in 4x5 involves a subject of 4-5 inches. One view of the issue is that magnification is the same and the other view is that subject size stays the same. in practical terms, if you want to frame your subject (of any size) a certain way in the final image, the larger your film format is, the higher the magnification needs to be and the more light you need above what your meter says you need, except when focused at infinity because that's the point where your lens' f-stops are actually what they say they are and will match your meter.

[Doremus Scudder]

That is a little confusing, but I think you mean that using a shorter focal length lens is the key...either using one on a smaller format to get the same view, or on a larger format and cropping.

The common saying is the larger the format, the more depth of field problems one has. Which is true, due to the longer lens required to get the same view one has on a 4x5, on an 8x10, for example. But the saying does cause confusion as it does not reference focal length.

Exactly Vaughn. I guess I was being a little vague. Composing the same scene on a smaller format automatically requires a shorter focal-length lens, hence more depth of field.

The same thing applies to using a shorter focal length and cropping.

Sorry for any confusion.

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

*sigh* ok, time for a math lesson. let's say you have a subject the same size as the image area of 4x5 film. to photograph it with a 4x5 camera requires a 1:1 magnification ratio. a 1:1 magnification ratio requires double the distance from film to lens and gives you a projected image that's 2 stops darker compared to being focused at infinity, regardless of what focal length or film format you're using. creating the equivalent image with a 35mm camera requires a much smaller magnification ratio than 1:1 and therefore much less than double the distance from film to lens and much less than a 2 stop drop in brightness. so if your meter says f/16 and your cameras are both set to f/16, the 4x5 is effectively f/32 and the 35mm is much closer to f/16. see the problem? ...

Well, no again.

Magnification functions independently of format as well. Getting 1:1 on 4x5 requires 2x the extension needed for focusing at infinity and the amount of light hitting the film is reduced by two stops or a factor of 4 (according to the inverse square law). The resulting image is "life size," hence a 4x5" object would fill the frame.

Getting 1:1 on a 35mm camera is exactly the same. It requires twice the extension needed for infinity, the amount of light reduction is exactly the same (inverse square law again) but this time, a 24x36mm object will fill the frame.

Yes, effective aperture depends on magnification, but it, too, is format independent.

Filling a frame of 35mm film with a 4x5" object is not 1:1, it's a different magnification ratio, hence the different exposure required. While "creating the equivalent image" on a smaller format will, indeed, require less magnification and, hence, a smaller drop in brightness, you're not comparing apples to apples here. Still, I get your point. That's why I suggested to the OP to maybe use a smaller format in the first place.

Best,

Doremus

P.S: Sorry I made you *sigh*.

[maltfalc]

Well, no again.

Magnification functions independently of format as well. Getting 1:1 on 4x5 requires 2x the extension needed for focusing at infinity and the amount of light hitting the film is reduced by two stops or a factor of 4 (according to the inverse square law). The resulting image is "life size," hence a 4x5" object would fill the frame.

Getting 1:1 on a 35mm camera is exactly the same. It requires twice the extension needed for infinity, the amount of light reduction is exactly the same (inverse square law again) but this time, a 24x36mm object will fill the frame.

Yes, effective aperture depends on magnification, but it, too, is format independent.

Filling a frame of 35mm film with a 4x5" object is not 1:1, it's a different magnification ratio, hence the different exposure required. While "creating the equivalent image" on a smaller format will, indeed, require less magnification and, hence, a smaller drop in brightness, you're not comparing apples to apples here. Still, I get your point. That's why I suggested to the OP to maybe use a smaller format in the first place.

Best,

Doremus

P.S: Sorry I made you *sigh*.

jesus christ, you're just repeating and agreeing with things i literally just explained multiple times in my other comments as if i didn't understand them and insisting i'm wrong somehow, without addressing my actual point at all, which somehow you're either still not grasping or ignoring. how am i wrong? quote the specific thing i said that you think is wrong. or better yet, read ALL my comments as many times as it takes to understand what i'm actually saying. have a nice life.

[Doremus Scudder]

Jesus Christ, you're just repeating and agreeing with things i literally just explained multiple times in my other comments as if i didn't understand them and insisting I'm wrong somehow, without addressing my actual point at all, which somehow you're either still not grasping or ignoring. how am i wrong? quote the specific thing i said that you think is wrong. or better yet, read ALL my comments as many times as it takes to understand what I'm actually saying. have a nice life.

No need to get testy... Let's try to keep these discussions civil in both tone and content. I certainly am. And, I'm looking back at your posts and trying to see what I'm failing to grasp. So, let's see:


the film itself still requires the same amount of light per square inch, but the larger the format, the higher the magnification needs to be to fill the frame with your subject. higher magnification=dimmer image. having to use smaller apertures doesn't help either.

This was the first post I responded to. I still think the statement, "...the larger the format, the higher the magnification needs to be to fill the frame with your subject. higher magnification=dimmer image." is misleading, especially for those that aren't worried about doing macro work, where effective f-stop changes substantially, but are just interested in general near-infinity landscape, normal-distance portraiture, etc. where we can ignore effective f-stop. Yes, indeed, I need a 150mm lens to fill my 4x5 sheet with a particular subject, for which I'd only need a 50mm lens on my 35mm camera to get roughly the same framing. However, the exposure that my meter tells me to use is exactly the same. If my meter says f/16 at 1/30 second for my 35mm camera, it will be the same for the 4x5 if I'm using the same speed film in both (or an equivalent aperture/shutter speed combination). The "higher magnification" of the 150mm lens compared to the 50mm lens doesn't make any difference in the exposure at all here.


*sigh* ok, time for a math lesson. let's say you have a subject the same size as the image area of 4x5 film. to photograph it with a 4x5 camera requires a 1:1 magnification ratio. a 1:1 magnification ratio requires double the distance from film to lens and gives you a projected image that's 2 stops darker compared to being focused at infinity, regardless of what focal length or film format you're using. creating the equivalent image with a 35mm camera requires a much smaller magnification ratio than 1:1 and therefore much less than double the distance from film to lens and much less than a 2 stop drop in brightness. so if your meter says f/16 and your cameras are both set to f/16, the 4x5 is effectively f/32 and the 35mm is much closer to f/16. see the problem?

Yes, I see the "problem," I just don't think it is applicable to the OP's problem; they are likely a beginner and dealing with depth of field issues, i.e., needing to stop down a lot for "infinity" shots, not likely doing a lot of close-up work. And, if you'll notice, I advocated using a smaller format and the attendant shorter-focal length lenses needed for the same view to be able to work with the same depth of field at a wider aperture.


read my reply to Doremus above. the f-stops printed on your lenses are only accurate at infinity. when you focus closer, you increase "f" but the diameter of the opening at the front of the lens stays the same, so the ratio changes and f/16 isn't f/16 anymore, and that change in ratio scales up with the format. so if you're shooting landscapes, no significant difference in metering between formats, but the closer the subject is the more significant the difference gets and on average large format requires a larger adjustment to your f-stop (or shutter speed) to compensate than smaller formats do.

Let's clarify a bit here: Yes, we need exposure compensation for close-up work and, yes, the effective aperture changes when you focus closer than infinity. However, there is normally no need to worry about exposure compensation until the subject being focused on is closer than 10x the focal length of the lens (and that's being conservative). For a 4x5 camera with a 150mm lens, that means everything from 1.5 meters to infinity will NOT need any compensation under general conditions. So, as far as most photography is concerned, LF or otherwise, where our subjects are a few feet away from the camera, worrying about exposure compensation is superfluous. Furthermore, most of us just apply extension factors to compensate for exposure when we are photographing closer objects and the extension warrants an adjustment. We really only need to worry about the effective f-stop when we are doing depth-of-field calculations.


in practical terms, if you want to frame your subject (of any size) a certain way in the final image, the larger your film format is, the higher the magnification needs to be and the more light you need above what your meter says you need, except when focused at infinity because that's the point where your lens' f-stops are actually what they say they are and will match your meter.

I'll repeat. The same rendering of a subject, for any format, from the same camera position, and using the appropriate focal-length lens to get the desired framing, makes no difference whatsoever in the exposure for "normal" working distances.

If I set up my 35mm camera with a 50mm lens, my 6x7 camera with a 90mm lens and my 4x5 camera with a 150mm lens in the same spot, I'll get roughly the same framing on the film and, if am not working at close distance and if I'm using the same film in all three cameras, I'll have the same exposure for all three. You seem to imply that the longer lenses on the 6x7 and 4x5 cameras needed to get the same framing somehow project progressively less light onto the film requiring more exposure. That is simply not the case except when doing extreme close-ups. But that's another ball of wax and I think not really relevant to the discussion here.

Where the real problem arises is the need to get the same depth of field for all three shots. Then, the shots on the 6x7 and 4x5 cameras will need progressively smaller apertures to get the same depth of field, requiring appropriately longer shutter speeds. Nevertheless, the exposure is still the same for all three cameras; just the ratio of aperture to shutter speed has changed. The total light reaching the film stays constant for all three.

If I've misunderstood you somehow, I apologize - but it really seems to me you are saying that a larger format needs more exposure for the same exact framing regardless of whether the shot is a close up or not. For the vast majority of photography, i.e., that done at distances a few feet from the camera and farther. This simply doesn't apply.

And, we've strayed quite a bit from helping the OP with their original question about whether to push or not... I think our discussion is likely confusing the issue.

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Bedo]

I understand that the OP is working outdoors. I have in the past, shot table-tops and still life compositions indoors using strobes. Some times the bellows extension was pretty long and the correction was pretty large. To work around that I made multiple :pops" of the strobs to build up the image and avoid reciprocity corrections.

For out door work, lock it all down and use longer exposures.

[Bruce Watson]

Brand brand new to LF, but not to photography: finding that LF seems to require a TON more light to get a good negative (as compared to 35mm film, or to digital):

Many people making the transition from small formats to larger formats feel like this. But the science doesn't back them up. Exposure is exposure and is not format dependent.


Should I start push developing all my film?
Can't use a much slower shutter as I am shooting portraits!
And my lens wide open at f/6.8 is too soft for my liking

The problem with "pushing" is that it doesn't. Push. Classical pushing underexposes your shadows so that you get "empty shadows" that lack detail. In the video world this is called "crushing your blacks". Classical pushing then overdevelops the film in an effort to compensate for the underexposure, and all this does is make your highlights more dense and raises your contrast ratio accordingly. This in turn causes a more grainy look in the final print because of the increased highlight density (that increased density in the highlights is created by more and bigger grain clumps on the film).

So what you get from "pushing" is a decrease in shadow detail, an increase in contrast, and a more grainy look. The joy of LF is that you typically use considerably less magnification in printing (5x4 only needs 4x enlargement to make a 20x16 print), so this increased graininess is reasonably well hidden. It might work for you. Know one can know if it'll do what you want but you.

What it all comes down to is the old saw: "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights." Once you understand this (to the point where you can control it and make it do what you want), you can figure out how to break the rule to get what you want in the final print. And that final print is really what it's all about, yes?

[Ulophot]

Bruce, quite correct. For Adrienne's sake, just two notes. When you say "reasonably well hidden" respecting grain in 4x5: one person's grainy is another person's smooth, to adopt the old adage. I use the same film, HP5, as Adrienne, for location portraiture, as noted above. I print up to 11x14, sometimes with significant cropping, which is 2,78 to, say, 3.5x, and I don't see the grain; maybe others would, and sure, an 8x10 contact print (or 16x20, for that matter) would be creamier. Second, as I noted above, in low-luminance-range situations such as she described, a push could simply lower a Zone III 1/2 or IV to II 1/2 to III, and the pushed development would effectively be N+1, with, if I may use the term advisedly, a "normal" result.

[Jim Noel]

Neal Chavez posted an excellent process for determining EI and development time.
By the way -THERE IS NO WAY TO INCREASE ISO - too often called pushing, or pulling. The ISO is determined by the manufacturer and can't be altered. What can vary is the users Exposure Index or EI. This can vary with each individual.
Also - Pushing is better called over-development, and Pulling is better called under-development.

[Jim Noel]

Very good Bruce.

[Drew Wiley]

Leave the practice of pushing to drug dealers. It only takes a tiny bit more patience to shoot a scene for 1/2 sec rather than 1/30th sec, for example. We outdoor LF photographers get quite good at reading wind activity, for sake of exactly the right moment. And smaller aperture stops just come with the territory too.

[Kerosene Hat]

“ Shooting Ilford HP5 400 at f/11 (for sharpness on my f/6.8 210mm Calumet lens) for 1/30 in open shade and getting THIN negs!? 4x5 Calumet monorail cam.
I will admit: I've been bad and haven't really used a light meter...but still!”

That right there is your problem statement amd solution.


Learn how to meter and understand light.

And with negative film setting your ISO to a stop sower will improve those negatives’ densities.

Also, make sure you consider reciprocity failure at longer shutter speeds (1”+).


Read, learn, practice.

Buy a copy of Using the View Camera by Steve Simmons. Stick with one developer, film and paper combo at a clip to get a sense of how things work together before changing tons of variables.

Good shooting

[Drew Wiley]

And f/11? - rarely the sharpest setting for view camera work. Your film doesn't lie perfectly flat in the holder to begin with. Makes more sense to use around f/22 or f/32 in most cases using 4X5 film if you want optimal detail. Just how many yards wide do you plan to enlarge anyway? Large format film has plenty of surplus real estate, area wise, allowing ample magnification even at somewhat smaller stops like those I just mentioned. That's why published image circles relative to specific lenses are generally provided in relation to f/22. You therefore also might need to standardize on this kind of smaller aperture just to get enough image circle and wiggle room for serious view camera movements like tilt or rise.