PDA

View Full Version : matte box shade anyone?



Andrea Gazzoni
24-Nov-2011, 01:18
anyone is using this kind of cine box shade on their LF camera?
any advice? is this overkill for photography at 1,7lb ?

thank you
andrea

Brian C. Miller
24-Nov-2011, 01:27
Nope, I'm not using one like that, but I wish I was! Keeping stray light away from a lens greatly improves resolution and contrast. I have a compendium shade, but it only works with the Lee adapter. Some of the lens shades can attach to a hotshoe mount, and then can shade the lens from the sun.

Andrea Gazzoni
24-Nov-2011, 02:32
how practical are those Lee/compendium shades ?

I am not fond of these screw-on system, in fact I often find myself annoyed by the Cokin P type filters, too much fiddling with plastic adapters, too many rings to search around in your backpack, filters slipping in the holder, etc... not so practical when your in a hurry with light vanishing in minutes.

Bob Salomon
24-Nov-2011, 07:10
Yes and no. The type you illustrated, no. It is attached to the lens of a non-adjustable camera. A proper compendiium for a LF camera attaches directly to the camera front standard. It tilts and swings as the standard moves plus it has shift and rise as well as being adjustable in and out. That way it will allow maximum extension of the compendium without vignetting when you do front or back movements.
Many also have cropping masks to allow you to permit only the light rays actually making the exposure to reach the image plane.

The type you illustrated on a view camera would simply be an adjustable length lens hood.

Kimberly Anderson
24-Nov-2011, 07:44
I have the Lee system and use it whenever I can. The problem with the Lee system is that you have to have step-up or step-down rings for any lenses that are very small. With my G-clarons smaller than 355 adapters are needed.

I would think honestly that the compendium that attaches to the front standard is best. I am strongly considering one even though I already have the Lee.

drew.saunders
24-Nov-2011, 09:39
how practical are those Lee/compendium shades ?



I have a Lee hood with 2 filter slots and the adaptors on most of my LF lenses. It's more practical than individual screw-on filters, since I only need one of each filter. The adaptor can get in the way of some of the controls on an LF lens if you have large hands, like I do. I probably should just bring along a pencil with a good eraser so I can get grip on the levers etc. I found the wide-angle hood with 2 slots to work well enough for all of my lenses, even my 300mm on 4x5.

Frank Petronio
24-Nov-2011, 10:42
One of the nicest compendiums I used was from a Wista because it mounted to the front standard and it allowed me to compress and extend any of the four corners to suit the situation. It also swung up and out of the way for quick lens adjustments, and it was large enough that I could still attach a filter holder to most moderate-sized lenses.

Most of the other brand-dedicated shades don't allow that but at least follow the front standard's movements. Many provide adjustability but don't allow you to quickly swing them out of the way to cock the shutter, etc. Even the compendiums from the fancy brands like Sinar, Arca-Swiss, etc. can be slow and awkward to use, especially outdoors or for portraits where you need to work smooth and fast.

For a screw-into the lens shade, the nicest I found was an older Hasselblad Pro-Shade with the appropriate threaded adapter (in mm, not Bay series). Nicer than the Lee IMHO, except sometimes the "arms" get in the way of wider angle lenses.

In the end, especially for field work in the wind and wanting to work fast, I would use a shallow screw-in metal shade and a little Voodoo with the darkslide or my body to shade the majority of the extraneous light.

Andrea Gazzoni
24-Nov-2011, 14:45
also found this one, fully compatible with cokin p adapter rings.
it accepts one filter but cannot rotate it, so grads may be difficult to use.
the main concern is how difficult accessing shutter controls could be with such a rig attached to the filter thread.

anglophone1
24-Nov-2011, 15:16
also found this one, fully compatible with cokin p adapter rings.
it accepts one filter but cannot rotate it, so grads may be difficult to use.
the main concern is how difficult accessing shutter controls could be with such a rig attached to the filter thread.

This looks nice Andrea where can you buy?

Ian Gordon Bilson
24-Nov-2011, 21:10
A practical,effective,and much less bulky alternative is to use a "Flag".
A small adjustable clamp to hold something like a darkslide to shield the lens from flare-causing light sources.

Ken Lee
25-Nov-2011, 04:34
As an example of Bob's description, here's what a Sinar lens shade (system) looks like in various configurations. Notice the 3rd picture, where almost all extraneous light can be removed, matching the actual ratio of the film or sensor. That's the real deal.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/SinarShade.png

Once
25-Nov-2011, 05:06
As an example of Bob's description, here's what a Sinar lens shade (system) looks like in various configurations. Notice the 3rd picture, where almost all extraneous light can be removed, matching the actual ratio of the film or sensor. That's the real deal.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/SinarShade.png

Ken, both you and Bob are wrong. Even if you configure the shade's sides in such a way that they match the film format ratio and limit the lens view on the film area only it still doesn't mean that ALL image non forming light has been removed. It has only been reduced to the minimum given at that shade's length. The geometry of a lens shade is more complicated than you and Bob understand.

Bob Salomon
25-Nov-2011, 06:07
Ken, both you and Bob are wrong. Even if you configure the shade's sides in such a way that they match the film format ratio and limit the lens view on the film area only it still doesn't mean that ALL image non forming light has been removed. It has only been reduced to the minimum given at that shade's length. The geometry of a lens shade is more complicated than you and Bob understand.

A full pro compendium has the same bellows length as is used by the camera's for the exposure in qusestion and the opening in the front of the bellows is the same size as the image area. These are too large and bulky for field use so better field compendiums compensate for this by closing the masks down until they just manage to intrude into the image area. Then there is no stray light. They do it this way because a field compendium has less bellows length then the camera has.

Ken Lee
25-Nov-2011, 08:12
Thank you for the correction.

I have revised my post to read "almost all extraneous light has been removed".

By the way, I have the lens shade shown in the first of the 3 photos. It's small and light enough to take into the field, and because it's a real bellows, can be used for additional extension with longer lenses.

Andrea Gazzoni
25-Nov-2011, 14:25
I have and use the Sinar barn doors shade, but it only fits Sinar cameras.

Any reason why so many of these matte boxes lack bottom shading?

cjbroadbent
25-Nov-2011, 16:12
My old Cameflex matte-box is rigid and has masks for five lenses and a geared slot for glass wedge filters. I used to think it was a pretty sound idea - in those days there was a lot of shooting with overhead back-light and a lot of white backgrounds that were 2 stops over.
Ever since the 'natural light' revolution - one large source off to the side somewhere - the matte-box has been forgotten in favour of a 'Cremer' or tin flag attached to the tripod. I use the bottom of a an 8x10 box and a double clip most of the time.

The Matte-box got it's name because it was originally devised for special effects in the cinema - such as blocking out part of the picture for later insertion of scenery and such.

Renato Tonelli
26-Nov-2011, 20:00
I have modified my Linhof compendium to accept 4x4 filters and it works reasonably well even with the ND grads; the Cokin shade has to be attached to the lens via adapters: readily usable for different cameras but a nuisance when you change lenses and you need the ring adapters for different lenses.

I have a beautiful Chrosziel Matte Box for a Super 16 camera: one filter stage rotates, additional flag clipped on top, BUT -it is bulky and too heavy for any of the front standards I have.

So, I'm still looking for the 'near perfect' shade/filer holder...

Jody_S
28-Nov-2011, 14:19
I have an old Lindahl bellows shade that I've fitted to my B&J, it has a geared thingy on the bottom that lets me push the shade 1" away from the camera so I can access the shutter, leaving me about 5" of shade if my memory serves. I say memory, because I've only ever taken it out into the field once. Since then, I just hold up my dark cloth as an improvised shade when I need one. If I did a lot of studio work, I would leave the Lindahl permanently attached but as-is, it's too much trouble to bring and set up each time.

Once
4-Dec-2011, 06:56
A full pro compendium has the same bellows length as is used by the camera's for the exposure in qusestion and the opening in the front of the bellows is the same size as the image area. These are too large and bulky for field use so better field compendiums compensate for this by closing the masks down until they just manage to intrude into the image area. Then there is no stray light. They do it this way because a field compendium has less bellows length then the camera has.

Bob, your explanations show that you still donít understand correctly the underlying geometry involved in a lens shade construction. It is erroneous to think that for the simple fact of the shadeís opening size being equal to the film format and at a distance of the lens focal length all extraneous light is eliminated.
I have indicated this error of yours in my previous post. Since Mr. Ken Lee have deleted the post I mention I wonít repeat the geometrical reasons proving you wrong. Instead I challenge you to investigate your error in a simple practical way.

Put a lens shade (the one you mistakenly believe being able to eliminate all the stray light) on a lens. Have an assistant place a torch 9 ft in front of the lens (the longer the distance the more obvious your mistake is), in the lens axis. Now tell him to slowly move the torch (while shining at the lens) away from the axis, perpendicularly to it. When you wonít be able to see the torch on the cameraís gg tell him to stop moving. Then ask him, if he can still shine with the torch on the lens surface. He will tell you that yes, he still can. Thatís the light that you donít see on the gg but yet it illuminates the lens - the stray light that was not eliminated by the lens shade.

Alternatively, you can use a laser, easier to see on the lens surface than a torch light. Another way to perform the practical proof of your error is to have the assistant be looking on the lens surface and move slowly in the way the torch did before. When you wonít see his eyes on your gg tell him to stop moving. He will still be able to se the lens surface - despite the lens shade on it! Hopefully this simple experiment will convince you that the full elimination of a stray light with a lens shade doesnít work as you thought it does.

Once
4-Dec-2011, 07:32
anyone is using this kind of cine box shade on their LF camera?
any advice? is this overkill for photography at 1,7lb ?

thank you
andrea

Yes, it is an overkill. Not because of the shading capacity but because of its ridiculous weight inadmissible on LF cameras for this kind of accessories.
Why not to make yourself such a shading "matte box" from black flocking paper and put it on your lens?

Once
5-Dec-2011, 04:22
Thank you for the correction.

I have revised my post to read "almost all extraneous light has been removed".

<snip>

Mr. Ken Lee,
respectfully, I have to inform you, that in doing so (i.e. revising your post with a different wording) in the time indicated by your posting, you were actually acting against the rules of this forum! And as if that behaviour of a moderator were not shocking enough in itself, in order to act the way you did you needed to misuse your special faculties given to you as a moderator - namely, the faculty to override the forumís automatic editing time limits, otherwise valid for all forum members.

As a forumís moderator you are surely well aware of the fact, that members are not allowed to re-edit their posts after a time delay of 20 (25?) minutes. What is more, posts cannot be edited once they were commented upon by other posters. You, Mr. Lee, have gone against both of these rules in re-editing the post in question after more that 3hrs and after it has already been commented upon- a possibility given to you only because of your moderatorís special access to the editing software.

Your forbidden acting is sad even more so considering the fact, that by revising your post you left a post of another forum member (my own) hanging with citations that are not anymore precise thus making another member either lying or seemed incapable or unwilling of a precise citation. It is exactly this kind of situation that is the reason why this forum doesnít allow re-editing posts that has already been commented on.

Mr. Lee - why did you act in this forbidden way? Did you perhaps wish to ę*cover Ľ your technically erroneous affirmation in your post? If so, couldnít you simply correct your opinion in a new post? Especially when you anyway admitted your error in your following post - since you corrected your opinion after my critical remark (subsequently deleted by you!). What is the reason that you went to such a length so as to use your moderating privilege to override forumís editing rules? Could you, please, explain this behaviour of yours?
(BTW - even after your correction your re-edited affirmation is technically incorrect - but that is a different story.)

Helen Bach
5-Dec-2011, 05:09
Hello George!

Jim Michael
5-Dec-2011, 07:23
A cinema matte box is usually mounted on a rail system that keeps the weight off the lens and lens mount. Advantage is ability to use same filter system for all your cine lenses and in some cases use multiple filters. Seems like it would be difficult to mount one on a field camera but might work on a monorail, however there would a few issues to deal with (the lens to MB interface would have to be modified, a rail system would have to be configured, and the MB height would need to be adjusted probably by machining a new mounting block) so the little benefit would unlikely be worth the effort. I'd love to have one of those Sinar shade systems. Question: Is the same system used on both the 8x10 and 4x5 systems and is is the same system between the F and P models?

Bob Salomon
5-Dec-2011, 08:27
Once,

A name would be helpful,
Attached are two descriptions of a compendium for a large format camera. One from the book "Large Format Photography" from Grosbild and the other the compendium description page from a Linhof catalog. You might also want to check pages 93 and 94 of Jim Stone's book "A User Guide to the View Camera".

Bob Salomon
5-Dec-2011, 08:28
Here is the other

Actually, both. Attachments and I don't get along.

Once
5-Dec-2011, 08:52
Bob,
I know how a compendium lens shade looks.
I suppose you did not perform the simple test I suggested that proves your lens shade geometrical concept is wrong. Never mind, it's easier just to toss here and there a few marketing pictures from manufactures. That's why I told you that HP Marketing (i.e. the access to these brochures) won't help to understand the underlying geometry.
Have a good day (and once you want to actually see you're wrong do the tests I suggested).

Bob Salomon
5-Dec-2011, 09:21
I didn't post them to show you what a compendium looks like. I posted them so you could read what they do.

Once
5-Dec-2011, 09:28
I know what lens shades do.
Have a good day (and once you want to actually see you're wrong do the tests I suggested).