Large Format Landscapes

http://www.vasina.net/wp-content/gal...x8-113_web.jpg

Field of Snow
Part of my "Serene Landscape" portfolio.

Shot with Chamonix 5×8" Large Format camera and Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 210mm f:4.5 lens on 5×8" sheet of Adox CHS 25, developed in Rodinal (R09) 1:50.

Just an experiment to see how my Kodak Ektar 203mm F7.7 lens worked without the back lens attached (I really wanted a longer lens, but only have the 203mm and a 125mm yet). I couldn't get focus with my bellows, so I had to stop all the way down to F64.

As you can see, I didn't get my exposure right, I forgot to add the bellows factor into the exposure.

Shot with a Zone VI 4x5 camera and Ektar 203 f7.7 lens on Fomapan 200 film. Developed in Pyrocat MC for 8.5 minutes.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7403/...f1c6f8d7_o.jpg
203mm-Experiment-1 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colorado CJ

Just an experiment to see how my Kodak Ektar 203mm F7.7 lens worked without the back lens attached (I really wanted a longer lens, but only have the 203mm and a 125mm yet). I couldn't get focus with my bellows, so I had to stop all the way down to F64.

As you can see, I didn't get my exposure right, I forgot to add the bellows factor into the exposure.

Shot with a Zone VI 4x5 camera and Ektar 203 f7.7 lens on Fomapan 200 film. Developed in Pyrocat MC for 8.5 minutes.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7403/...f1c6f8d7_o.jpg
203mm-Experiment-1 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr

---

I've never seen a 4x5 camera who's bellows couldn't handle a 200mm lens, so I'm a little confused about your comment that you couldn't get focused with the Bellows.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about with exposure because this is perfect, whatever you thought you wanted this is much better, I'm just saying this is such a beautiful image, I suspect the brighter exposure would not have been as good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

I've never seen a 4x5 camera who's bellows couldn't handle a 200mm lens, so I'm a little confused about your comment that you couldn't get focused with the Bellows.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about with exposure because this is perfect, whatever you thought you wanted this is much better, I'm just saying this is such a beautiful image, I suspect the brighter exposure would not have been as good.

---

he removed the rear elements, which changes the focal length.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vinny

he removed the rear elements, which changes the focal length.

---

Oh! Somehow I missed that, DUH! Ok thanks, still think it's lovely.

The image does look soft but it is not unpleasant.

Colorado CJ, you don't need a bellows exposure correction if you're focused at infinity. The bellows draw will be the same (or nearly the same) as the focal length of the front lens group you used. Nice view of Longs Peak, its North face, the Notch, parts of the Boulder Field, and Mt. Lady Washington. Good photo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Lobato

Colorado CJ, you don't need a bellows exposure correction if you're focused at infinity. The bellows draw will be the same (or nearly the same) as the focal length of the front lens group you used. Nice view of Longs Peak, its North face, the Notch, parts of the Boulder Field, and Mt. Lady Washington. Good photo.

---

But if you remove piece of glass does it change the effective aperture?

Yes it does. On convertible lenses, there is the secondary inscription. On non-convertible, you can roughly approximate by measuring the aperture's diameter and divide the focal length by the diameter. From what I understand, real aperture size might differ from apparent aperture based on lens construction. I might be wrong here, though...

My first LF lens was a 210mm Rodenstock Sironar convertible. With one lens group it was very difficult to find the correct focus so I rarely used it that way. The lens did have dual aperture scales, the green numbers were for the converted setup and its focal length was over 400mm.