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

[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 SD

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.

[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...

[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.

[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

[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 SD

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.

[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*.