Question Regarding 35mm/MF lenses for Macro on 4x5

[Bernice Loui]

Start here:
http://www.savazzi.net/photography/default.htm


Monorail view camera is highly preferred for "macro" work. Far more ideal would be a modular mono rail camera system like Sinar as this system has a shutter option allowing virtually any lens to be used within what image recording device (film to digital small to large image recording device). Usable optics are limited to what can be mounted to the lens board. The entire camera set up can be mounted to a base board, or the object to be imaged set up on a camera standard with a board to support the object to be imaged. This same board can be altered/modified to support lighting needed achieve the image goals.

Any lens for 35mm can be made to cover 8x10 sheet film by reverse mounting the lens knowing the scene/image projected to the 35mm film or digital imager IS much larger than the image recording means (35mm film or similar). This is much a matter of moving in close enough to achieve the image reproduction ratios needed. As the image reproduction ratio approach 1:1 aka "life size" lens performance is likely going to suffer LOTs as these optics were never designed to be used this way. As for large apertures ala f1.4 and such.. the depth of focus becomes extremely thin with increasing magnification ala image reproduction ratios. This will impose very extreme requirements on film/imager flatness and camera/set up precision/accuracy. Think microscope and more.

The FAR better way is to apply proper macro-micro image making tools and lighting methods as needed. While ok and great to experiment, would the goal of all this to achieve a known image goal or simply experiment to experiment.. ? Yes, there can and will be learning that will happen from this, but it is far easier to
learn from the experience of others that have already done this decades ago then apply this recorded knowledge/experiences said experiment. Fully understanding the experiment must figure into this or the activity becomes aimless with no real or significant goal(s).


Bernice

Is it not the point to learn? At least that was in large point the reason for moving from 35mm to MF to now LF... since it all ties in somehow. Beyond that is all started in Non-Linear Post Production... so... learn me up ��

[Greg]

I'd try to acquire one or more of these books:

CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPHY & PHOTOMACROGRAPHY Kodak N-12 publication

The Manual of Close-Up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz

PHOTOGRAPHY FOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION by Alfreds A. Blaker

All three are pre-digital and cover working with MF and LF systems and techniques. Try finding them used on eBay. I took a quick look and all of $30.00 would get you all three books within a week or so. Beware of sellers/dealers asking exorbitantly high prices for these three publications.... these books are anything but rare books.

I seem to remember that some Sinar Norma publications also covered photomacrography. I don't recall which publications so maybe someone else could chime in here?

Simply Google the term photomacrography, and you should find a lot of free info and answers.

[John Layton]

Reversed 55mm 3.5 Micro-Nikkor on 4x5 film. Not a great copy...in actuality the entire image is very sharp! (except the tops of the pinion shafts, which are outside of the DOF)

[EBJohnson]

Reversed 55mm 3.5 Micro-Nikkor on 4x5 film. Not a great copy...in actuality the entire image is very sharp! (except the tops of the pinion shafts, which are outside of the DOF)

Nice, this is what I was looking for!!! So, it is a thing that folks have tried... Have you tried on anything wider than the 55/3.5 John? Also, was the bellows factor figured based on multiples of the F-mount flange distance?

After the multiple posts about reversing the lens I was thinking for the safety of the lens it might be worth creating a lens board that the lens mounts to, but inside the bellows, so I could put a UV or something on the outside... but.. if 46.5mm is still my multiple for extension, that might not be feasible...

Great image by the way!

[Bernice Loui]

"Wider" would reduce the bellows/camera draw needed to achieve the image reproduction ratio needed. Lens focal length required for any given "macro/micro" image depends lots on magnification or image reproduction ratio needed to achieve the image goal.

Do some study/research on this as typical photographic image making conventions do not always apply to the macro/micro image making realities.


Bernice

Have you tried on anything wider than the 55/3.5 John? Also, was the bellows factor figured based on multiples of the F-mount flange distance?

[John Layton]

I did this (watch movement) image ages (like 45 years) ago…but as I remember, I first crafted a lens board (for a 4x5 Crown Graphic) out of tempered masonite, cut a hole in this and into this hole glued a 52mm filter ring - which allowed me to reverse mount the Micro Nikkor.

I then cut a hole in a Nikon rear lens cap, which allowed me to affix a shutter (from which the lens cells had been removed).

To create this image, I first filled a paper cup about 3/4 full with water, and then sprinkled a small amount of aluminum powder onto the water’s surface. I then, using tweezers and with extreme care…laid out the various watch movement pieces - allowing them to float upon the surface tension.

After doing the above, I very carefully moved the camera over the top of the paper cup, and, after side-lighting the subject with a simple desk lamp, carefully focussed the image prior to stopping the lens down…to F/16 if I remember correctly. After inserting a film holder, I then simply shut off the lamp, removed the dark slide, opened the shutter, and turned the lamp back on for the exposure…reasoning that using the light switch instead of the shutter to time the exposure’s duration would allow me to be completely isolated from the camera during the exposure, thus minimizing any risk of camera shake and/or movement of the water's surface.

As for how I measured the exposure…I believe I used my trusty Weston Master V, with the incident light “invercone” installed, to measure from a distance under the desk lamp equal to its distance from the subject, and then measured one of the watch movement parts on the ground glass and compared this to the actual size of the watch movement to acquire the reproduction ration - which allowed me to compute the exposure. Completely forget those figures now, but I do remember doing a range of exposures, with the most successful of these being in the vicinity of one minute.

At any rate…after all these years, I still have the aluminum powder, plus a number of long-dead watches to dissect - and now that I’ve written the above, I feel newly inspired to try this whole thing again! This time I’ll use a 100mm Componon-S, likely with 8x10 film, which I will then contact print. Then again, I could go with a 180 Componon-S with 11x14 film…which just might be spectacular! (or a total failure...but will be fun to try!)

[Dan Fromm]

Nice, this is what I was looking for!!! So, it is a thing that folks have tried... Have you tried on anything wider than the 55/3.5 John? Also, was the bellows factor figured based on multiples of the F-mount flange distance?

After the multiple posts about reversing the lens I was thinking for the safety of the lens it might be worth creating a lens board that the lens mounts to, but inside the bellows, so I could put a UV or something on the outside... but.. if 46.5mm is still my multiple for extension, that might not be feasible...

Great image by the way!

Sheesh! By a copy of Lefkowitz instead of guessing.

46.5 mm is the Nikon F mount flange-to-film distance, therefore is the minimum working distance for closeup photography. The magic number to use in calculating extension needed to get desired magnification, also adjustment of exposure for magnification, is the lens' focal length.

Get out of the 35 mm still mindset. You don't need to protect the lens when working closeup. No need to add mechanical complexity to be able to mount a UV filter.