Large Format photography group - From "zero to hero!"

Quick advice please if there is anyone around

Watching a lens on ebay, Schneider xenar 150mm f5.6, apparently has an image circle of 173mm, I'll be shooting mainly portrait and landscape with some occasional architecture, is that going to be too restrictive? (on a 4x5 camera)

max rise apparently 14.31/11.96 landscape/portrait, tilt 5.45/4.56 degrees

thanks
 
Last edited:
The minimum IC to cover 4x5 is 153mm so the lens you are watching offers 20mm outside of that which imo is not an awful lot ..... ideal for landscapes requiring just a little bit of front or rear tilt but for more extreme rise fall etc to correct verticals in architecture, i think you may find it too restrictive. Saying that I have lenses that only just cover the formats and I manage pretty much ok with them.. we adapt to what we have available.
Anyway here’s a chart that may offer you some helpful info

 
Asha said:
The minimum IC to cover 4x5 is 153mm so the lens you are watching offers 20mm outside of that which imo is not an awful lot ..... ideal for landscapes requiring just a little bit of front or rear tilt but for more extreme rise fall etc to correct verticals in architecture, i think you may find it too restrictive. Saying that I have lenses that only just cover the formats and I manage pretty much ok with them.. we adapt to what we have available.
Anyway here’s a chart that may offer you some helpful info

Click to expand...

thanks Asha, that's the chart I got the info off, which is what prompted my question in the first place as the image circle on this lens is so much smaller than the other 150mm listed. Given it appears in good condition, is cheap and is from the UK, I may risk it as a first lens as the architecture is probably low on my priority list. Buying this would also commit me to buying a camera.....

thanks for your help
 
Looking at the chart there is a xenar 150mm that shows similar rise and fall figures to the lens you mention in the opening post.
In theory it will work.
However if you use the full rise allowance for example and then require some swing or tilt, the limitations will become evident.
Nonetheless if the price is right and it’s in good condition then go for it.
I would think that you could move it on easy enough and get most of your money back at a later date if you want to upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
However if you use the full rise allowance for example and then require some swing or tilt, the limitations will become evident.
Click to expand...

I suspect it may be some time before I progress beyond shooting it straight :) the complexities of rise and fall and swing etc are still very much a mystical black art to me. I'm more concerned about getting the bloody film into the holders in the dark to be quite honest
 
flook999 said:
oh well, went up in price last minute, decision made for me
Click to expand...
It might be worth putting a Wanted ad in the F&C sale/swap section as someone may be thinking of upgrading or changing a lens they have. Having a willing buyer for their existing lens can help this process along. ;) (no, I'm not thinking of changing mine!)
 
Last edited:
flook999 said:
oh well, went up in price last minute, decision made for me
Click to expand...
It wasn’t meant to be.
Symmar S 150mm is decent with much more coverage (231mm) . I now have an L but the early S models are good, usually not too expensive.
A little note that unless you intend shooting colour, I personally wouldn’t be drawn into to MC lenses ( multicoated).
Nothing at all wrong with them , indeed my 210mm is MC but for b&w film, it’s far from a necessary attribute.
Hence the early Synmars ( and no doubt other brands) come available at reasonable prices.
Just be sure the glass is free of fungus and balsam separation and the shutter functions correctly ,
 
I was still unsure about making the move into 5x4, however missing the lens, followed 7 minutes later by missing a couple of mint dark slides because I tried to be clever despite not using ebay for about 5 years (who knew you had to press confirm bid :/ ) has left me surprisingly disappointed, suggesting deep down I really want to give this a go.
 
flook999 said:
I was still unsure about making the move into 5x4, however missing the lens, followed 7 minutes later by missing a couple of mint dark slides because I tried to be clever despite not using ebay for about 5 years (who knew you had to press confirm bid :/ ) has left me surprisingly disappointed, suggesting deep down I really want to give this a go.
Click to expand...

a good sign then lol

take your time.

the gear will come you way soon enough.

you know that Nick @RaglanSurf has a couple of cameras in classifieds? ..... perhaps he can help with lens/ holders.
 
I tend to agree in that 170 odd mm doesn’t give you a huge range of movement. Perhaps look, as essentially suggested by @Asha, for something in the range of 200mm plus.

I agree with @Asha on the MC side of things to some extent. While he’s absolutely right in that it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things in principle - one can get perfectly good, even exceptional images with a single coat lens - just remember that B&W film does still have a spectrally dependant response. As such, there will be a difference in the way the lens ‘colours’ the image, if you’ll forgive the phrase. How noticeable this is depends on many factors, so I suppose my advice is this: don’t be afraid to treat buying LF lenses as an ongoing experiment, and if you find a lens you like, happy days, if not move it on :).

edit to clarify: by like, I mean ‘is consistent’ with your vision for what you wanted to achieve with a certain image/genre/whatever. It should ideally be less about the technical, but equally understanding the technical aspects can help the artistic pursuit :)
 
Last edited:
flook999 said:
thanks, link added to bookmarks :)
Click to expand...

Next question needs to be one I can’t answer so someone else can have a turn lol

Besides I need to learn something too ;)

So can anyone tell me where the hell is the SD card slot on my intrepid ?? :exit:
 
Asha said:
Next question needs to be one I can’t answer so someone else can have a turn lol

Besides I need to learn something too ;)

So can anyone tell me where the hell is the SD card slot on my intrepid ?? :exit:
Click to expand...

No no no I much prefer all the information to come from one source, that way I know where to go with my burning torch and pitchfork when I destitute and divorced :)

Oh and Intrepids take compact flash not SD :wave:
 
Peter B said:
I was looking for the spec of a Symmar S 180mm lens and founf that Schneider Optics historical data page has gone. Thankfully, an enthusiast has recovered this data and hosted it on his blog at this linked site. Star man (y)
Click to expand...

I noticed that a while ago, and retrieved some of the pdfs. I wonder if anyone saved the original page(s) on the Internet Archive WayBack Machine?
 
StephenM said:
I wonder if anyone saved the original page(s) on the Internet Archive WayBack Machine?
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with the Wayback machine and what it might contain, I'm afraid. It seems a fairly petty thing for Schneider to have done, since it is a proud history.
 
The Internet Archive carries loads of old books, films, music whatever as a permanent respository. Very useful for old catalogues and books, and surprisingly few seem to know about it. The Wayback Machine is part of it, and is just a great big web site where you request a site, and they show you which dates someone saved that page for later retrieval. Saving is not automatic - it depends on someone doing it (and anyone can add pages).
 
Last edited:
A little project for anyone like me using a grafmatic and having to sometimes push the film.

To benefit from the full range of speeds available and to rememberwhich holder holds which sheet, I have numbered the septum’s to relate to the number dial on the grafmatic and attached a check box on the rear to keep a record of film speed that each septum was exposed at.
Obviously to clarify the septum’s, the film would have to be removed and stowed in the dark ( tank) before viewing the number but if the septum’s become mixed up when removed, this method offers a way of clarifying each sheet and thus ensuring correct development.
I’ve little doubt it has already been done by many folk but for anyone who for whom it may help, here it is explained.

F45C2BC4-FE9F-400C-85A3-43254D64D690.jpegDE665A36-F5E7-42D1-9491-EE26F1BA4689.jpeg
 
Asha said:
A little project for anyone like me using a grafmatic and having to sometimes push the film.

To benefit from the full range of speeds available and to rememberwhich holder holds which sheet, I have numbered the septum’s to relate to the number dial on the grafmatic and attached a check box on the rear to keep a record of film speed that each septum was exposed at.
Obviously to clarify the septum’s, the film would have to be removed and stowed in the dark ( tank) before viewing the number but if the septum’s become mixed up when removed, this method offers a way of clarifying each sheet and thus ensuring correct development.
I’ve little doubt it has already been done by many folk but for anyone who for whom it may help, here it is explained.

View attachment 300010View attachment 300011
Click to expand...
In actual fact, perhaps @stevelmx5 might fancy making a self adhesive 3D ‘card’ holder like what is found on the back of some film cameras to carry the film box card showing the film that’s loaded??
 
Large Format Photography and the Ever Deepening Mystery of Focussing Loupes

So many options, so little time, is a cheapo fixed focus loupe good enough? or is there an issue with this focussing on the "wrong" side of the GG as a number of interweb sites suggest (which does make sense in a way, but does 2mm of glass really make a difference)? In which case I need a vari-focus version, but these seem to be a little rarer than unicorn horns unless I'm prepared to sacrifice a kidney.

Any advice would be very welcome

:ty:
 
The big difference between loupes in my experience is that the cheap plastic ones, intended for viewing slides on a light box, suffer from colour fringing and distortion. After that, it's down to magnification and with/without dioptre adjustment.

The image is (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) formed on the ground side of the glass, and the issue is to get the groundglass mounted the correct face outward. Unless the glass is replaced, this shouldn't be an issue. The same does apply to a Fresnel screen, if fitted.

Depth of field is inversely related to depth of focus. Long lenses will be less critical in terms of ground glass position than short focal length ones, which is why (for example) Mike Walker makes his wide angle cameras with fixed backs to ensure they are parallel etc.
 
StephenM said:
The image is (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) formed on the ground side of the glass, and the issue is to get the groundglass mounted the correct face outward. Unless the glass is replaced, this shouldn't be an issue. The same does apply to a Fresnel screen, if fitted.
Click to expand...

Ah OK what I've read suggests the GG is on the lens side not the viewing side, What you have said makes more sense in terms of focussing, and I wondered if it was the other way around because of the construction of the dark slides (ie to slot the film into the same plane as the GG required the GG to be on the lens side).

Thanks Stephen that helps
 
flook999 said:
Ah OK what I've read suggests the GG is on the lens side not the viewing side, What you have said makes more sense in terms of focussing, and I wondered if it was the other way around because of the construction of the dark slides (ie to slot the film into the same plane as the GG required the GG to be on the lens side).

Thanks Stephen that helps
Click to expand...

The ground side is definitely on the lens side of the glass, and matches the film plane within standard sheet film holders [emoji1303]
 
Last edited:
flook999 said:
Large Format Photography and the Ever Deepening Mystery of Focussing Loupes

So many options, so little time, is a cheapo fixed focus loupe good enough? or is there an issue with this focussing on the "wrong" side of the GG as a number of interweb sites suggest (which does make sense in a way, but does 2mm of glass really make a difference)? In which case I need a vari-focus version, but these seem to be a little rarer than unicorn horns unless I'm prepared to sacrifice a kidney.

Any advice would be very welcome

:ty:
Click to expand...

I now have a 6x loupe with diopter control but 4x is generally sufficient and used by the majority I think.

Depends on your eyesight but the higher the magnification the increase in viewing the GG grain which in turn makes focusing more difficult.

I would recommend a 4x to start tbh.

If you need diopter control and decent optics then possibly search on Linhoff studios outlet whilst at the same time googling the contact details of your local kidney removal clinic [emoji23] lmao
 
flook999 said:
Large Format Photography and the Ever Deepening Mystery of Focussing Loupes

So many options, so little time, is a cheapo fixed focus loupe good enough? or is there an issue with this focussing on the "wrong" side of the GG as a number of interweb sites suggest (which does make sense in a way, but does 2mm of glass really make a difference)? In which case I need a vari-focus version, but these seem to be a little rarer than unicorn horns unless I'm prepared to sacrifice a kidney.

Any advice would be very welcome

:ty:
Click to expand...
As has been said it depends on your eyes but I mainly use some 3.5x reading glasses (cheap from ebay) for focussing, for comparison I normally use 1.5x reading glasses. There are some times when I use a loupe but that is only if I am trying to get clever with focusing, you could start with the cheap glasses and then get a loupe if you feel the need
 
Last edited:
sirch said:
As has been said it depends on your eyes but I mainly use some 3.5x reading glasses (cheap from ebay) for focussing, for comparison I normally use 1.5x reading glasses. There are some times when I use a loupe but that is only if I am trying to get clever with focusing, you could start with the cheap glasses and then get a loupe if you feel the need
Click to expand...

Best suggestion so far I think!(y)
 
I also use very strong reading glasses if I'm wearing contact lenses, on a neck cord so I can slip them off where emerging from the focusing cloth so I can see what I'm doing!

Without contacts, my short sight means I have to get to about 6 inches from the ground glass, which is fine.

My current loupe (Rodenstock, 4x, dioptre adjustment) requires me to wear contact lenses or glasses as it doesn't adjust enough for my eyes!

I'm getting the same 6x loupe as Asha has for Christmas or birthday (they are close together). Both came from Linhof and Studio, the current one was bought at Focus on Imaging where I could compare models and ask for advice.
 
stevelmx5 said:
The ground side is definitely on the lens side of the glass, and matches the film plane within standard sheet film holders [emoji1303]
Click to expand...

OK so what I read previously is correct, but does that affect the loupe operation? or is a couple of mm of glass between where the loupe rests and the plane on which the image is focussed irrelevant? I've read tales of removing the lens and focusing on the grain of the GG with the loupe to "commission" it, which suggests a basic loupe is no good. (Would also suggest reading glasses as others describe and seem to be using successfully are also no good) or am I missing something here?

Asha said:
I now have a 6x loupe with diopter control but 4x is generally sufficient and used by the majority I think.

Depends on your eyesight but the higher the magnification the increase in viewing the GG grain which in turn makes focusing more difficult.

I would recommend a 4x to start tbh.

If you need diopter control and decent optics then possibly search on Linhoff studios outlet whilst at the same time googling the contact details of your local kidney removal clinic [emoji23] lmao
Click to expand...

I'm looking currently at a 6x with diopter control (etone professional photography 6x loupe) and a basic Peak 1960 loupe magnifier with 5x magnification, which is about 20% of the cost. If I need (or would benefit) from the diopter control, and I am short sighted), then I'd probably plump for the Silvestri 4x from Linhoff Studios, which is the price of the other two together :/ I don't think I need dioptre control, but do I need adjustable focus on the loupe?


StephenM said:
I also use very strong reading glasses if I'm wearing contact lenses, on a neck cord so I can slip them off where emerging from the focusing cloth so I can see what I'm doing!

Without contacts, my short sight means I have to get to about 6 inches from the ground glass, which is fine.

My current loupe (Rodenstock, 4x, dioptre adjustment) requires me to wear contact lenses or glasses as it doesn't adjust enough for my eyes!
Click to expand...

I wear glasses full time for distance, but close up my eyesight is reasonable (I read without glasses), even though due to rapidly advancing age my optician has seen fit to prescribe vari-focals.
 
I've always assumed that the ground glass is correctly fitted, and if the loupe is set for my eyes (either by my wearing glasses or contacts) what I see when I put it on the ground glass in terms of focus is what I get. In however many years I've been doing this, everything has been fine.

When I got my current (and first) loupe, I was advised that 4x or 6x were the best magnifications, but 5x is obviously the same area.

If the image on the ground glass is sharp for a 5x4 camera, the 20x16 print will also be sharp - same magnification.

If you take the lens off to focus on the ground glass itself, you should get the dioptre adjustment spot on, but can you lock the adjustment?
 
flook999 said:
OK so what I read previously is correct, but does that affect the loupe operation? or is a couple of mm of glass between where the loupe rests and the plane on which the image is focussed irrelevant? I've read tales of removing the lens and focusing on the grain of the GG with the loupe to "commission" it, which suggests a basic loupe is no good. (Would also suggest reading glasses as others describe and seem to be using successfully are also no good) or am I missing something here?



I'm looking currently at a 6x with diopter control (etone professional photography 6x loupe) and a basic Peak 1960 loupe magnifier with 5x magnification, which is about 20% of the cost. If I need (or would benefit) from the diopter control, and I am short sighted), then I'd probably plump for the Silvestri 4x from Linhoff Studios, which is the price of the other two together :/ I don't think I need dioptre control, but do I need adjustable focus on the loupe?




I wear glasses full time for distance, but close up my eyesight is reasonable (I read without glasses), even though due to rapidly advancing age my optician has seen fit to prescribe vari-focals.
Click to expand...

The image is projected onto the ground side of the glass, and you then focus on it from the other side. The thickness of the glass is probably irrelevant, as you adjust the loupe, or the distance from the glass for a fixed loupe, to suit.

You can test the effect by taking any standard lens, reversing it then putting it up to the ground glass to focus.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, if the loupe doesn't have markings, you could make one. But I just go for what looks sharp. There may be marks on the ground glass (grid or whatever) that you can use to check, but even if you're a little off in the adjustment in my experience it's still easy to see focus come and go as you rack past the focus point.

Don't lose sight of the fact that you aren't going to be enlarging much, even with the miniature :p 5x4 format.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
To be fair, if the loupe doesn't have markings, you could make one. But I just go for what looks sharp. There may be marks on the ground glass (grid or whatever) that you can use to check, but even if yoy're a little off in the adjustment in my experience it's still easy to see focus come and go as you rack past the focus point.

Don't lose sight of the fact that you aren't going to be enlarging much, even with the miniature :p 5x4 format.
Click to expand...

:LOL::LOL: 5x4, the 110 of large format

I'm going to have to do this myself to properly understand the process I think, it's been a long time since I focussed anything manually
 
flook999 said:
And that's the $64000 dollar question, if you can't lock it then it's a tedious step to take (if it's not necessary) each time you use it
Click to expand...
My need for glasses is for close up work predominantly hence a fixed focus loupe is no good to me anymore, hence why I sold it and bought one with a diopter.

Focusing,mount camera without lens.
point at a reasonable light source such a daylightz
Using the diopter focus the loupe to the point where to your eyes the grain of the GG is sharp.
You are now focused correctly for your images regardless of lens or focal length.

the loupe I presently have has no locking mechanism for the diopter.
I have atm attached a tiny strip of gaffa tape to hold the location firm but as Stephen mentions, one can easily make a small mark on the loup body
 
It's just a few days until I can use my Intrepid MK3 birthday present. I think I have an understanding of reciprocity failure and have been trying out theoretical exposure with the use of an app that compensates for this (I've been surprised to see how much this increases exposure time on Foma 400).

This has thrown up a couple of other exposure related questions:
1- will use of a yellow filter require any compensation adjustment? If so 1/3, 1/2 stop etc?
2. I'll be using a 135mm lens. When would a Bellows Extension Factor come into play? I've tried to research this but I don't really get this concept. If anyone has a straight forward explanation or link to this it would be very helpful. Thanks
 
auntiemaryscanary said:
It's just a few days until I can use my Intrepid MK3 birthday present. I think I have an understanding of reciprocity failure and have been trying out theoretical exposure with the use of an app that compensates for this (I've been surprised to see how much this increases exposure time on Foma 400).

This has thrown up a couple of other exposure related questions:
1- will use of a yellow filter require any compensation adjustment? If so 1/3, 1/2 stop etc?
2. I'll be using a 135mm lens. When would a Bellows Extension Factor come into play? I've tried to research this but I don't really get this concept. If anyone has a straight forward explanation or link to this it would be very helpful. Thanks
Click to expand...

1) Yes. It will depend upon the exact yellow filter used, but my filter (I forget which number it is) requires adding 2/3rd of a stop.
2) Two ways of looking at this. There is the technical argument, which is that after placing the lens more than it's focal length away from the film plane - the position at which the aperture value gives the correct irradiance on the film plane - bellows extension begins to have an effect. Now for most scenarios, the ideal correction to the exposure is so small, it's within the latitude of even slide film, and hence no one cares. However, the question is *when* does bellow extension need to be considered, or rather, at what extension. The inverse square law states that doubling the distance of the lens from the film plane equates to a drop in intensity to 25% of the original intensity, and hence a 2 stop increase in exposure is required (assuming this does not fall into the region where reciprocity is also required). For colour negative films like portra 160, 1 stop over or under exposure will likely not affect the colours of the reproduction by any significant degree, and will still give a fine result overall. From vague memory, and I think due to the symmetry of the problem, a drop of intensity requiring a 1 stop increase correction equates to the lens being the square root of 2 times the focal length away from the film plane (about 1.4(14) * 135mm, or 191mm). Do check this though, as it's early and my brain is not functioning on all coffee fuelled cylinders right now!

For slide film, I'd start adding correction at around +1/3rd to +1/2 of a stop required correction, as this will render in the slide, especially if the dynamic range of the scene is pushing towards the dynamic range of the film. In other words, not adding correction would potentially yield dense shadows. Take care however, as blown highlights are considerably harder to deal with than darker shadows in my experience.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top