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

[stevelmx5]

It's taken me years of dedication and hard work to get this shoddy at shooting film...

 

[steveo_mcg]

One of the main reasons I got a LF camera was to shoot big slides, I've never quite got the nerve up for it...

 

[Asha]

It's taken me years of dedication and hard work to get this shoddy at shooting film...

Now don't be telling porkies, you've learnt all you know about photography from your little daughter......the fact that you still can't produce a half decent image shows that you didn't pay attention during her lectures!

 

[stevelmx5]

Ok, I admit it I'm a fraud! She's got another roll of film in the Lomo sampler camera you sent to her :0)

 

[Asha]

One of the main reasons I got a LF camera was to shoot big slides, I've never quite got the nerve up for it...

We'll just wait to see if @Carl Hall can stuff a box of sheet film before we even attempt it,.........then I'll let you go first steveo

 

[StephenM]

Slide film has two big differences compared to negative film: you have no chance to recover blown highlights, and there is a smaller subject brightness range that you can record.

Generally speaking, people prefer blocked shadows to blank, clear film being projected, so the conventional wisdom is to expose for the highlights, just like digital. What isn't just like digital is that there is no raw file, and no means of clawing back. If it's gone, it's gone. Film latitude is directly related to the subject brightness range that it can record, so you have much less latitude with slides.

In your specific case, if the foreground is correctly exposed at 1/4 @ f/32, then that's the exposure to go for. A neutral density grad has no effect on the exposure at all, because it's intended to darken the area it's covering, and adjusting the exposure because of its presence nullifies that presence.

To ensure that the highlights are correctly exposed, an incident light meter is usually recommended; failing that, meter from a grey card or the palm of your hand and adjust as required. Both are effectively measuring an artificial highlight, just as an incident meter does.

 

[Asha]

Ok, I admit it I'm a fraud! She's got another roll of film in the Lomo sampler camera you sent to her :0)

Crikey, that plastic fantastic effort is still going strong even in the hands of a youngster ...Incredible!.

Good to know she's still getting use from it , nonetheless i have an "upgrade" p&s with zoom function ready to pack in my case for her

Soon she'll be up there with the "Big Boys" shooting LF

 

[StephenM]

Just to add: colour saturation is increased by reduced exposure, and some people prefer to underexpose by 1/2 or 1/3 stop. This begs the question: if that's the exposure you intend to give, how can it be underexposure, as it must be just right? There's actually something to ponder in that question.

 

[ChrisR]

Until you wrote that, @StephenM , I though @Carl Hall 's logic was impeccable, and I'm finding your explanation hard to understand. He's using a grad filter to bring down the sky, that would otherwise be over-exposed. Then he's choosing an exposure that allows for the foreground (comparatively shadow) to be 2 stops less and the sky (highlight) to be 2 stops more, giving him a 4-stop range, roughly on target for slide film. I'm guessing there is something I'm missing here?

 

[StephenM]

Until you wrote that, @StephenM , I though @Carl Hall 's logic was impeccable, and I'm finding your explanation hard to understand. He's using a grad filter to bring down the sky, that would otherwise be over-exposed. Then he's choosing an exposure that allows for the foreground (comparatively shadow) to be 2 stops less and the sky (highlight) to be 2 stops more, giving him a 4-stop range, roughly on target for slide film. I'm guessing there is something I'm missing here?

I read the post as the correct exposure for the foreground was the exposure required for the main subject, and the sky (from the reading) would be blown out. If that's the correct reading, then I stand by my post. If the foreground is in shadow, and therefore should be rendered darker, then you're correct in knocking off a couple of stops. But in that case I'd take exception to Carl's statement that the exposure was 1/4 etc.

 

[StephenM]

A neutral density grad has no effect on the exposure at all, because it's intended to darken the area it's covering, and adjusting the exposure because of its presence nullifies that presence.

Does it help if I amplify? The whole point of a graduated filter is to make a specific area darker. The rest of the scene should be unaffected, and receive the same exposure, hence the filter factor should be zero. If you're using a TTL meter, then this will very likely take account of the darkening of the grad, and give more exposure, thus partially negating the effect of the filter, and also overexposing the rest of the scene by whatever adjustment it made.

In metering the highlights and choosing the appropriate strength if grad, you should have knocked the subject brightness range back to one that the film can handle, and the highlight reading becomes irrelevant.

 

[stevelmx5]

We'll just wait to see if @Carl Hall can stuff a box of sheet film before we even attempt it,.........then I'll let you go first steveo

I'll have you know that I shoot a lot of slide film and can happily stuff it up already ;0). I've just grabbed a mix of examples from Flickr;

645 - Velvia 100 - Mamiya 645 Pro, 2 stop grad and a moving boat;



6x6 - Velvia 50 - Kowa 6 - No grad



6x6 - Provia 100 - Yashica 635 - no grad



As above



5x4 - Astia 100 - Polaroid 110 - 20 seconds-ish (scan taken with iPhone and a lightbox so not ideal!)

 

[stevelmx5]

Isn't it funny how an Instax Wide back fits perfectly into a 4x5 DDS...

 

[stevelmx5]

I've been throwing around a few ideas with MooMike about building a Chamonix Saber type conversion of a Land Camera for him with a large format lens. It seems to have something of a 'mythical' status to it when it looks like a relatively standard conversion, I guess that's down to not many of them being made?



If I build an Instax Wide back around a standard 4x5 DDS holder it could be used on any LF body. I'm looking at building in the same friction fit method as I used on the 110A to keep weight and depth to a minimum.

This is just the first draft model to test fit, I still need to build an actual body around the Instax roller surround and an eject crank but that should be easier than the InsTLR back as it's all open.

 

[stevelmx5]

Actually, I've just had an idea how I can turn the rollers manually without having a crank handle (because the DDS is flat and in the way). Does anyone remember the old Plastic Zip Cord toys where you pulled back a long plastic strip which had gear teeth along it so it rotated a flywheel;



I wouldn't need the speed build up but it would be long enough to turn the rollers enough to eject the whole film in a smooth motion.

 

[Carl Hall]

That sounds like the way I do it Carl except I take my phone out of my pocket, open the light meter app and point it generally at the scene. I then use the settings given to expose the slide. Some people call me slapdash but I'm not sure where they get that from ;0)

Sounds pretty similar to my method to date I keep thinking I should get a proper spot meter but I've always found the phone app to be good enough!

It's pretty much known by everyone ( in f&c anyway) to expose for the shadows with (negative) film and expose for the highlights if shooting digital.

Yeah that's what I've been reading a lot, but it's one of those phrases that doesn't really make much sense to me What does expose for the highlights really mean? Does it mean meter the highlights and then set the camera to match (i.e. highlights meter at 1/250 at f/16, so set the camera to 1/250 and f/16)? Or meter the highlights and then set the camera so you push your highlights as far as you can whilst still recording 100% detail (i.e meter the highlights at 1/250 at f/16, so put them 2 stops higher at 1/60 f/16)

I get the general meaning of what the phrase is trying to get across; that with negative film you're unlikely to blow the highlights so you have to make sure that you record all the shadow detail, and with positive film you can easily blow highlights, so you make sure you record all the highlight detail and let the shadows go where they want. I just can't wrap my brain round what it actually means in practice

One of the main reasons I got a LF camera was to shoot big slides, I've never quite got the nerve up for it...

Same! It's something I've always wanted to do but never had the guts for! Hopefully I don't end up with 20 totally clear sheets at the end of it!

 

[Carl Hall]

Slide film has two big differences compared to negative film: you have no chance to recover blown highlights, and there is a smaller subject brightness range that you can record.

Generally speaking, people prefer blocked shadows to blank, clear film being projected, so the conventional wisdom is to expose for the highlights, just like digital. What isn't just like digital is that there is no raw file, and no means of clawing back. If it's gone, it's gone. Film latitude is directly related to the subject brightness range that it can record, so you have much less latitude with slides.

In your specific case, if the foreground is correctly exposed at 1/4 @ f/32, then that's the exposure to go for. A neutral density grad has no effect on the exposure at all, because it's intended to darken the area it's covering, and adjusting the exposure because of its presence nullifies that presence.

To ensure that the highlights are correctly exposed, an incident light meter is usually recommended; failing that, meter from a grey card or the palm of your hand and adjust as required. Both are effectively measuing an artificial highlight, just as an incident meter does.

I read the post as the correct exposure for the foreground was the exposure required for the main subject, and the sky (from the reading) would be blown out. If that's the correct reading, then I stand by my post. If the foreground is in shadow, and therefore should be rendered darker, then you're correct in knocking off a couple of stops. But in that case I'd take exception to Carl's statement that the exposure was 1/4 etc.

Does it help if I amplify? The whole point of a graduated filter is to make a specific area darker. The rest of the scene should be unaffected, and receive the same exposure, hence the filter factor should be zero. If you're using a TTL meter, then this will very likely take account of the darkening of the grad, and give more exposure, thus partially negating the effect of the filter, and also overexposing the rest of the scene by whatever adjustment it made.

In metering the highlights and choosing the appropriate strength if grad, you should have knocked the subject brightness range back to one that the film can handle, and the highlight reading becomes irrelevant.

I think I'm going to have to keep coming back to these bits and read them a few times, as I think I'm just getting more confused now!

If I set the camera to 1/4 sec f/32 then my shadows in the foreground would become mid tones and the highlights which are 4 stops brighter would be blown? Or have I got this wrong?

If I get rid of the part about the ND grad filter and make the scenario a bit simpler it might explain my thinking and I can see where I've possibly gone wrong:

If you photograph a scene which has a (shadowy) foreground which meters 1 sec at f/32, and a dim sky which meters 1/15 at f/32 (so 4 stops brighter), would you then set the exposure at 1/4 sec? the shadows will be dark and the highlights bright, but all the detail is captured? If so, then would adding an ND grad filter to darken the sky, and bring the original 6 stop range down to 4 stops, not be correct?

Perhaps I just need to have some sleep and then think about it again tomorrow morning

 

[StephenM]

Let's forget about spot meters for the moment - they are only a "normal" reflected light meter that is made to measure a very small area without your having to walk up to it.

"Expose for the highlights" means simply give enough exposure to render white white, and not render a very pale grey white as well. Some meters have index marks that you use if you've metered the shadows or highlights instead of the the normal index. I'm thinking Weston here, but later Lunasixes and, for all I know, lots of others do this as well. All you're trying to do is to avoid overexposure. An incident light reading measures the light falling on a white cone/dome and uses that as an artifical highlight to get the exposure correct. All you need is to meter some object of known reflectance and apply a factor and you can do the same with a reflected light meter. I use the palm of my hand (Caucasian skin tones on the palm are remarkably uniform - the palm doesn't tan unlike the back of the hand) and open up one stop. A grey card will work as well, but you have to carry it around and arrange it at 45 degrees to the light (because standard grey cards are 18% reflectance, and meters are calibrated for 12% - don't ask why. It's a longish story).

Provided you can approach near enough, a normal meter will do the job. Just meter the darkest shadow where you want tones or the brightest highlight and adjust. Highlights are obviously better with slide film; but the palm of the hand works perfectly well and is less liable to misuse by choosing the wrong object to meter.

Spot meters do have a potential problem with flare in the optical system. It's normally reckoned that the best lenses will reduce the contrast by a half, and they do this by scattering light from the bright highlights to the shadows. The same thing can happen with a spot meter, and I have conducted some experiments with my Sekonic. The reading is vastly different given a black seed tray against a white window frame in daylight depending on whether I stand back and let the spot just cover the tray, or walk up close to it.

I should really re-read this and check for typos and clarity, so excuse the omission. Any questions/comments/debunking of my theory will be entertained.

 

[StephenM]

Your post above was made while I was typing.

The problem with a general reflected light reading is that it depends greatly on where you point the meter. I discovered early on in my career that how I held the meter (straight forwards at the scene, or tilted down slightly) made a stop or more difference. And I reasoned that both readings couldn't be correct. What you need to do is to meter either a mid tone or a wider area that averages to a mid tone; and identifying either of these is far easier to say than to do. I settled on the palm of the hand system in the 1960s and so far it's always worked.

Where a spot meter comes into its own is in identifying the subject brightness range you're dealing with, so that you can adjust the exposure/development to compensate (B&W) or use a grad filter with slide film to be able to accomodate both as best you can.

The simple advice is to meter the palm of your hand, and that will give the correct exposure. If you know/think that the sky will blow, then you can use a grad. If you meter from the sky, open up three stops mentally and compare the reading to that from the palm of your hand you'll get a good approximation to the strength of grad to use.

 

[StephenM]

If you photograph a scene which has a (shadowy) foreground which meters 1 sec at f/32, and a dim sky which meters 1/15 at f/32 (so 4 stops brighter), would you then set the exposure at 1/4 sec? the shadows will be dark and the highlights bright, but all the detail is captured? If so, then would adding an ND grad filter to darken the sky, and bring the original 6 stop range down to 4 stops, not be correct?

Your scenario is not quite as precise to my mind as it is to yours. The foreground is shadowy, but what does that actually mean? If pointing the meter directly at it indicates an exposure of 1 second, then that exposure will give you a mid grey (or whatever colour it is, since we're presumably talking about colour slide film). To darken it, give less exposure. But how much less? That depends on how shadowy it was. Knock off a couple of stops and make it shaded; knock off more and reduce it to shadows you can just about see in to. How much you knock off depends on your correctly identifying which zone you want to place it on.

A dim sky? How dim is dim? If you've metered that directly, then the 1/15 will give a mid grey, and 1/2 will make it a nice white, bright sky. And make the foreground brighter too. How grey do you want the sky to be? That's the same question again as the shadows.

As far as I can see, you can either set out knowing exactly how you want the tones to map, but then be defeated by the lack of flexibility in a colour slide to adjust contrast, or you can expose for the highlights using incident meter/palm of hand/grey card and not worry.

Leaving aside grads, the incident method (whichever version you use) will give you the correct exposure for the scene; what it won't do is cope with overly bright skies. You can then meter the sky and see what the correct exposure for that would be (say 3 stops more than the meter reads, but sun position, clouds and umpteen other things will affect a general reading). If it's less than the reading you first got for the scene, then you know how much you need to cut it back.

Perhaps I'm overly simplifying things because I don't use slide film and I've never needed to use a grad filter.

 

[Carl Hall]

Your scenario is not quite as precise to my mind as it is to yours. The foreground is shadowy, but what does that actually mean? If pointing the meter directly at it indicates an exposure of 1 second, then that exposure will give you a mid grey (or whatever colour it is, since we're presumably talking about colour slide film). To darken it, give less exposure. But how much less? That depends on how shadowy it was. Knock off a couple of stops and make it shaded; knock off more and reduce it to shadows you can just about see in to. How much you knock off depends on your correctly identifying which zone you want to place it on.

A dim sky? How dim is dim? If you've metered that directly, then the 1/15 will give a mid grey, and 1/2 will make it a nice white, bright sky. And make the foreground brighter too. How grey do you want the sky to be? That's the same question again as the shadows.

Thanks Steve, this has helped a lot. I've spent some time trying to understand it all now and I think I can understand what you're telling me. Basically, use an incident light meter to find out what the exposure for the whole scene should be, which will get the exposure bang on. Then, meter just the highlights in the sky, and if it's more than a couple of stops above what your incident meter told you, then you need to bring it down a bit with ND grads?

For example (I like examples, they help me a lot!)

Scenario 1 - Arrive at scene, then set up and compose. Whip out the incident meter and take a reading, which tells you the exposure should be 1/30 sec, so you set the camera to 1/30. Now you meter for just the sky, and see that it's 2 stops brighter. That's fine because your slide film can handle that.

Scenario 2 - As above, but the sky is 4 stops brighter. At this point you decide to use a 2 stop ND grad, to darken the sky and avoid blown highlights, by bringing the highlights down to a level the film can record.

Pleeeease tell me that's right now!

Perhaps I'm overly simplifying things because I don't use slide film and I've never needed to use a grad filter.

Nope, I think I'm doing a typical "Carl" and making things more complicated than they need to be!

 

[stevelmx5]

I had a bit of spare time last night so carried on with the Instax Wide DDS back. I've drawn up a rear 'door' that slots over the top of the cartridge/frame which will then lock onto the DDS base. I've also drawn up the 'zip cord' eject which is a pull out strip with geared teeth along it which meshes with a pinion gear attached to the end of the top roller. Basically, I'll have an eject bar that's pushed up from the bottom to move the exposed film towards the rollers (as per standard Instax cameras) and then pull up on the zip cord to turn the rollers and pull the film through to spread the developer.





Once the film's fully ejected, push the zip cord back in to return it to the start ready to eject the next picture. There's a raised stop on the end of the zip cord so it can't pull out completely along with a small channel for it to run in so there's no problem wobble.

My main issue at the moment is that this couldn't be fitted to a spring back LF camera because it's too deep. Also, a standard Graflok back will have issues too as the sliding locks are in the middle of the widest edges, right where the rollers are :0). I might have to build this around the custom Saber I'm planning where I can use a friction fit like the 110A I built.

https://flic.kr/p/yd3GXp

 

[StephenM]

Pleeeease tell me that's right now!

It sounds right to me - just remember that you don't need an incident meter if you meter from something with known reflectance. And it does depend on how you meter the sky - if you include the sun (because of the meter's angle of view) you'll get a skewed result.

It is possible to be much more complex with spot readings and so on, but if you're trying to capture a sunset with rapidly changing light, multiple exposures, with and without a grad, might actually be better.

 

[Carl Hall]

It sounds right to me

 

[StephenM]

It sounds right to me

Ah, but what does he (I) know? If the blind lead the blind, both fall into a ditch...

A conclusion is only as good as the steps leading up to it.

 

[ChrisR]

I've been following Tim Layton's blog; it's a little annoying in some ways, but there's some interesting stuff there. I thought some more adventurous folk might be interested in a couple of posts about making your own dry plates, starting from:

http://www.timlaytonfineart.com/blo...vel-steps-to-making-silver-gelatin-dry-plates

Make your own Pan-F equivalent, @Woodsy ?

 

[Woodsy]

Looks interesting, I'll give that a proper read later this evening Thanks fella!

 

[Carl Hall]

@Andysnap I remember someone having a swanky fresnel lens on their 4x5 camera at the Peaks Meet... Was it by any chance your good self? My memory is pretty crap sometimes

 

[Woodsy]

My Ebony has one, you were having a play with that also. I do recall Andy mentioning something about Fresnel lenses though...

 

[Andysnap]

@Andysnap I remember someone having a swanky fresnel lens on their 4x5 camera at the Peaks Meet... Was it by any chance your good self? My memory is pretty crap sometimes

Yep, I had a fresnel screen. One of the ones that @stevelmx5 recommended, very cheap if I remeber rightly and it does seem to work. It just sits on top of the ground glass.

 

[stevelmx5]

It's cut out of the centre of one of these;

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/201649314172

I used one on my Polaroid 110 and it made a massive difference in the brightness. If you use a loupe it might not be great because you will see the edges of the circles but for normal viewing it was fine.

 

[Carl Hall]

My Ebony has one, you were having a play with that also. I do recall Andy mentioning something about Fresnel lenses though...

Yeah I remember looking at your Ebony, the screen on it was so bright compared to my Nagaoka. Could even see it in the kitchen with the lights on without covering it!

 

[Carl Hall]

Yep, I had a fresnel screen. One of the ones that @stevelmx5 recommended, very cheap if I remeber rightly and it does seem to work. It just sits on top of the ground glass.

It's cut out of the centre of one of these;

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/201649314172

I used one on my Polaroid 110 and it made a massive difference in the brightness. If you use a loupe it might not be great because you will see the edges of the circles but for normal viewing it was fine.

Brilliant, cheers chaps I'll order one up and try it out

 

[stevelmx5]

No problem mate. Just remember to cut it out of the centre of the plastic fresnel sheet rather than one corner then realise that the circles aren't really helping...don't ask how I know ;0)

 

[RaglanSurf]

No problem mate. Just remember to cut it out of the centre of the plastic fresnel sheet rather than one corner then realise that the circles aren't really helping...don't ask how I know ;0)

Doh!

 

[stevelmx5]

Hey, I was just testing to see what happened...

 

[Andysnap]

At the risk of angering the CMS, I have rashly spent £35 on an old Thornton Pickard branded Beck Symmetrical, this one

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Antique-T...T2QiOG0L9I1O4Wnv01e5I%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Now, I don't know the focal length or even if it covers 4x5 (although I suspect it will) but I really fancy shooting some portraits with it so, how do I do that given that it doesn't have a shutter? Can I buy a shutter? Do I need to buy a top hat? Basically... HELP!!!!!

 

[trevorbray]

At the risk of angering the CMS, I have rashly spent £35 on an old Thornton Pickard branded Beck Symmetrical, this one

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Antique-THORNTON-PICKARD-BECK-SYMMETRICAL-PLATE-CAMERA-LENS-APERTURE-F-8-64-/351858397726?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&nma=true&si=4Q6vaLT2QiOG0L9I1O4Wnv01e5I%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Now, I don't know the focal length or even if it covers 4x5 (although I suspect it will) but I really fancy shooting some portraits with it so, how do I do that given that it doesn't have a shutter? Can I buy a shutter? Do I need to buy a top hat? Basically... HELP!!!!!

Set up in the front room. Turn off the lights or blackout the room. Remove lens cap and fire a flash gun. Replace lens cap. Switch on lights.

 

[Andysnap]

Set up in the front room. Turn off the lights or blackout the room. Remove lens cap and fire a flash gun. Replace lens cap. Switch on lights.

That all sounds way too simple. If it isn't more complicated then I'm not going to bother....

Thanks Trev, I'll give it a go, all I need is a flashgun.

 

[StephenM]

I don't know the lens and haven't Googled it (your link no longer seems to show it), but you may be able to add a between lens shutter (I suggest Googling "barrel lenses", and there is a web site somewhere that explains the process) or you could get a "focal plane" type of blind shutter to place in front of the lenses. Those of a certain age (probably in 3 digits) may recall using them; others who are still youngsters (like me) might recall seeing advertisements for them.

I can probably dig up a few links if you're still stuck. But stopped down and with a slow film the hat method still has merits. After all, you have a darkslide when you need your hat back