Help!! 4x5 Macro Shots

[wynn_myers]

<p>Hi,<br>

I am trying to take close-up shots (at least 1:1) of a single shell against a black background, but I am really struggling to get the entire subject crisp and sharp!<br>

The camera I am using is a: <strong>Horseman LXc 4x5</strong><br>

The lenses are: <strong>180mm Rodendstock Ap-Macro Sironar</strong> 1:5.6 and <strong>115mm Sinar Sinaron</strong> W 1:6,8<br>

Is my equipment incorrect? If so, can anyone recommend cameras and lenses that are better suited for this kind of subject matter?<br>

I have used a 4x5 before-- but never for macro work, so, any advice is greatly appreciated!!<br>

Thanks!<br>

Wynn</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>at 1:1 what is in focus is not some large 3D zone; more like a narrow one; very narrow.<br /> <br /> Thus you have to stop down a lot.<br /> <br /> Even at F32 what is in focus is quite narrow.<br /> <br /> This shooting 1:1 is not the easiest thing; you have to experiment.</p>

<p>Some folks DOF tables are in error at close distances; ie near 1:1</p>

[sattler123]

<p>This is somewhat confusing. You have a Macro lens and as long as your bellows is long enough you should be able to focus extremely close - the bellows is more limiting than the lens. How do you judge sharpness - stopped down or wide open? Did you take a shot and look at the neg? No doubt, you'll have to stop down dramatically and even then the DOF might not be sufficient - you might have to stack multiple shots in PS to get the DOF you want.</p>

[brit]

<p>This is perfectly normal. The larger your format the lesser the depth of field generally. To compound the situation you are also shooting true macro and, again, generally the greater the magnification the less depth of field you get.</p>

<p>You will just have to use your tilts and swings and DOF charts/tables. I often go way past best lens resolution (f11/f16) simply to get better overall resolution (read DOF).</p>

<p> </p>

[gerard_bynre]

<p>Just reading the above posts leads me to think that if you could forego 1.1 magnification i.e. pull the camera back a little, you would dramatically improve your depth of field while not having to stop way down. Of course you do gain some additional grain in enlargement, but with a decent slow film the difference would likely be negligible.</p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Imaging 1:1 is easy to understand: both the subject and the image will be twice the focal length from the subject. Large extensions also mean that exposure compensation is necessary for "bellows extension"; with film, additional compensation may be necessary for reciprocity failure.</p>

<p>This is definitely within the capabilities of the Apo-Macro Sironar.</p>

<p>For the issue is "the entire subject crisp and sharp" -- if the subject has a lot of depth, this won't be possible with conventional photography because the DOF becomes small with closeup and especially macro photography, so you may be expecting too much. If you stop down a lot (e.g., f45, f64) to try to obtain more DOF, the image will become softer from diffraction -- but stopping down might still be the best choice for a particular image. If no portion of an image is crisp and sharp, be sure that your setup is sufficiently rigid and try to avoid vibration.</p>

 

[brucecahn]

<p>You will get some improvement in depth of field with a 120 macro, then stop down to f64. By the way, why must the back of it be sharp?</p>

[rod_klukas]

<p>Two things-As someone else mentioned backing up and shooting with the idea of cropping is a good idea.<br>

Second no wide angle design is workable at 1/2 lifesize and closer. They just fall apart with lateral chromatic aberation.<br>

So the makro is the best provided you have enough bellows.<br>

JohnHendry.com can provide a custom depth of field chart which can be printed out. Very accurate.<br>

Rod</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The only advantage that a large format camera has for high magnification work is the ability to adjust the plane of focus. This works for fairly flat oblique subjects, but something like a shell bends away in all directions and makes it impossible to follow its contours with lens tilts or swings. Worse still, 1:1 magnification on 5x4 only covers an area of about 95mm by 120mm. Covering that same area only requires a 1:2 mag on the 645 format and more than 1:3 on 35mm. Since depth-of-field is geometrically inversely proportional to the magnification ratio; stop for stop you'd get over twice as much D-o-F on medium format and 4 or 5 times more on 35mm. Plus the aperture selected is less affected by lens extension, which reduces diffraction effects.</p>

<p>So why not make the job easier and just use a smaller format? (Sorry guys, but them's the physical facts and there's no getting round them!)</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>"The only advantage that a large format camera has for high magnification work is the ability to adjust the plane of focus"<br>

No, this is an advantage with a view type camera. Linhof, for example, makes several view cameras in 2x3". Specifically the TechniKardan 23S, the M679cs and the new Techno.<br>

Novoflex makes a tilt/shift bellows that can be ounted to any 35mm SLR, a DSLR or most medium format SLR cameras. This also gives the user the ability to control the plane of focus with tilts and swings. Lastly many 35mm, DSLR and medium format camera manufacturers offer a tilt lens. So do some third party lens manufacturers.<br>

The benefit to the larger format is less magnification in the final print to reach a given print size. The drawback is that you use a longer lens then with smaller formats and therfore DOF is less. But the difference in DOF with a 120mm Apo Macro Sironar or 120mm Apo Macro Digital Sironar and a 100mm DSLR macro lens is not that great.<br>

And, of cours, that longer focal length means that you are further away from the subject and have more room to creatively light the subject.<br>

"Plus the aperture selected is less affected by lens extension, which reduces diffraction effects."<br>

As long as you are using that macro lens, or any lens, at the optimal aperture range, diffraction is never a problem. On that 180mm Apo Macro Sironar in the OP question that would be f22. Considerably smaller then optimal aperture on 35mm or a DSLR </p>

 

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Smaller format is easier, but in calculations about depth of field and diffraction, don't just do the calculation for the image on the film or sensor -- assuming that one wants to compare same size prints, the description of the "physical facts" needs to allow for the differing enlargement factors required.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Macro with a 4x5 was once real common; and the norm.</p>

<p>That was say 1910 to the 1930's!.</p>

<p>A Graflex 4x5 SLR was the standard beast to use. One Graflex SLR variant; ie I think the RB Auto had a super long bellows extension; often the chosen rig for nature shots in National Geographic in that era.</p>

<p>In the pre WW2 era folks used 4x5 or macro because contact printing was the norm</p>

<p>The Graflex Naturalist 4x5 was made from 1907 to 1921</p>

<p>http://www.geh.org/fm/toronto/htmlsrc/mF668600035_ful.html</p>

<p>http://diglib1.amnh.org/articles/lang_photos/lang_photos.pdf</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>"Macro with a 4x5 was once real common; and the norm.<br /> That was say 1910 to the 1930's!."<br>

Bit off there. Linhof made both Macro and Micro lensboard systems for the Technika 23, 45 and 57 right on up to the early 90's. While for many years they used the Luminar lenses from Zeiss they switched over to the M Componons when Zeiss stopped supplying the Luminars. With the 16mm Lumiar on a 45 Technika magnifications from 16:1 to 32:1 were possible! Of course the lens was awfully close to the subject!<br /> For greater magnifications the Micro lensboard was used to attach a Technika to a society draw tube on a microscope. The Macro Tube was a tapered cone on a lensboard to make lighting more convenient at high magnifications and originally a Compur ) and later a Copal 0 shutter mounted on the end of the tube to accept the Luminars or the MComponons, depending on the shutter threads.<br /> So macro on a view camera lasted well after the 30's. In fact a customer bought the first 120th Linhof 3000 commemerative camera with the red Ferrari leather covering to make the world's largest coffee table book on the rare orchids at the Smithsonian. That book is also the world's most expensive coffee table book, 7 figures, and is in the Smithsonian. The subjects are macro images of rare orchids, all are 4x5 macro and all were done last year.<br>

Rodenstock still makes two analog macro lenses and a digital macro lens. Large format macro is alive and well!</p>

[brian berry]

<p>All right, I am going to stretch the thread a little here …<br>

Let’s look at some images by a master, Paul Strand. Made with a 5x7 Graflex SLR, using a 12-inch lens, stopped down to the max, I am sure. Not strictly macro, but up close, and in the field, and without flash or lamps. Image to object ratio, about 1:4 or 1:5, by my estimate.<br>

Very, very hard to duplicate. I really know. And done with film speeds like 100. That is, shutter speeds around one-half to 1 second …<br>

What is he depending on here? Not just depth of field, but also: masterful, revealing light; a tremendous impression of three-dimensionality; and of course, the character of his subjects.<br>

Look up these two books: “Tir a Mhurain” and “Un Paese”. See more of these, all done the same way, technically.<br>

What elements does he use to make these pictures consistently? I think,1, the revealing light of open shade; 2, that light expanded by plus development; 3, a severe choice of backgrounds, with both tonal qualities carefully chosen and limited depth of focus demanded; and 4, a total mastery of abstract composition, that makes each picture fresh even though his technical choices are tightly bound, almost rigid.<br>

How does he make all this work? I think, tremendous discipline in his seeing; a commanding personal presence, to get these subjects where he wanted them, and more or less hypnotise them into holding still; and finally, a very, very clear idea of what he wanted to say about these people and their environments. I don’t think any of this can be reduced to a table or the properties of any lens/format combination.<br>

Food for thought. I would say to Wynn, experiment with the camera you have, its f-stops and its handling on a tripod, and ask yourself the questions in that last paragraph. That will be a trip. Your equipment is excellent for what you want to do. I think the questions may be of more value than any lens/format combinations.<br>

One last attachment – one of mine – done in New Haven in 1970, when I was just beginning to get a handle on these questions. Strandish, for sure, but it still satisfies. 5x7 Cambo, 10-inch Commercial Ektar, f36, 1/8th.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[brian berry]

<p>Another one, in Mexico, 1929. This made on 8x10 of course.</p><div></div>

[brian berry]

<p>One of Mine: New Haven, 1970, 5x7, 10-inch lens.</p><div></div>

[brian berry]

<p>Here's the master at work with his 5x7 Graflex in Italy in 1952.</p>

[brian berry]

<p>Oops. Here's that last picture</p><div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here are some closeup shots with a P&S digital with a 5.5mm lens.</p>

<p>They are of a Kodak Ektra camera of mine. If these were shot say at F5.6 as a starting point; that is a 1mm iris/aperture diameter on the diaphram.</p>

<p>If one placed a 127mm lens on a 4x5 speed graphic and racked out the lens so one was at 1:1; the working EFL would be about double; ie 254mm; 10 inches. For a 1mm aperture this would be now F 256; *if* one could stop the diaphram to F128.</p>

<p>You loose 2 fstops when going from infinity to 1:1. Ie a 150mm lens set to F16 for a macro shot is really now at F32 when one is at 1:1.</p>

<p>*****To get any DOF in a LF macro shot you have to stop down *A LOT*; more than most folks want to believe.</p>

<p>Here a 80mm or 135mm Schneider Componon or 203mm F7.7 Kodak Ektar is often used for closeup work with 4x5 stuff; the shortest possible to gain DOF. The 80mm will about cover a 4x5 negative at 1:1.</p>

<p>****It is is not that LF macro is bad or wrong; it is really one is fighting basic optics.</p>

<p>To get any DOF requires small apertures.</p>

<p>The shots below are from a Walmart Olympus D360L from about 10 years ago; a 1.3 Megapixel then 270 buck rig. To duplicate shots like this in LF requires dinky apertures; often beyond the slowest fstop on many LF lenses. Because one is so stopped down; you are in the pure diffraction limited region; often a *working* F64; F90; F128; F180; F256 region. In these regions the lenses quality is less of a concern ; since diffraction rules. Thus a dumb enlarging lens can equal a fine lens that costs many grand.</p>

<p>LF macro is often an area that is miss understood and causes disapointment to many folks.</p>

<p>It is a fun area to experiment with; do not be afraid to try enlarging lenses and lenses that you think are just average.</p>

<p>There is no *magic bullet* to get a greater DOF except maybe some tilts; doable on LF.</p>

<p>In some macro LF stuff I did years ago of some models; I used the old 7x10cm Phase One 4x5" scan back with some tilts and just some old enlarging lenses.</p>

<p>As Rodeo Joe said "So why not make the job easier and just use a smaller format?"</p>

<p>That is why here I here I use a dumb as sliced bread old simple P&S to document camera repairs and other repairs of closeup stuff; it is easy!</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/EKTRA/tripods-471.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/EKTRA/tripods-470.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Another 5.5mm Shot ; it is of a Kodak Signet 35's bottom plate and mechanism . This is really just a "snap shot" done in the heat of battle.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/signet%2035/Signet35DoubleexpUNblocked.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[brit]

<p>And if you do stop down a lot remember the reciprocity of your film. I'm in the UK so cannot get my hands on that great Acros in 5x4.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>I don't know how deep your shell is or how much you want to enlarge the final print, but the odds are that what you want to accomplish simply can't be done. And it probably can't be done with any format either.</p>

<p>For a less than perfectly lucid explanation of why not, with sample shots, see:</p>

<p>Gibson, H. Lou. Close-Up Photography and Photomacrography. 1970. Publication N-16. Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY. 98+95+6 pp. The two sections were published separately as Kodak Publications N-12A and N-12B respectively. Republished in 1977 with changes and without the 6 page analytic supplement, which was published separately as Kodak Publication N-15. 1977 edition is ISBN 0-87985-206-2.</p>

[jodys]

<p>The advice I've heard was to try with an enlarging lens, something like a Schneider Componon-S in the 50mm or 75mm range. 1, the flat-field lens might give you an advantage, and 2, the depth of field of a 50mm lens at f16, say, doesn't change no matter what the lens is. It's a function of the optical ratios and angles and a bunch of stuff I really don't remember from my physics classes. Since you're doing macro, 'coverage' isn't an issue. It's 'coverage' at <strong>infinity </strong>anyway, not with the bellows extended to 20 inches to focus on something 3 inches away from the lens. So pretty much any lens other than a point-and-shoot lens will have the coverage to do what you want. You don't really need a shutter, besides; you're stopping down to f22 or greater, just use the lens cap and if you have flashes trigger them by hand.</p>

<p>My advice is: go pick something out of the shoebox in your closet and try it, all you need is a cheap enlarging lens and a lensboard to try. You can try mounting in either direction, I don't think the optics will change that much (though you might not enjoy stopping down a lens when the ring is inside your bellows). That's a lot easier (and more fun, IMHO) than shelling out $2000 or whatever for the latest 'macro' LF lens. Which won't necessarily perform any better.</p>

<p>From my personal experience with a Nikkor 50mm lens, with a 35mm neg of course, I could tilt my easel by a good 30 degrees on an 8x10 print and stay tack-sharp, to correct things like perspective; something we're all familiar with since we're doing LF. Same principles apply of course to camera movements and enlarger movements. But that should give you an idea of the DOF you can achieve with a stopped-down enlarging lens.</p>

[massimo_de_cristofaro]

<p>Hi.<br>

I think that all abave responses are right: it is pretty difficult to have DOF in macro.<br>

By the way, it has to be remembered that DOF actually does no exist: from geometrical and optical point of view focus is at a given distance depending lens and distances of the film plane and point to be focused, but the dimension of the focus point is actually a "plane" of no thikness at all.<br>

The only actual DOF is from 2000 times lens' focal lenght faraway on...<br>

A way to reach your task could be that you take a very slow film, i.e. ISO 25 Rollei film, and that you shot at a certain distance, not in macro position, to have the object dimension at least 50% of the frame. So you will have a focusing situation in which small aperture (f11 or f16) combined with distance could give an accettable sharpness in all shell thikness. In this case every sharp lens could fit.<br>

Then, cropping and enlarging should give anyway a good image, due to the absence of grain in the film.<br>

Massimo</p>

[brit]

<p>Interesting 5.5mm lens there Kelly. Are you still in the repair business? As older cameras fade so will the numbers of those in the business of their repair, so handy to have the connection to someone who can.</p>