Bellows. Thats right, bellows.

[david_smith110]

<p>So Im starting to really enjoy macro photography. I have had some decent results with my XE-7 handheld with a MD Rokkor X 50/3.5 macro and extension tube. But supposedly bellows are the bees knees when it comes to shooting the small stuff (like bees knees...hehe...).</p>

<p>I have read a little online and I must admit its all a bit confusing. Can anyone tell me what I can expect if I get one of the available Minolta Auto Bellows and use it with my macro lens? Do I use the extension tube as well or just the macro lens itself. Will I get signifigantly larger magnification with a bellow vs using just the extension tubes? Also, its seems Minolta made some macro lenses to use exclusively on the bellows. They have some kind of different lens design or something. Advantages to these vs my regular macro 50?</p>

<p>Below are some of my recent shots. Hope you enjoy.<br>

<img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5147/5738039124_6e14dfc45a_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="424" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5183/5738039222_bb7fafb425_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="424" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2689/5737487723_37cdefe8c4_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="424" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/5738039410_839e134634_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="424" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2331/5737486409_192999e710_z.jpg" alt="" width="424" height="640" /></p>

[User_502260]

<p>Minolta made four lenses for its final manual focus bellows system: 12.5/2, 25/2.5, 50/3.5 and 100/4. The first two are in RMS mount and require an adapter for use on the bellows. These lenses do not have automatic diaphragms and are meant for high magnification shooting. The last two are in Minolta bayonet mount and have auto diaphragms but no focusing mounts of their own. The 50 and 100 lenses are supposed to be optically the same as their non-bellows counterparts. I have the whole Auto Bellows III set-up, with lenses. Shooting with a bellows requires some patience but can be rewarding. If you like to experiment you should find a copy of The Manual Of Close-Up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz. </p>

[craigd]

<p>I'll second Jeff's recommendation of the Lefkowitz book. It's pretty much the last word on macro photography using 1960s-70s manual cameras. I bought a copy online after someone recommended it last year.</p>

<p>Lenses that are designed to mount directly on the camera need a mechanism to allow you to focus. In the simplest cases, the focusing ring simply moves all the lens elements nearer to or farther away from the film as a single group. But when such a lens is mounted on a bellows, the focusing mechanism is redundant because the bellows does the same thing over a much wider range. This is why you will see some lenses that are designed specifically for use on a bellows. They are usually smaller than camera-mounted equivalents, and they do not have a built-in focusing mechanism. Also, bellows-mount lenses usually have preset apertures.</p>

<p>Functionally, a bellows fulfills much the same function as a set of extension tubes, but the bellows offers more flexibility and convenience. The downside of bellows is that they are more easily damaged and may over time develop light leaks from use. Personally, I prefer extension tubes, but to each his own. I would someday like to get a bellows that allows tilt/swing/shift motions.</p>

<p>Nice pictures, btw.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Also, once you get bellows, you can cobble together an adapter to allow the use of enlarger lenses on the bellows. Even inexpensive enlarging lenses are optimized to give best quality at greater than life size magnification. </p>

[Mattman944]

<p>I have the Auto Bellows III also. I bought it new in the 80s for my XG-M. Think of a bellows as an adjustable extension tube. You could combine your extension tubes with the bellows but you normally don't need to. The Auto Bellows III has over 100mm of extension at the maximum (so yes it will give more magnification than a standard set of extension tubes). Your macro lens will work fine with a bellows. Set the focus at infinity (thats what Minolta recommends). Adjust magnification by changing the bellows extension. Focus by changing the distance to the subject. This will be easier if you get a focusing rail, Minolta makes a matching rail for the Auto Bellows III.</p>

<p>If you want more magnification, you can reverse mount a lens. A 28mm prime reversed will give more magnification than a 50mm mounted normally. The Auto Bellows III came with the adapter to reverse mount, but accessories such as this are often lost.</p>

<p>I believe Jeff is correct. The dedicated bellows lenses are no better than the standard macro lens, but they were less expensive.</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>I really love the last two pics that you posted. Wunderbar.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>First, let me chime in with Jeff, Lester Lefkowitz is the book to get. Go get a used one off Amazon right now. We'll wait.</p>

<p>OK, welcome back.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter much that the 12.5 and 25mm don't have coupled diaphragms. You'll almost always shoot them wide open. At minimum bellows extension, the 12.5 is effectively f13, pretty close to the diffraction limit. You might shoot it at f2.8 or f4 to try to get some added DOF, but it's going to soften the image (effective f18 and f25, respectively). Fully extended, a wide open 12.5mm f2 is effectively f35. Stopping it down is, well, messy.</p>

<p>To answer your questions, you don't normally use a bellows and tubes together. You have the widest range of magnification control without the tubes, and you only add tubes in after you run out of extension. Tubes are not as stable as the bellows, and at these kind of magnifications, vibration is a problem. I've made some wild setups, though, including things pictured in Lefkowitz, like a long rail with a bellows bolted to it, then an extension tube, then another bellows, then, finally, a camera. 440mm of extension, enough to get 3x magnification out of a 105mm lens, with a clear 120mm of working distance in front of the lens.</p>

<p>The reason that you want the 100mm "short mount" bellows lens is that it focuses to infinity and to distances where you may find the tilt and shift useful for product work where you need to correct perspective. This is especially handy for food work and jewelry work. The 50mm is also useful for that, especially jewelry, you can have it at 1:1 or 1:2 and shoot a ring or watch face with with a tilted plane of focus, which really increases your creative options.</p>

<p>The things a bellows brings to the table.</p>

<ul>

<li>variable extension over a larger range than a conventional macro lens. A 100mm goes from about infinity to 1.5x, instead of the 1:1 of a "single piece" macro lens.</li>

<li>rear standard (bellows draw) focusing. When you focus using a conventional lens, there's a lot of interaction between camera position, lens focus setting, and actually being in focus. This is reduced when focusing using the rear standard. If you get into digital later, rear standard focusing also helps you with "focus stacking".</li>

</ul>

<p>Of course, a bellows that focuses using a truck under the rail is even better, that's one of the flaws of the AB III. If you master the art of moving both front and rear standard together, you can hold a constant magnification while changing focus.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>Wow. I have to admit, usually I find macros to be fascinating from a purely technical perspective - a kind of "wow, how'd they do that!?" reaction. But these... Wow. They're beautiful images - I have been looking at them for a while now and I keep picking up the comp again and again, going back. I find myself forgetting what they are in terms of technique, and just admiring the images, which I think is a great testimony to any photograph. Beautiful, beautiful work.</p>

[Rick_van_Nooij]

<p><img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/barnacks03.jpg" alt="" width="660" height="460" /><br>

my visoflex + universal bellows set.<br>

<img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/duvlina.jpg" alt="" /><br>

With Leica IIIa 135mm Hektor head</p>

<p>I've also been playing with just the Visoflex and 50mm lenses (even a Vega 11U enlarger head) on my R-D1. These are with a Jupiter-3 screwed straight onto the Visoflex<br>

<img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/J3-01.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /><br>

<img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/J3-03.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>If I am shooting something flat like a stamp then I would not need to close down the 12.5 or 25 very much. I would just need to focus carefully. For more three dimensional subjects I will close down these lenses. There is a difference between the effective f/stop with extension and the diffraction effect caused by closing down the lens. The first is the light loss caused by the extension. The second is the rays of light squeezing through a small opening and coming out the other side. Closing down a lens for extra depth of field can force you into a trade-off because diffraction can lower overall sharpness. I have used the Auto Bellows III's front standard movements with enlarging lenses which are for medium format or large format so I have the larger image circle. The 60mm f/4 Bogen Wide Angle enlarging lens works very well for this purpose. I got a Schneider 60mm f/5.6 W.A. Componon some time ago but have not used it for macro work yet. I tried using the 12.5 and 25 lenses with the Macro Stand but when I tightened up the focusing ring on the bellows the image went out of focus. I built a copy stand loosely based on the one shown in the Lefkowitz book and it is sturdy enough that it eliminates this problem. </p>

[JTG1]

<p>#4 is very awesome!</p>

<p>~Jack</p>

[Rick_van_Nooij]

<p>Here you go Les,<br>

<img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/visofl01.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="660" /></p>

 

[david_smith110]

<p>First of all I want to thank everyone for both the wonderful comments about my photos and the wealth of technical information that has been provided so far. As far as the photos go, I must admit to being a little apprehensive about posting them since they didnt seem to fall in line with much of what I read about macro photography on the web. Phrases such as "Extreme detail!" and "Perfect focus is everything!" rolled around in my head as I looked through the returned film. What I saw was very pleasing to ME, no doubt, and they struck me as exactly the type of photo I was hoping to see when I got them back. But there is always that desire to have your work appreciated by other, especially your peers who have an understanding of what is involved as oppossed to a layman who just looks at it and says "Nice pic".</p>

<p>I have somewhat of a 'run and gun' philosopy when it comes to photography. One man, one camera, one lens. Go out and shoot. I dont like preperation, tripods or flash. I like spontaneous available light photography. When I read up on macro photography it seemed that it was all about preparation, tripods and flash. But I am so very fascinated by the tiny world around us I just had to give it a try with my "run and gun" style. I grabbed my new macro 50 and went for a walk. I shot everything on a local bike path, handheld with some nasty wind at times. I have to say Im very pleased with the results and from the comments you are as well. Thank you so much.</p>

<p>As for the infomation you have provided...I cannot begin to express my thanks for the consise, well written and informed responses you have provided. I could not have found a quarter of this treasure trove of knowledge if I had spent days surfing on the web. Which I admit, gets tiring at times. For you to simply lay it at my doorstep...again, my heartfelt thanks.</p>

<p>I must admit that I am still considering a bellows set up for my macro work but I may just keep using my tube for now. I have a much better idea of what I need when I do go that route. I may just stretch the limit of what I can do this way before settling down for even more detail. For instance, I really want to try some multiple exposure macro shots. I haven't really seen any of that so why not combine two types of photography I find exciting. Maybe juxtapose two small things against each other or choose one exposure from the big world and one from the small. Interesting things may result.</p>

<p>About photo number 4. It was called out several times in the previous posts as a favorite. I actually have what I think is a silly question about this. The large bright circle is of course the Sun and if you look closely at the edges of it there is what appears to be the actual reproduction of solar flares and prominence. Surely this cant be the case? Can some strange combination of a macro lens and having the sun at a certain angle and magnification actually have enough detail to see the surface. Stupid question probably I know.</p>

<p>Btw Rick, awesome shot of the wasp. Now THAT I will use as inspiration! Reminds me of downed alien fighter craft. Well done.</p>

<p>And Les, thanks for the pic of the tacks. This really helped me know what kind of magnification is available. Your informative photos, in both this and other posts, have helped me quite a bit. Thanks man. :)</p>

<p>A few more from this last macro shoot since the others were well received.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2054/5737488027_2c0343a96f_z.jpg" alt="" width="424" height="640" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5067/5738039000_0f5c762956_z.jpg" alt="" width="424" height="640" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2488/5737486219_7e63fee384_z.jpg" alt="" width="424" height="640" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/5737486053_22471c2a14_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="424" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/5737487867_b465a5c82c_z.jpg" alt="" width="424" height="640" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/5738038866_e5fd4bcd5d_z.jpg" alt="" width="424" height="640" /></p>

[Rick_van_Nooij]

<p>Extreme close-ups of bugs was my main inspiration for trying macro photography in the first place. Both pictures with the ladybug you've posted above for example are what I'd love to do.<br>

The dead wasp was shot handheld and took me a few attempts to nail the focus.</p>

<p>The solar spots, if it were digital I'd say to clean your sensor. Not sure if it could be dust on the negative too.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/vega01.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /><br>

Vega-11U enlarger lens straight on the Visoflex housing.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Rick, I find bugs to be a large part of why Im interested to. Although just capturing anything at that level is a huge draw.</p>

<p>I see what you mean about the spots, I figured they were probably from the crappy Target processing I get done. What I was actually wondering about was the EDGE of the sun. It really appears to be what a photo of the sun would look like with flares and prominences coming off the surrounding edge. Would be really cool if that were the case.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Nice as all these bellows shots are, I'm practically swooning over the pictures <strong><em>of</em></strong> the bellows.</p>

<p>Dang that's nice, Rick vN!</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>There is a difference between the effective f/stop with extension and the diffraction effect caused by closing down the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, there really isn't. You will get a certain amount of diffraction at a certain opening size and distance (the ratio of the two being the f-stop) even if there is no lens in that opening at all, and it's just a hole.</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Good God Les...That thing looks like a freaking cannon! And I didnt know they made scanning electron microscopes. :)</p>

<p>Speaking of prism blackout, I have noticed this on my XE and it can be quite distracting. I dont think the XE has interchangable screens so I suppose there isnt much I can do about it. I was wondering tho...I noticed from you earlier post you have an XK. I have been thinking about getting one since I like the idea of a higher shutter speed and silicon meter in the ae-s finder. Can you tell me if which of the screens for the XK/XM would be good for macro work?</p>

<p>If there is a good macro combo for the XK/XM then I might just make that my macro setup and use the XE for normal photography.</p>

 

[david_smith110]

<p>Thx Les. I hadnt seen that page on rokkorfiles.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Joseph, I re-read the sections of the Lefkowitz book on diffraction. You are correct in stating that even if a lens is wide open, if the extension is great enough diffraction can result. What are sometimes referred to as "true macro" lenses, Luminars, Macro Summars, Photars, Macro Nikkors etc. are optimized for use at or near full aperture. My experience is that the 12.5/2 and 25/2.5 RMS mount Rokkors can be closed down several stops even with considerable extension. In controlled situations where working distance is not a problem it can be better to use a shorter lens with less extension than a longer lens with more extenstion. It is also less cumbersome. On the short end, with lenses of 25mm or less, I can substitute enlarging lenses (reversed or front forward) or reversed wide angles in the 24-35 range. The advantage of the micro lenses is that they are faster and easier to focus even with extension. This is true whether you use them wide open or partly closed down. Each subject and each situation will call for different compromises where depth of field, diffraction, reciprocity and exposure length are concerned. If we only shot perfectly flat subjects then we could look up the theoretical limits of our equipment and proceed accordingly. In practical use even less than optimal practices can still produce very good results. Lester Lefkowotz mentions in his book that using the enlarger past 8X will not provide additional detail. With a film like TP or ImageLink HQ and a high quality enlarging lens it it possible to go way past 8X and still gain additional detail.<br>

In recent years Canon and Nikon have made PC type macro lenses which can extend apparent depth of field. I find that with the right lens, the movements on the Auto Bellows III can also be used to extend apparent depth of field in certain situations.<br>

Les, My Canon bellows units are both Bellows FLs. The split image or combination split image in a Canon F-1N is fairly bright but only slightly brighter than an F-1/F-1n with an L screen of the same type. I do not find split image or combination screens useful for macro work. If you get too close to your subject they can become a distraction. A grid type or plain matte screen is more comfortable for me. I have at least one K3 screen even though I do not own an FM3A. The screen will fit my FE and FE2 cameras and can be used with the required metering adjustments. The screen is commendably bright and good for general work in low light but for macro shooting I prefer a grid oor plain matte screen in the Nikon bodies too. Two of my Konica bodies have permanently installed Nikon E screens.<br>

Diffraction can be fun sometimes too. In High School I took a roll of time exposures with my father's Konica Auto S1.6 rangefinder. All shots were made at night at f/16. The star effect from the streetlights was great. I have two of the 135/2.8 Sigma Pantel lenses in Konica mount. At f/64 you are not aiming for maximum resolution but the extra depth of field is interesting. <br>

<br>

</p>