Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,843   Posts: 1,582,647   Online: 1053
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    Reinhold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Washougal, Washington
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    692
    Images
    14
    I agree about designing around a sliding box with short bellows for focusing.
    A while ago I sketched up a telescopung box with bellows scrounged from a junk 8x10 camera.
    In This case the bellows were to be out front, focusing the lens (smaller, lighter, easier to make).
    The only downside is you need looooong arms to reach the focus knobs...

    After I created a camera obscura in the wife's sewing room, I set this idea aside.
    Here's my original sketch...

    Reinhold
    www.re-inventedphotoequip.com
    Attached Files

  2. #12
    jb7
    jb7 is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ireland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Well, the normal focal length for 20x24 inches is approximately 800 mm. The normal focal length for 20x24 cm is around 300 mm. A portrait lens would be as much as twice as long as normal.

    There are very few 1600 mm lenses available, you might have to settle for a 1200, e.g., Apo-Ronar or Apo-Nikkor. There are more, but not many, choices at 600 mm.

    To get a better idea of your choices, see, e.g., http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html . Rodenstock and Nikon process lenses were made in a similar range of focal lengths and have similar coverages.
    Given that it's conceivable that a portrait taken on 20x24 might be close to life size, then the question becomes much simpler. Since the perspective is determined by the distance between the lens and the sitter, then half that distance will give you the focal length. If the distance between the lens and the sitter is 1.6m, then the bellows draw at 1:1 will be equal to that, and the focal length will be 800mm.

  3. #13
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,642
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by jb7 View Post
    Given that it's conceivable that a portrait taken on 20x24 might be close to life size, then the question becomes much simpler. Since the perspective is determined by the distance between the lens and the sitter, then half that distance will give you the focal length. If the distance between the lens and the sitter is 1.6m, then the bellows draw at 1:1 will be equal to that, and the focal length will be 800mm.
    I'm not used thinking like this and want to understand the theoretics of this logic. Reading your posts leads me to this conclusion. Am I correct?

    Size 1:1 means that the object on the negative is the same size as the original. To do so the distance between the object and the lens must be the same as the distance between the negative and the lens.
    An other factor is the lens size. But what is the relation here? Why 800 mm lens for 1.6 m bellow draw? This is a factor of 1/2 for an aspect ratio of 1:1. Is this a constant? So a bellow draw of 400 mm would need a lens of 200 mm (besides any image circle problems)?

    And what if I use a 1000 mm lens on a distance of 1.6 m? Will this make the ratio 1000:16000 = 1/1.6 giving an aspect ratio of 1:0.8? This would mean a linear relation in the formula. And using a 500 mm lens on 1.6 m will give an aspect ratio of 1:2?

    How does this works?

    Bert from Holland

    BTW: I ordered the 790mm f:5.4 meniscus lens lens from Reinhold this week. My first real ULF lens I want to use for building a large camera. My only experience up to now is only with an old Russian FKD field camera (negative size 18x24 cm, lens 300 mm). See also: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl/2012/0...ives-with.html

    I also have a Kodak Commercial Ektar 10" (like Ansel Adams used) but I haven't used it yet since I don't have a 8x10" camera yet to put it on.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	kodak-commercial-ektar-10-inch-02.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	161.8 KB 
ID:	72354
    Last edited by TheToadMen; 08-02-2013 at 07:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * I'm an analogue enthusiast, trying not to fall into the digital abyss.
    * My favorite cameras: Nikon S2, Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T, Nikon F4s, Olympus Pen FT, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras.

  4. #14
    jb7
    jb7 is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ireland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    17
    I think you might want to replace 'Aspect Ratio' with 'Magnification'. A search will provide simple formulae for magnification and focal length- try http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refrn/u14l5f.cfm

    Regarding your 1000mm lens at 1.6m, your magnification will be less than the 800mm example, but your bellows draw will be longer.

    You have some nice lenses there, you'll get an idea about magnification by playing with them- a small window in a darkened room will tell you a lot about magnification and coverage...

  5. #15
    jb7
    jb7 is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ireland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    17
    Also, due to the inverse square law, which is very strict, you'll lose two stops at 1:1 magnification, so an f/8 lens becomes f/16... Nice portraits on your blog...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin