Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,909   Posts: 1,556,145   Online: 1076
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16

    Large format IR shooters

    I have found that stopping down with the Maco IR has traditionally been enough at least in the 120 size. I guess I never really looked hard at my few 4x5 shots and until I tried it in 8x10 and compared it to a Tri-X neg of the same scene (shot with a red Lee filter, I think) side by side (all shots were done with a 420 mm Repro-Claron and I developed them in Pyrocat-HD), I never really saw how 'fuzzy' (for lack of a better term) my IR negatives were.

    Do you just stop down your lenses a lot or do you actually do a focus adjustment for the IR light with your LF camera? Hope that makes sense.
    Diane

    Halak 41

  2. #2
    dtomasula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Westchester County, New York
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    57
    Diane -

    Focus shift should not be a problem with LF IR film, particularly if you are using small aperatures in the f22-64 range. That should give you plenty of depth-of-field and take care of any focus shifting.

    Is it possible your "fuzziness" is a photographer-related focus problem and not a focus-shift problem? Maybe camera shake?
    Dean Tomasula
    The Place for Pix
    Stock and Fine Art Photography

  3. #3
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    I don't know. I will try again this weekend if I get some film loaded tonight. I just looked at my notes and my exposure was at f/16. I will try at a smaller aperture. As for camera shake, I doubt it, as the wind hadn't picked up and the Tri-X negs which I shot just before the IR stuff was sharp.
    Diane

    Halak 41

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Focusing 'shift' for IR is important with LF's long lenses. I don't know how someone could find otherwise. Heck, using just a 25A on Pan film shifts focus. With your film, you are working in the low IR range - maybe around 750 or 800 - but still significant. I would have to find my old book, and will if you ask, but I seem to recall a figure of a 3% (to possibly 5%) extra bellows extension is needed.

  5. #5
    KenS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by jjstafford
    I would have to find my old book, and will if you ask, but I seem to recall a figure of a 3% (to possibly 5%) extra bellows extension is needed.
    A movement to the "rear" (ie increasing in bellows extension) of 0.25% of the distance from the nodal point of the lens to the film plane is all that is theoretically required.

    Ken

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by KenS
    A movement to the "rear" (ie increasing in bellows extension) of 0.25% of the distance from the nodal point of the lens to the film plane is all that is theoretically required.
    Ken
    Aw, that pesky decimal thing. So, if a person is using a 250mm lens, then it requires an extension of another 6mm (6.25mm) - that is 1/4" which is significant. If your groundglass or film holder were off that much, you would be deeply concerned.
    Last edited by jjstafford; 05-20-2005 at 09:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #7
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by KenS
    A movement to the "rear" (ie increasing in bellows extension) of 0.25% of the distance from the nodal point of the lens to the film plane is all that is theoretically required.

    Ken
    Does that mean .25% times the physical distance from the lensboard to the ground glass?
    Diane

    Halak 41

  8. #8
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    jjstafford,
    If you could find your book, it would be appreciated. Actually, the film is 820 nm.
    Diane

    Halak 41

  9. #9
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Diane, the max is 820nm -- that is where the sensitivity drops below 50%. The minimum depends on the filter, with the one I use I get the range from 710nm to 820nm (between the 50% points for filter and film). Center of the sensitivity is then 765nm, so that is the wavelength should be corrected for.

    In addition to the filter, the correction will depend on the lens used. I found that without correction the results were far sharper using an APO-Lanthar than a Symmar or even a Zeiss Planar (at that time I had a 210mm APO-Lantar, a 135 Planar, and a 150 Symmar). 0.25% of 210mm is only about 0.5mm (not 5!), which isn't really all that much and might be difficult to do precisely with most cameras. For 150mm the correction would be less than 0.4mm, which I didn't even think of attempting.

    It turns out that it's impossible to make general statements about how much the correction should be. It depends on the (general type of) lens construction, the corrections made, the type of corrections made and so on.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  10. #10
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    Hi Ole,
    I see. I suppose I wouldn't have even noticed if it wasn't a post that I felt should have been in focus in the first place (and was in the Tri-X negative). Oh well.
    Diane

    Halak 41

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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