Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,002   Posts: 1,524,465   Online: 1059
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dunedin,New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    268
    Ian Grant,not uncommonly,has given good advice. I can't imagine what movements you would need to use with an SA 90/8 on 6x7 to get falloff.

  2. #12
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Smudger View Post
    I can't imagine what movements you would need to use with an SA 90/8 on 6x7 to get falloff.
    Ditto. I have used this lens extensively for rail camera movements on 4x5, and never noticed any "weirdness" in my exposures on transparency film. With 6x7, I wouldn't even think to consider it an issue. If your negs are coming out underexposed, I would first look at your metering technique. The number one warning flag would be if you are using a reflected light meter. These meters require constant and diligent attention and compensation to get "ideal" exposures. The simple "point at the scene and use the exposure from the dial" method rarely results in the best possible exposure.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #13
    Marco B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,983
    Images
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    Ditto. I have used this lens extensively for rail camera movements on 4x5, and never noticed any "weirdness" in my exposures on transparency film. With 6x7, I wouldn't even think to consider it an issue. If your negs are coming out underexposed, I would first look at your metering technique.
    X4...

    Agree, checking the metering technique, and ensuring it is really appropriate to the situation and camera setup, seems a first step. I have never had real issues with light fall off with my Super Angulon 75mm on my 4x5, which is a pretty wide angle on that format (equivalent to some 25mm on 35mm film).
    My website

    "The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.

    "I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978

    "Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"

  4. #14
    Wishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    189
    Reason I asked was the two shots I took with a large shift came out blank (Rather than underexposed). I suspect I did something else wrong*, but as the image was much, much darker I thought it might be something to do with that. I had left my light meter at home that day (Because I'm forgetful, and haven't yet got round to putting together a checklist) so it was sunny 16 and intuition, but the rest came out surprisingly well.
    Were asking for general info as much as anything - I hadn't realised a significantly darker image on the screen didn't translate to a darker image on the film. I'll be shooting mostly slide once I get familiar with the kit - B&W is a lot quicker to process for the moment

    *I'm not expecting something like bellows getting in the way as they're bag bellows, but I'll check carefully next time. I don't think it was the darkslide, but you never know!

  5. #15
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,221
    Images
    148
    Sometimes the dark-slide gets in theway it's easy to forget to remove it

    Ian

  6. #16
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Wishy View Post
    ... (Rather than the 5.6 as I'm told the light falloff is less dramatic) ...
    You have been misinformed. Check Schneider's own illumination curves, and you will see that the falloff is practically identical, when you adjust for the larger image circle of the 5.6 version. That means that at the same distance from the lens axis, the falloff is the same. If anything the f:8 version is very slightly BETTER, within the coverage needed for a 4x5" film size.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7

    about light falloff

    As pointed out already the apparent light falloff on the ground glass is normally not what one will get on film.

    I think the light falloff is normally (cos v)^4, cosine to the 4th power of the angle of incidence on film. With v=45 deg (corner of a 6x6 neg with a Zeiss Biogon 38 mm) this would be 1/4 or 2 f stops.

    When I see pics taken with Hasselblad SWC published on flickr and other places I usually see a clear light falloff. (I don't have an SWC myself).

    Some fancy modern lenses may partially compensate for this. I happen to have a Zeiss Distagon 40 mm, and with this the light falloff seems to be smaller. (As far as distorsion and shaprpness it is of course outperformed by a Biogon).

    Carl

  8. #18
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,174
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco B View Post
    I have never had real issues with light fall off with my Super Angulon 75mm on my 4x5, which is a pretty wide angle on that format (equivalent to some 25mm on 35mm film).
    I think this is more a question of your the composition, subject distance (less falloff when focusing on a closer subject), the choice of film, aperture, printing technique and personal taste. If you measure it by photographing a uniform, evenly illuminated surface, you'll see the gradient is there, probably on the order of 2 stops from center to corner on 4x5" with a 75/8 SA, I'd suspect, but with B&W and a subject that looks good with some natural falloff, it's not necessarily an undesirable effect, and it directs attention to the center of the frame.

    The original poster's situation is different, and since I've been shooting a fair amount lately with my 2x3" Technika, I think I can see what the issue is. If you're photographing a tall building, you may be using as much front rise as you can get, putting the whole 6x7 frame close to the edge of the image circle, so you may not see a large gradient within the frame, but there may be a stop or two less exposure than an image with no movements, all other things being equal.

    Of course it may just be an error like forgetting to pull the darkslide, which I'll confess to having done just last week. Note to self: use a less complicated camera when photographing with a four-year-old near the edge of a cliff.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

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