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.
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.
Originally Posted by Smudger
"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)
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
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).
"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?
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!
Sometimes the dark-slide gets in theway it's easy to forget to remove it
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
Originally Posted by Wishy
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
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).
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.
Originally Posted by Marco B
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.