1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

One of the first

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by Col. Hogan, Sep 23, 2003.

  1. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    One of my first 8x10 shots:

    [​IMG]

    My intent is to burn in the sky a bit, but I haven't gotten that far.

    Diane /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  2. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    Nice template Diane. As you say, a bit more work burning in the sky detail and you'll be there. Well done!

    BigWill

    <font color=blue>I'm sailing like a driftwood on a windy bay!<font color=black>
     
  3. Steve Thompson

    Steve Thompson Well-Known Member

  4. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    It is a nice image and does need some sky detail, buty also it looks a little soft.

    I don't do people!
     
  5. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    The sky was a bit cloudy that day. I shot it at f/40 (or whatever the real f/number is just to the left of f/45) for 1/2 sec. Just enough time for the lake to look soft. /img/wwwthreads/wink.gif No, you're right it is soft. I need to work on my technique a bit more. Thanks for looking though.

    Diane /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  6. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    It may be down to the scanning Diane.I mean at f 45 there should be no softness at all. But then what is the equivalent f no. in 35mm terms?

    I don't do people!
     
  7. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately, I can't scan directly from the negative. I think I am having a few problems getting front to back sharpness, as I've seen in some of my other negatives (some with lots of tree branches in them) recently. I will be working on improving my technique over the next few months, even if it's setting up in the living room and just practicing on focusing.

    Ask Huw what the equivalent f/no. is in 35 mm terms. I have no idea and don't really care what it is.

    Diane /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    But then what is the equivalent f no. in 35mm terms? - you've lost me there, Larry.

    Nick BSRIPN
    All I got is a photograph - and it's not enough.
     
  9. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    well, on LF the lens goes all the way to, and beyond sometimes, f45, yet on 35mm lenses only go to f22 or 32. So i thought that the numbers dont correlate exactly.

    I don't do people!
     
  10. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Yup, the whole idea of relative aperture is that they DO correlate. But you don't get the same depth of field with the size lenses you use in LF compared to ones with the same angle of view in 35mm, so you have to stop down more - so they give you more stops.

    Nick BSRIPN
    All I got is a photograph - and it's not enough.
     
  11. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Well an f-number is an f-number, regardless of format. It is equal to the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture, so it means the same no matter what camera you use. However, DoF changes dramatically with format, so that f/45 on an 8x10 camera will not get you anything like as much DoF as the same aperture on a lens for a 35mm camera which had the same angle of view.

    It depends on how you crop the formats as to how exactly they compare, but if you crop 35mm to 8x10 proportions, then f/45 on an 8x10 camera gives you about the same DoF as f/5.6 on 35mm, for the same angle of view. In other words, 35mm has about 6 stops more DoF than 8x10, in those circumstances.

    Huw Evans.

    www.huwevans.freeuk.com
     
  12. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    Yea it all makes sense now, see my 75-300 goes to f45 at the 300 end!

    I don't do people!
     
  13. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Indeed - although you'd be well advised not to use it at that aperture, unless you were absolutely desperate for DoF. Diffraction will severely limit performance at f/45.

    Huw Evans.

    www.huwevans.freeuk.com
     
  14. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    Well, i have taken a few at that aperture and was quite impressed by the qwuality for such a cheap lens!
    Tripod mounted pics of ice in a field!

    I don't do people!
     
  15. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Well at f/45 diffraction limits the obtainable resolution to about 35 lpmm for any lens (no matter how good), which is extremely poor by normal 35mm standards. Although certainly some cheap and nasty third party zooms might actually be that bad at more normal apertures, but they would definitely be lenses to avoid.

    Huw Evans.

    www.huwevans.freeuk.com
     
  16. eryri

    eryri Well-Known Member

    Ooooo......... Luverly Jubley. /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    You've set me thinking now; 10x8 Provia trannies............../img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Steve
    http://www.landscapesofwales.co.uk
     
  17. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    Trust me, Steve, as I stood there looking at this scene, I was wishing I had color slide film!

    Diane /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  18. Steve Thompson

    Steve Thompson Well-Known Member

  19. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    Thanks. I'm hoping to work on it in the darkroom next week. If I like what I get, I'll post it here.

    Diane /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  20. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    well this lens is canons 75-300 II USM, quite a nice performer! I once had a nasty CZJ 75-300 which was absolute crap!(Yet their 24mm was lovely!)

    I don't do people!
     

Share This Page