A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Exposure calculation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 7th 08, 02:16 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Howard Lester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Exposure calculation

"MangroveRoot" wrote

Would I be right in the belief that this question, and the solutions to
it,
would be applicable to formats other than "large",
should one care to do such a thing?


If the lenses you use for your 645 are attached directly to the body, and
especially if your 645 has a built in TTL meter, the answer is "no." If your
lens attaches via a bellows, and your 645 doesn't have TTL, then the answer
is "yes." The greater the extension of the lens from the body, the greater
the required exposure.


  #12  
Old June 9th 08, 05:11 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
MangroveRoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Exposure calculation

Howard Lester wrote:
"MangroveRoot" wrote

Would I be right in the belief that this question, and the solutions to
it,
would be applicable to formats other than "large",
should one care to do such a thing?


If the lenses you use for your 645 are attached directly to the body, and
especially if your 645 has a built in TTL meter, the answer is "no." If your
lens attaches via a bellows, and your 645 doesn't have TTL, then the answer
is "yes." The greater the extension of the lens from the body, the greater
the required exposure.


That would be a "no" on both counts.
I *do* have a set of metal extension tubes, but that's not the same thing.
I was just curious. Sometimes it's nice to know more than I think I'll need.

Thank you Howard and otzi; your answers were ... illuminating!
  #13  
Old June 9th 08, 07:23 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
otzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Exposure calculation

Amazing!
Having re-read this post in day time, I now see the question. Bum, My
continual problem with late night web gazing
Can I take back my inappropriate response. (blush,blush)


"MangroveRoot" wrote in message
news:C323k.1208$Mu.42@trndny07...
Howard Lester wrote:
"MangroveRoot" wrote

Would I be right in the belief that this question, and the solutions to
it,
would be applicable to formats other than "large",
should one care to do such a thing?


If the lenses you use for your 645 are attached directly to the body, and
especially if your 645 has a built in TTL meter, the answer is "no." If
your lens attaches via a bellows, and your 645 doesn't have TTL, then the
answer is "yes." The greater the extension of the lens from the body, the
greater the required exposure.


That would be a "no" on both counts.
I *do* have a set of metal extension tubes, but that's not the same thing.
I was just curious. Sometimes it's nice to know more than I think I'll
need.

Thank you Howard and otzi; your answers were ... illuminating!



  #14  
Old June 9th 08, 02:09 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Howard Lester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Exposure calculation

"MangroveRoot" wrote

If the lenses you use for your 645 are attached directly to the body, and
especially if your 645 has a built in TTL meter, the answer is "no." If
your lens attaches via a bellows, and your 645 doesn't have TTL, then the
answer is "yes." The greater the extension of the lens from the body, the
greater the required exposure.


That would be a "no" on both counts.
I *do* have a set of metal extension tubes, but that's not the same thing.
I was just curious. Sometimes it's nice to know more than I think I'll
need.


Oh yeah - extension tubes. I forgot about those things. ;-) Extension
tubes serve the same purpose as a bellows, so it IS effectively the same
thing: they/it push your lens further from the film plane than it would be
if mounted directly to the body. The greater the extension, the more you
have to compensate for light loss.


  #15  
Old June 15th 08, 06:48 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
MangroveRoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Exposure calculation

Howard Lester wrote:

Oh yeah - extension tubes. I forgot about those things. ;-) Extension
tubes serve the same purpose as a bellows, so it IS effectively the same
thing: they/it push your lens further from the film plane than it would be
if mounted directly to the body. The greater the extension, the more you
have to compensate for light loss.


Okay ... I get what you mean.

As it happens, the extension tubes I have include linkages
that connect the aperture detector (?) on/in the body
to the aperture adjustment on the lens.
It is in that sense that I said that they are a different case.
At least, that's what I *think* I meant.

Mostly I'm trying to extract the fundamentals from what is being said,
so that, even if I don't need them now,
I'll have them tucked away for future use.

Thanks again for the clarifications.
  #16  
Old June 15th 08, 05:05 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,227
Default Exposure calculation

"MangroveRoot" wrote

As it happens, the extension tubes I have include linkages
that connect the aperture detector (?) on/in the body
to the aperture adjustment on the lens.
It is in that sense that I said that they are a different case.


(Extension tubes on a large format camera ... that is a first.)

Yes, extension tubes that carry through the linkages often
don't need any intervention to compensate for extension and
can be used with wide-open metering.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com


  #17  
Old June 15th 08, 06:21 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Howard Lester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Exposure calculation

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote

(Extension tubes on a large format camera ... that is a first.)


He(?)'s using them on a 645, not LF. But yeah, on LF that'd be something.
;-)


  #18  
Old June 15th 08, 10:05 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,227
Default Exposure calculation

I think I have seen lens cones for LF cameras - but I think it
was for using a longer lens rather than macro work, would work
for either.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Print quality calculation Darro Digital Photography 0 April 21st 05 07:54 PM
Aperture calculation - one more time jjs Large Format Photography Equipment 5 August 13th 04 11:03 PM
calculation of focal length TS Digital Photography 21 August 8th 04 06:48 PM
focal length calculation TS Other Photographic Equipment 2 August 7th 04 08:33 PM
dilution calculation Lloyd Erlick In The Darkroom 0 June 26th 04 04:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.