[pure-silver] Re: Depth of Field (35mm vs. 4x5 or 8x10)
- From: "Gene Johnson" <genej2@xxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:12:46 -0700
I think Michael had it pretty close to right in thinking he needed to keep
the distance to the subject very close to the same to get a similar shot.
To do that, you'll need something like a 400mm lens for the 4x5. DOF should
be similar for the same f stop and the same size print. But no one does
that. Bigger negs mean bigger better prints, which will also mean you'll
notice the out of focus areas more, and the DOF will seem less. In that
case stop down more. Perfect job for a cheap ebay process lens, a lenscap
"shutter" and a long exposure.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Zentena" <zentena@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:58 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Depth of Field (35mm vs. 4x5 or 8x10)
> On October 29, 2004 02:52 am, Michael Healy wrote:
>
> > realized a couple things. The main problem seems to be that to achieve
the
> > same DofF in 4x5 as in 35mm, assuming a 4x5 lens that is equivalent to
the
> > one used in 35mm, one must station the 4x5 at the same distance from the
> > object as was used in 35mm. IE, when I chose a 210mm lens (4s5) to
replace
> > the 100mm lens (135), I was wrong to move the 4x5 closer to equivalently
>
> A 210 on 4x5 isn't equivalent to 100mm on 35mm in any way. It's more like
> 50mm. But a longer lens will always have less DOF. At the same F/stop.
>
>
>
> > As soon as one moves the camera closer (to fill the frame), one starts
> > losing DofF. Those of you who have worked with 4x5, can you confirm this
> > one way or the other?
>
> If you stuck a 100mm lens on the 4x5 DOF would be similar. Plus the
closer
> you focus the more DOF you lose. You need to stop the lens down.
>
>
> > enlarge that 35mm slide, yes, it would show a loss of resolution; but if
it
> > already HAD captured deep depth of field, then wouldn't the enlargement
> > retain the depth of field? And if I was unable to replicate this depth
of
>
> IIRC final print DOF is based on enlargement to. So you'll lose apparent
DOF
> with the enlargement. That's the reason DOF tables take into account the
film
> format.
>
>
>
> >
> > One reason I am asking is that for some time now, I have had absolutely
no
> > available darkroom; so while it would seem to be easy enough to just
shoot
> > a 35mm neg and enlarge it for comparison to a 4x5 neg or slide, I don't
> > have the luxury. I have no darkroom at all. So is there someone who
already
> > is familiar with these issues, that they can confirm or disagree, and
> > explain one way or the other?
>
>
> You might want to find one on the online DOF calculators and try plugging
in
> various numbers.
>
> BTW how far did you stop down with the 4x5?
>
> Nick
>
============================================================================
=================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
