Settings equivalent to a Brownie Hawkeye
Nov 12, 2022 10:54:19 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
selmslie wrote:
The focal length is between "probably 75mm" according to http://kurtmunger.com/kodak_brownie_hawkeyeid149.html That's normal for a 2¼ inch square format. That's close to 45-50mm on a full frame camera.
The aperture is close to f/16 and it's focused at the hyperfocal distance which would be about 18½ meters.
A 50mm at f/16 would focus close to the same hyperfocal distance.
The aperture is close to f/16 and it's focused at the hyperfocal distance which would be about 18½ meters.
A 50mm at f/16 would focus close to the same hyperfocal distance.
Thank you for the great info. Any idea what the ASA was? One of the commenters here thought 100.
Nov 12, 2022 10:57:41 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
Orphoto wrote:
User ID
Yes he needs to rescale from medium format to 35mm numbers. That is easily found in tables, and frankly he needs to do a bit of his own work on this so easily researched project.
Yes he needs to rescale from medium format to 35mm numbers. That is easily found in tables, and frankly he needs to do a bit of his own work on this so easily researched project.
Apparently you have a limited understanding of what this forum is for. My stupid question is among but thousands of others that have received well thought out and helpful responses.
Nov 12, 2022 11:07:55 #
gvarner wrote:
Thank you for the great info. Any idea what the ASA was? One of the commenters here thought 100.
I added a PS about ISO/ASA.
Nov 12, 2022 11:12:29 #
Orphoto
Loc: Oregon
Just like 35mm film being available in many brands and speeds, the older film sizes came in more than 1 ASA.
Nov 12, 2022 11:17:19 #
Orphoto wrote:
User ID
Yes he needs to rescale from medium format to 35mm numbers. That is easily found in tables, and frankly he needs to do a bit of his own work on this so easily researched project.
Yes he needs to rescale from medium format to 35mm numbers. That is easily found in tables, and frankly he needs to do a bit of his own work on this so easily researched project.
Yes. The math is easy.
I refrained from posting the correct FL and aperture for 24x24 or 16x16mm, nor mentioned ISO, cuz as you have said, the OP needs to work that out.
But a larger reason is that if I post the correct settings it would spark endless idiotic entrenched argument from vapid nit picking "online experts".
Someone else will post settings and the nonsense will proceed from that ... but not from me.
Nov 12, 2022 11:24:08 #
gvarner wrote:
Apparently you have a limited understanding of what this forum is for. My stupid question is among but thousands of others that have received well thought out and helpful responses.
Nov 12, 2022 11:28:19 #
Orphoto wrote:
So...in conclusion...to duplicate the "look" your challenge will not be settings. Instead it will be in locating a suitably bad lens.
Agreed. And as concerns aperture, the worse the lens, the greater the DoF at any given aperture.
Nov 12, 2022 11:30:48 #
But make sure to shoot raw as the brownie did. Otherwise you would have serious problem with exposure.
Nov 12, 2022 11:31:33 #
User ID wrote:
I refrained from posting the correct FL and aperture for 24x24 or 16x16mm, nor mentioned ISO, cuz as you have said, the OP needs to work that out.
You refrained from posting the information because you were too lazy to look it up yourself.
If gvarner had done that this thread might not have come about and the information might not have been shared.
When it comes to nonsense, we already know where to find it. You have already spent more time on this thread than it took me to provide an answer.
Nov 12, 2022 11:37:47 #
selmslie wrote:
You refrained from posting the information because you were too lazy to look it up yourself.
If gvarner had done that this thread might not have come about and the information might not have been shared.
When it comes to nonsense, we already know where to find it. You have already spent more time on this thread than it took me to provide an answer.
If gvarner had done that this thread might not have come about and the information might not have been shared.
When it comes to nonsense, we already know where to find it. You have already spent more time on this thread than it took me to provide an answer.
"Too lazy to look it up" ????!!!!??
There is simply nothing for me to "look up". I was born with the information.
You are soooooooooooooo accurate in confirming the prescience of my choice.
And BTW your solution is all wrong.
Nov 12, 2022 11:39:19 #
Nov 12, 2022 11:50:37 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
Perhaps look into lensbaby lenses. https://lensbaby.com/pages/find-your-effect
And dont ignore the effect of the unique front to back alignment of the strap.
Nov 12, 2022 12:01:49 #
User ID wrote:
"Too lazy to look it up" ????!!!!??
There is simply nothing for me to "look up". I was born with the information.
You are soooooooooooooo accurate in confirming the prescience of my choice.
And BTW your solution is all wrong.
There is simply nothing for me to "look up". I was born with the information.
You are soooooooooooooo accurate in confirming the prescience of my choice.
And BTW your solution is all wrong.
So you were just too lazy to type it?
If my information is wrong, please enlighten us with the "right" information you were born with. That should be fascinating.
Nov 12, 2022 12:07:54 #
Nov 12, 2022 12:10:36 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
Orphoto wrote:
So...in conclusion...to duplicate the "look" your challenge will not be settings. Instead it will be in locating a suitably bad lens.
I might try adding some Gaussian blur in PP.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.