PDA

View Full Version : View camera alignment for "full frontal architecture"



Rollinhofuji
24-Feb-2014, 03:42
Hi folks,

I am having trouble aligning my camera for a special series I am working on for some time. I try to explain:

I want to do "full frontal" photographs of building fronts, so that the optical axis (assuming all movements are zeroed) is exactly orthogonal to the wall of the building (in other words, the camera front and back is exactly parallel to the building). Furthermore, it needs to be "centered", so let´s say the horizontal middle of the building is exactly in the middle of the GG without any perspective distorsion. I will then later use rise/fall vor framing only. An example is the following image (courtesy of Barbara Wolff):

111111

My camera (Technikardan) allows full front and back movements. But I am havign serious problems to achieve orhtogonal alignment of the optical axis.
I currently do it as follows:

0. Set up tripod, level the camera with spirit levels (I checked the accuracy, they are OK). I use a standard 3-way pan/tilt head. The pan is below both tilts.
1. Zero all movements.
2. Align the camera by panning, so that all horizontal lines are parallel to the GG lines. Vertical lines are parallel already because of the spirit level alignment.
Now the first problem occurs: Strangely, once it looked to me that the lines in the upper part of the building were parallel to the GG lines when the ones in the lower part are not and vice versa (depending on the amount of pan used). It was difficult to tell, since I am not sure if all lines on the building were acutally level with high precision. Anyway, when I had some of these lines parallel, it was clearly visible that the pan was too extreme and the back was not parallel to the building front. So I had a look at my spirit level for left/right levelling of the back, but it looked ok. Was it lens distortion? I use a 5,6/150mm APO-Symmar, which is screwed to the lensboard correctly (the threads do join well). I have to say that I did not check if the spirit level changes with panning...just thought about that now.

3. After maybe 20-30 minutes of fiddling with the pan setting, I finally got all lines parallel (more or less)

4. So, I tried to "center" the camera horizontally by shifting both standards in the same direction (so there is no left/right perspective added). Basically, the same as if you would move the tripod left/right parallel to the building (which is not possible precisely). This was again 20-30 minutes of trial and error, really annoying, touching the pan again, starting from step 1 again and so on. Finally by chance, I obtained an acceptable composition/alignment.

As you might see, this took almost one hour and I got really upset. I feel that there must be a better, faster and more reliable way to obtain an acceptable result. Maybe I should change the order of movements?
Any advise would be highly welcome!

Best regards,
Jan

Rollinhofuji
24-Feb-2014, 04:31
Update: I just found the idea to use a small mirror, which could be attached to the building´s front. When you can sse your lens in the center of the mirror on the GG, it should be aligned perfectly perpendicular to the mirror. However, this does not solve the problem that the mirror needs to be exactly parallel to the building, and that it has to be attached to the building.

Any other ideas?

ic-racer
24-Feb-2014, 07:34
Any other ideas?

For a building like in the picture, I'd center myself using a tape measure. Have an assistant hold the tape (or string) against the right edge of the building and use chalk to mark an ark near where you estimate the ideal tripod position to be. Do the same (without changing the length of the tape measure or sting) from the left edge of the building. Again make an ark with chalk. The intersection of the two arks should be a point perpendicular to the center of the building. If the building does not have doors in the exact center, again use the tape measure to find the exact center of the building. So you would put the tripod at the intersecting chalk marks and aim at the middle of the building. If you camera's movements are indeed parallel (you have had them checked with a laser?) then you should only need to adjust rise to get your framing.

Rollinhofuji
24-Feb-2014, 07:42
Hey ic-racer, thanks!
Plain old geometry - this seems to be practicable, easy and should definitely be very accurate. I am embarrassed, since I studied physics and have failed to find such a great solution on my own...
Regarding the parallelity of movements I did not check it yet, but will do that (or let Linhof do it, sicne the camera needs some service anyway).

Thanks again!

Ari
24-Feb-2014, 08:21
Since you are panning so much to set up your camera, I'd also suggest levelling your tripod, as you hinted at in the original post.

AtlantaTerry
24-Feb-2014, 10:01
With a mirror you would need to be a couple feet away in order to see the camera's reflection.

What about a laser rangefinder?

Kirk Gittings
24-Feb-2014, 10:59
Been shooting architecture professionally since 1978. Few things in the architectural world line up perfectly believe it or not. If you get the building lined up the line in the concrete may very likely be off then the building will look off. Its more about if the building "feels correct" as nothing is ever perfect. If you are scanning your film I would do the best in camera aligning the standards etc. without being obsessive about it and then do some of the final alignment in PS so that it looks centered.

The image doesn't have to be perfect to feel like its "full frontal" and in many cases a perfect full frontal may not even be possible.

Luis-F-S
24-Feb-2014, 11:27
The image doesn't have to be perfect to feel like its "full frontal" and in many cases a perfect full frontal may not even be possible.

+1 from another architectural photographer.........L

Maris Rusis
24-Feb-2014, 18:00
Since you are panning so much to set up your camera, I'd also suggest levelling your tripod, as you hinted at in the original post.

I'll confirm what Ari writes. Levelling the top plate of the tripod is critically important. If there is the slightest tilt in the tripod top plate a camera perfectly orthogonal at one pan setting will be "off" if turned a little bit. My tripod (Manfrotto 028B) features a sensitive bulls-eye bubble level but even it's not accurate enough to guarantee "no tilt" at any pan setting.

Doremus Scudder
25-Feb-2014, 05:51
Hi folks, I am having trouble aligning my camera for a special series I am working on for some time. I try to explain:

I want to do "full frontal" photographs of building fronts, so that the optical axis (assuming all movements are zeroed) is exactly orthogonal to the wall of the building (in other words, the camera front and back is exactly parallel to the building). Furthermore, it needs to be "centered", so let´s say the horizontal middle of the building is exactly in the middle of the GG without any perspective distortion....

Step 1: your tripod position needs to be on a line centered and at right angles to the face of the building. If you use shift to center the image, the optical center will not be in the middle of the frame. (This is a great tool, BTW, but not what you want, obviously). Usually eyeballing where the center is is good enough, but if not, get a rangefinder or long tape measure and measure to the edges of the building. Alternately, you can use the camera itself: point the camera at the center of the building (after leveling, of course, see below). If the horizontals don't line up, you are in the wrong place. Move your tripod and try again (this can be rather fast once you get the knack).




My camera (Technikardan) allows full front and back movements. But I am having serious problems achieving orhtogonal alignment of the optical axis.

You don't want to use any camera movements except rise to get what you want.

Try this. Set up and level your tripod (not really necessary, but it helps save time). Mount the camera (making sure it is in "zero" position first) and use the bubble levels to level it roughly (note: bubble levels are only for rough leveling; use the grid on your ground glass for the fine work).

Now observing the image on the ground glass, use the side-to-side tilt on the tripod head to get a vertical line in the very center of the ground glass perfectly aligned.

Once you have that, use front-to-back tilt on the tripod head to align verticals at the edge of the frame. Once your verticals are all aligned on the grid, you can be assured that your camera back is parallel vertically.

Now, with the camera pointed at the very center of the building (I assume you have set up so that this was the case to begin with, but just to be sure...) check the horizontals. If they are off, you are in the wrong place! Yes, you could pan and then use shift to center the image, but then the middle of the building will not be the optical center of the photograph. If you have set up carefully, the horizontals should be fine; if not, move the appropriate direction (you can tell from which way you have to pan to get the horizontals correct. If you have to pan right, move the camera left, and vice-versa).

Use front rise to get the top of the building where you want it.

Double check the horizontals and verticals, then shoot.

I'll point out some of your mistakes below:



I currently do it as follows:

0. Set up tripod, level the camera with spirit levels (I checked the accuracy, they are OK). I use a standard 3-way pan/tilt head. The pan is below both tilts.
1. Zero all movements.
2. Align the camera by panning, so that all horizontal lines are parallel to the GG lines. Vertical lines are parallel already because of the spirit level alignment.

You don't want to align horizontals this way if you want the optical center to be the center of the building. You need to position the camera correctly and then simply point it at the center of the building. If the position is correct, the horizontals will be correct. See above.



Now the first problem occurs: Strangely, once it looked to me that the lines in the upper part of the building were parallel to the GG lines when the ones in the lower part are not and vice-versa (depending on the amount of pan used). It was difficult to tell, since I am not sure if all lines on the building were actually level with high precision. Anyway, when I had some of these lines parallel, it was clearly visible that the pan was too extreme and the back was not parallel to the building front. So I had a look at my spirit level for left/right levelling of the back, but it looked ok. Was it lens distortion? I use a 5,6/150mm APO-Symmar, which is screwed to the lensboard correctly (the threads do join well). I have to say that I did not check if the spirit level changes with panning...just thought about that now.

If horizontal lines at the top of the frame are parallel to the grid on the ground glass, but the ones on the bottom are not (or vice-versa) then your camera is not level vertically. You should do that step first, for the center and then the edges, using tripod head movements as described above. If the verticals are correct and you still have this problem, then is is the building that is likely not perfectly square (settling happens!). Then you'll have to compromise visually on what is most pleasing.



...
4. So, I tried to "center" the camera horizontally by shifting both standards in the same direction (so there is no left/right perspective added). Basically, the same as if you would move the tripod left/right parallel to the building (which is not possible precisely). This was again 20-30 minutes of trial and error, really annoying, touching the pan again, starting from step 1 again and so on. Finally by chance, I obtained an acceptable composition/alignment.

Shifting both standards is the same as moving the tripod a small amount, and a good tool for very fine adjustment. Get as close to center with your tripod placement and you can use this trick to good advantage.

Again, don't pan to adjust horizontals. Point the camera at the center of the building and check the horizontals. If they are not right (after verticals have been aligned, of course) then your camera position is wrong. Move the tripod and set everything up again if needed.

FWIW, as hard as I try, I sometimes have to fine tune my perspective control in the darkroom. Don't be afraid to do this either (or do it digitally if you use a hybrid work-flow).

Best,

Doremus

ROL
25-Feb-2014, 11:20
Few things in the architectural world line up perfectly believe it or not.

Oh, I believe. Just try using one of those laser levelers that shoots 360º around, and watch those lines climb or fall precipitously upon turning a corner in a room. It will make you want to fire your contractor.


OP, you may find that something as simple as doubling your focal length, and retreating to twice the distance, if possible, may further mitigate the possibility of any off axis convergence/divergence.

It would be helpful if you would post your own images of your issues. The reason I think this worth mentioning here (besides being worth a thousand words) is that the pic posted strikes me a bit weird, and thus may not be what your shooting for. The clouds in the sky look unnaturally elongated to me, yet the structure that intrudes into that sky appears acceptably true. The pic itself is really too small for close inspection, but it appears to me that there is distortion and color fringing around the periphery of the building. This suggests to me that the pic may be a composite (PS). I don't even know whether any of this is relevant to your process, but there it is.

Rollinhofuji
26-Feb-2014, 01:21
Kirk and Luis: Thanks for sharing your experience! In fact this helps me a lot, because I almost thought I was going insane... I thought all lines would be either perfectly horizontal or vertical, but this seemed to be wrong. So, I guessed it was my fault. Will keep that in mind and try to trust my eye more than the spirit level when composing.

Doremus: In principle, I think I do it exactly as you described it, but maybe I'm wrong. I use the shift of both standards (same direction!) to move the camera horizontally. Simply shifting one standard wouldn't work, that's clear. My approach was to align the tripod by eye as good as possible, then align the camera perfectly parallel to the building by panning. When all horizontals and verticaks are parallel, the back is perfectly parallel. Then, use shift (both standards, same as moving the tripod laterally) for fine-tuning of the lateral position. In theory, this should work (if you have enough lateral shift on the camera), but obviously not all horizontals were really horizontal...Kirk and Luis explained me why.

ROL, I agree with you about the look, but I doubt there was any digital correction applied, it is a shot shown on Linhofs Website, said to be taken with an MT 3000 (and a 47mm SA, probably causing the distorted look)). Just have shown it to make clear what I mean by "full frontal". Anyway, I guess you are right, I should show my images - as soon as I have them developed :-)

By the way, I currently work hybrid (just about to set up my first makeshift darkroom), but hate digital distortion correction and stuff like that...it simply feels like cheating to me.

Thanks again for your help, Gentlemen!

Kirk Gittings
26-Feb-2014, 08:40
“Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed.” Garry Winogrand :)

Ari
26-Feb-2014, 08:43
...but hate digital distortion correction and stuff like that...it simply feels like cheating to me.

Don't sweat it; a photo has no inherent morality.
Do whatever serves the photo best.

Kirk Gittings
26-Feb-2014, 08:52
Exactly, when I had to I used to do further alignment correction in analogue in the enlarger by tilting the negative stage and paper. Cheating? I call it problem solving.

Rollinhofuji
26-Feb-2014, 09:44
Oh I might have to add that I am quite a fanatic analogue freak...I don't like digital post-exposure alterations. OK, usually I accept all kinds of processes which don't change the image content (i.e. add or remove objects).
Maybe I am a bit too extreme on that :-)

lfpf
26-Feb-2014, 09:54
Jan and all,

Just an easy thought that might be handy: to keep film plane and building elevation parallel with nothing but a tape measure and maybe some binoculars, locate lines parallel to the building's left and right sides at camera range, set camera at midpoint, keep lens and back vertical (Brunton or other), do the usual shift/rise and call it good.

Ok, if the building's not a rectangle (plan view or elevation) and irregular, will parallel matter to anyone but a photogrammetrist?

Best,

Steve, keep it simple and fun

Bob Salomon
26-Feb-2014, 09:57
Oh I might have to add that I am quite a fanatic analogue freak...I don't like digital post-exposure alterations. OK, usually I accept all kinds of processes which don't change the image content (i.e. add or remove objects).
Maybe I am a bit too extreme on that :-)

So what is your feeling about Ansel Adams prints or Jerry Ulesmann or John Sexton prints?

Rollinhofuji
26-Feb-2014, 10:04
Hi Bob, I definitely "accept" a lot of darkroom magic for my work (even when I do it in the digital darkroom, like I had to until now, simply because I didn't have space for any kind of real darkroom). Tilting the enlarger, dodging, burning, cropping, unsharp masking... I think these techniques are essential. But for my work, I would for example never do any editing like remove any objects from the image (neither in the darkroom nor in digital post-pro). Like, would never remove electrical powerlines from a landscape shot. I have some kind of "straight photography" approach, but would not consider myself as a hardliner.

Let me add that I do not judge about other people's work. It's just my choice for my work.

Bob Salomon
26-Feb-2014, 10:14
Hi Bob, I definitely "accept" a lot of darkroom magic for my work (even when I do it in the digital darkroom, like I had to until now, simply because I didn't have space for any kind of real darkroom). Tilting the enlarger, dodging, burning, cropping, unsharp masking... I think these techniques are essential. But for my work, I would for example never do any editing like remove any objects from the image (neither in the darkroom nor in digital post-pro). Like, would never remove electrical powerlines from a landscape shot. I have some kind of "straight photography" approach, but would not consider myself as a hardliner.


Let me add that I do not judge about other people's work. It's just my choice for my work.

Jan,

That is fine but those types of manipulations have been common in analog darkroom work for decades, if not centuries. People added or removed, flaws retouched, things added, things removed, a National Geo cover manipulated the pyramids and the moon. Centerfolds ir brushed, etc.

It has nothing to do with the medium. It is what the printer is capable of doing and if they want to do it.

C. D. Keth
26-Feb-2014, 17:31
You're way overthinking this. Use the center hash and grid on your ground glass. Make the building look right. Done. Who cares if you're actually centered, parallel, etc. if the photo looks like you're centered and parallel?

Rollinhofuji
27-Feb-2014, 03:49
Chris and Steve, I wouldn't be asking if there wasn't a problem in the final image...I already messed one up some months ago, the other one was barely acceptable. I am quite easily disturbed by this. It's not for technical, but for aesthetical considerations :-) So, I tried to be extremely precise during my last shoot, to avoid such problems. It took way too much time, so I was asking for some hints, which I fortunately got from here. It isn't always easy for me to judge on the GG how the final image will look like - especially when the grid lines are gone.
So, the essence for me:
- Don't consider all horizontals and verticals to be 100% horizontal or vertical, so no need to be over-precise.
- Use some of the tricks described above to center the camera

That's what I will keep in mind for my next shots.

Thom Bennett
27-Feb-2014, 10:38
Unless I am misunderstanding something, I must ask; why are you panning to get the horizontal lines accurate? If you are centered (or close to centered) on the subject, a simple shift one way or the other should put the subject in the center of your composition. As you stated, your back is vertical and your subject is vertical so no problem there, just a rise to get the subject where you want it. Once you start panning you are throwing off being parallel to the building. We run up against this photographing paintings in the studio. If we are not exactly centered on the subject one of the corners of the frame will be off. Also, using the longest lens possible makes things so much easier. Hope this helps.

Thom Bennett
27-Feb-2014, 12:36
Something I do in the studio is to stand at the subject position and look back at the camera. You'd be surprised how off center your camera position can be even though from the camera position you think you are centered.

NickyLai
27-Feb-2014, 19:40
Regarding the parallelity of movements I did not check it yet, but will do that (or let Linhof do it, sicne the camera needs some service anyway).



Look up the following links for alignment of the camera standards (ZV1.1 – STANDARD ALIGNMENT MIRROR SET) , Replacement Parts.

http://www.betterlight.com/zigAlign_options.html
http://www.betterlight.com/zigAlign_parts.html

It is the Zig-Align kits for art copying. Go through the summary and photos of the products and you may have some idea for DIY, it doesn't look like high tech. Not suggesting to buy it, and not affiliate with that site neither. Just happen having one of the kit included in purchase of a BetterLight scan-back from other private person, but that is different version for align the film plan and subject plan.

Rollinhofuji
28-Feb-2014, 01:59
Thom, the reason for panning is to get horizontal lines parallel (not converging). You don't get the horizontal lines parallel by leveling the camera horizontally.
Leveling horizontally by right/left tilt of the tripod head only rotates the image on the GG, it does not affect the convergenze of vertical or horizontal lines. It only ensures that subject verticals in the middle of the GG are vertical on the GG (and subject horizontals in the middle of the GG are horizontal).
Forward/backward tilting of the tripod head makes all verticals parallel (so they don't converge). So, if the camera is level in both left/right and forward/backward directions, the subject verticals are parallel and also vertical on the GG.

You need to use pan to remove any converging horizontal lines. It is basically the same movement as forward/backward tilt of the tripod head, but rotated by 90°.

Anyway, I will follow our suggestion and have a look from the subject to the camera!

Nicky, Zig-Align looks good...

Doremus Scudder
28-Feb-2014, 03:16
Thom, the reason for panning is to get horizontal lines parallel (not converging). You don't get the horizontal lines parallel by leveling the camera horizontally.
Leveling horizontally by right/left tilt of the tripod head only rotates the image on the GG, it does not affect the convergenze of vertical or horizontal lines. It only ensures that subject verticals in the middle of the GG are vertical on the GG (and subject horizontals in the middle of the GG are horizontal).
Forward/backward tilting of the tripod head makes all verticals parallel (so they don't converge). So, if the camera is level in both left/right and forward/backward directions, the subject verticals are parallel and also vertical on the GG.

You need to use pan to remove any converging horizontal lines. It is basically the same movement as forward/backward tilt of the tripod head, but rotated by 90°.

Anyway, I will follow our suggestion and have a look from the subject to the camera!

Nicky, Zig-Align looks good...

Jan,

You are quite right in your assessment above. Panning to bring horizontal lines parallel is essentially positioning the ground glass parallel to the face of the building you are photographing. Your grasp of how the movements work seems just fine.

The thing you need to be aware of, if you are really concerned with the center of the building being the exact optical center of the image you are making is this: Unless the camera is positioned exactly on a perpendicular line from the center of the building, when you pan to get the horizontals parallel, your camera will not be pointing directly at the center of the building, rather at a point equally as off-center as your camera position.

If you can live with that (many can) then fine. However, if you really want the middle of the building to be in the optical center of the image, you need to really work on positioning your camera first and foremost. If you nail the camera position, then all you should have to do is simply camera center the building on the ground glass. If you camera position is correct, the horizontals will be parallel. If the aren't, you need to reposition the camera.

FWIW, I often intentionally position the optical center of an image way off center with a combination of shift and cropping. This gives a spatial feeling for the viewer of standing at one side of the image, and gives a feeling of length to the long side while still preserving parallel lines. I first discovered this technique in paintings by the Venetian artist Canaletto. He used it quite extensively to great effect. An example is here: http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/canaletto/piazza-san-marco-looking-south-west#supersized-artistPaintings-250486

You can see that the optical center (i.e., vanishing point) is set far to the left of the center of the image, reinforcing the 1/3-2/3 composition and giving the whole image a feeling of movement and dynamicism by directing the viewers eye back and forth, not just at dead center.

Best,

Doremus

Rollinhofuji
28-Feb-2014, 04:25
Thanks Doremus!

This all makes sense. Especially that, if I position the camera correctly, I just need to pan so that the center is in the center of the GG.
Good point about the directing of the viewer's eye. I Think the image of Canaletto is a good example for that. I will give this a try.
Funnily, this would have probably been a better choice for the building I recently shot (developd the neg yesterday). Will post it here soon.

By the way, just learned from your website that you also chose a "straight photography" approach. Although I don't consider myself as a straight photography hardliner (i.e. I sometimes remove "disturbing" objects like small branches or so), I also follow these rules and do not use "artificial manipulations" (as youc all them) after the exposure has been made. Your website shows great work, really inspiring.

Servus,
Jan

hoffner
28-Feb-2014, 06:17
For a building like in the picture, I'd center myself using a tape measure. Have an assistant hold the tape (or string) against the right edge of the building and use chalk to mark an ark near where you estimate the ideal tripod position to be. Do the same (without changing the length of the tape measure or sting) from the left edge of the building. Again make an ark with chalk. The intersection of the two arks should be a point perpendicular to the center of the building.


I would just like to add that instead of chalking signs on the ground, which is not always practical, you can simply use 2 strings of the same length and use their meeting point as the point you're looking for.

Rollinhofuji
28-Feb-2014, 06:28
Thanks Hoffner, the principle is clear. Your suggestion sounds more practicable, especially without an assistant.

Thom Bennett
28-Feb-2014, 06:57
"You don't get the horizontal lines parallel by leveling the camera horizontally."

What? Leveling horizontally works in the same manner as leveling vertically. As Doremus said (and I said, perhaps unsuccessfully) is that.."If you nail the camera position, then all you should have to do is simply camera center the building on the ground glass. If you camera position is correct, the horizontals will be parallel. If the aren't, you need to reposition the camera."

Rollinhofuji
3-Mar-2014, 05:23
That's simply not true, Thom. Left/Right-Leveling only ensures that a horizontal line running through the middle of the GG is level. It does not lead to non-converging horizontals automatically. See for example "View Camera Technique" by Leslie Strobel for detailes and example pictures. I can make a drawing if you like to explain better.
What Doremus said is not a contradiction to this.

Forward/Backward Leveling ensures that the back is parallel to a vertical plane only in vertical direction. Thus, no matter if the camera is tilted to the left or to the right, all vertical lines on the subject will be parallel to each others (they do not converge in the image).
Left/Right Leveling simply rotates the image on the GG. But for keeping horizontal subject lines parallel to each others on the GG, you can not make use of any spirit level. You need to make the back parallel to the subject plane horizontally. This can not be achieved by using spirit levels.

To get non-converging (parallel) horizontals AND verticals, the camera back needs to be a parallel plane to the subject plane (which means, the planes may not intersect horizontally and vertically).
To get these horizontal and vertical lines to be horizontal and vertical lines on the GG (without affecting their convergence!), you need to use left/right leveling.

Doremus Scudder
4-Mar-2014, 02:06
That's simply not true, Thom. Left/Right-Leveling only ensures that a horizontal line running through the middle of the GG is level. It does not lead to non-converging horizontals automatically. See for example "View Camera Technique" by Leslie Strobel for detailes and example pictures. I can make a drawing if you like to explain better.
What Doremus said is not a contradiction to this.

Forward/Backward Leveling ensures that the back is parallel to a vertical plane only in vertical direction. Thus, no matter if the camera is tilted to the left or to the right, all vertical lines on the subject will be parallel to each others (they do not converge in the image).
Left/Right Leveling simply rotates the image on the GG. But for keeping horizontal subject lines parallel to each others on the GG, you can not make use of any spirit level. You need to make the back parallel to the subject plane horizontally. This can not be achieved by using spirit levels.

To get non-converging (parallel) horizontals AND verticals, the camera back needs to be a parallel plane to the subject plane (which means, the planes may not intersect horizontally and vertically).
To get these horizontal and vertical lines to be horizontal and vertical lines on the GG (without affecting their convergence!), you need to use left/right leveling.

Let me weigh in here just to clarify:

Thom, sorry to disagree with you, but I believe Rollinghofuji has got it right. Leveling the camera left-to-right is my first step and sets both the vertical and horizontal lines that intersect in the center of the ground glass. Subsequent leveling front-to-back then brings the back parallel to a building vertically, ensuring that the vertical lines at the edges of the frame are parallel and do not converge.

The next step, if one wants the camera back exactly parallel to the face of a building, would then be to pan left/right (around the correct vertical axis, of course) to bring the back parallel horizontally to the face of the building and ensure that horizontal lines do not converge. This points the camera down a line perpendicular to the face of the building in question (but not necessarily at the center of the building).

My advice to Rollinghofuji uses this principle in reverse; i.e., if you have the camera positioned on a line perpendicular to the exact center of the building, and if you point the camera back down that line at the exact center of the building, then the back will automatically be parallel horizontally to the face of the building. You can use this fact to check camera position.

Hope this clears things up,

Best,

Doremus

Thom Bennett
4-Mar-2014, 20:43
Ah, I see now where we are misunderstanding each other. I am assuming the OP is trying to be exactly centered and perpendicular to the subject. If those criteria aren't met, and the camera position is at an angle to the subject and not perpindicular, then the top and bottom horizon lines will not show as horizontal on the ground glass and he is panning to achieve that. If I am correct in this assumption, then I must ask; why not use the rear swing to bring those lines into true? In other words, if you are perpendicular to the subject, yet not centered on the subject, can you not swing the rear to bring those horizontals true? Then swing the front to the same degree and shift as necessary to compose. Anyway, as others have stated, what you see on the gg is gospel. That's the great thing about using a view camera with movements.

Rollinhofuji
5-Mar-2014, 03:41
Thom, in fact I never thought about that - thanks for this hint! Maybe I took it all too complicated. This seems to be quite an effective approach.

Doremus Scudder
5-Mar-2014, 05:27
Ah, I see now where we are misunderstanding each other. I am assuming the OP is trying to be exactly centered and perpendicular to the subject. If those criteria aren't met, and the camera position is at an angle to the subject and not perpendicular, then the top and bottom horizon lines will not show as horizontal on the ground glass and he is panning to achieve that. If I am correct in this assumption, then I must ask; why not use the rear swing to bring those lines into true? In other words, if you are perpendicular to the subject, yet not centered on the subject, can you not swing the rear to bring those horizontals true? Then swing the front to the same degree and shift as necessary to compose. Anyway, as others have stated, what you see on the gg is gospel. That's the great thing about using a view camera with movements.

Thom,

Sure, your method works fine, but is in essence exactly the same as panning the camera. Sometimes it is easiest to swing back and lens parallel and then "pan" using the shift. As long as the film plane the lens plane and the plane of the front of the building are parallel, there will be no converging lines on the ground glass (back parallel) and everything will be in focus (lens plane parallel).

But, if Rollinhofjuji wants parallelism and the center of the building to be the optical center of the image, he really needs to be on that line perpendicular to the center of the building. There's no other way to position the optical center and keep parallel lines from converging.

Best,

Doremus

Rollinhofuji
5-Mar-2014, 06:46
Doremus, again you got the point...it IS the same. Might be more convenient anyway, will have to check. The good thing about Thom's rear swing method is the fact that the tripod doesn't need to be level (it's sufficient if the camera is level at a given pan setting). Because the camera will stay level that way.
For future pics, I will check which methods works best for me (especially if it is really required to have everything centered, or if good old view camera movements may give even better results).

Thanks all for your helpful input!

Robert Opheim
13-Mar-2014, 01:25
If you are able to take two lengths of string or rope of equal length from each corner of the building - you would be given the exact center - this can probably be done with a laser measuring device as well - although I would just use string and geometry.

Rollinhofuji
13-Mar-2014, 01:55
Thanks Robert! ic-racer also mentioned that method which is suprisingly easy (and extremely precise).

Andrew O'Neill
14-Mar-2014, 14:22
Few things in the architectural world line up perfectly believe it or not.

So true...

JW Dewdney
14-Mar-2014, 15:47
it's really very simple - i've probably done more of this than practically anyone... don't worry about anything else lining up. Just get yourself in the center (as you see it), set your bubble levels so your standards are vertical, ideally locate a reflection of your camera in a front window and center it -(but eyeballing it works too) and then set your vertical shift. Worrying about anything else is just asking for a migraine. it will take care of itself.

Rollinhofuji
19-Mar-2014, 01:59
Hi guys,

just wanted to give you an update: I now followed the general advise to align the camera that everything looks ok on the GG (and didn't worry too much if everything was exactly horizontal and vertical).
And, I re-visited the place where I encountered the above described problems - it really turned out that probably NOTHING was 100% horizontally level there...

Thanks again,
Jan

Megapixel
3-Apr-2014, 13:15
Two more suggestions:

1. Use a surveyor's sighting-type compass (I use the Suunto KB-14 sighting compass (http://www.suunto.com/en-US/Products/Compasses/Suunto-KB-14/Suunto-KB-14360R1/), accuracy 1/3 degree) or pocket transit to measure the compass bearing across the front of the building. Then, using the compass, locate yourself at 90 degrees from this bearing while sighting to the middle of the building. Compasses such as these are not cheap (but less than most LF lenses). You should be able to get a bearing within 0.5 degrees or better. At 200 feet away from the building, this will put you about +/- 200 * sin (0.5 deg) = 1.75 feet of the centerline to the building.

2. Buy a relatively inexpensive digital-reading level to align the tripod and camera horizontally and vertically. Note that levels are fairly easy to check for accuracy by getting it level (or with digital, just get a reading), rotate the level around 180 degrees and put it down in exactly the same place and see if it reads level in that direction (or with digital, same degrees but negative). I have the AccuRemote Digital Electronic Magnetic Angle Gage Level (http://www.amazon.com/AccuRemote-Digital-Electronic-Magnetic-Protractor/dp/B006JR8XBG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1396555555&sr=8-5&keywords=digital+level) and it seems good enough. It has some nice features such as zeroing it at any position so you can also measure relative changes easily. Just be sure to keep this level away from the compass when taking compass readings because this gauge has magnets that enable you to attach it to a metal object (e.g. a circular saw blade) while adjusting the object is attached to.

Francisco J. Fernández
3-Apr-2014, 14:34
Sorry i do not speak english, this is a google translation.



La posición de la cámara debería estar centrada en horizontal y vertical en lo posible. Para eso puede usar un puntero laser rojo (sujeto en un trípode).

No es necesario estar a la altura exacta del centro geométrico del edificio, para conseguir eso, nos ayuda el efecto de las imágenes conjugadas y su efecto reductor de la imagen en el interior de la camara.

(por eso un edificio de 40x50 metros cabe dentro de una hoja de 4x5”).

Pero su trípode deberá estar lo mas alto posible (generalmente casi 3 metros suele ser suficiente en muchos casos. No sirve con un rascacielos, eso es evidente).

Una vez, localizado el centro y una vez elevado el trípode… debe usted usar la lente mas larga posible de todas las que pueda usar para esa imagen (por ejemplo es mejor un 90 que un 75 mm…. Si es posible. O es mejor un 75 que un 65 mm).

La cámara debe estar ajustada a 0 y antes debe haber comprobado sobre un plano que todas las caras de la cámara están a 0 (lo horizontal es horizontal y lo vertical es vertical. Y entre ellos por todos lados hay 90º).

Entonces se coloca la cámara sobre el trípode nivelado. Si usted gira en algún modo uno de los tres ejes de su rotula deberá empezar de nuevo.

Ahora esta a nivel y centrado.

Use una Brujula con clinómetro y mida las direcciones de horizonte y altura del edificio. Transmita esas direcciones a su cámara. A toda la cámara, sin descentrar nada.

Una vez llegado aquí, solo será necesario (y yo creo que no) un ligero ajuste de algún mm.

La filosofía de esto consiste en trazar con la brújula líneas paralelas entre la realidad y la imagen. Hacer lo mismo con las alturas y el clinómetro. Y usar una distancia conjugada de enfoque suficiente para conseguir nuestro trabajo.

para conseguir eso es necesario una longitud focal lo mas larga dentro de lo posible y tambien una altura del eje optico del lente lo mas alto posible


ENGLISH…


The camera position should be centered horizontally and vertically as possible. For this you can use a red laser pointer (subject to a tripod ) .

No need to be at the exact height of the geometric center of the building, to get that helps us the effect of conjugate images and their effect of reducing the image inside the camera.

(hence a building 40x50 feet fits inside a sheet of 4x5 " ) .

But your tripod should be as high as possible ( usually about 3 meters is usually sufficient in many cases. Served with a skyscraper No , that's obvious) .

Once located the center and once the tripod high ... you should use the longest lens possible of all you can use for that image (eg 90 is better than 75 mm .... if possible . O is better 75 to 65 mm ) .

The camera must be set to 0 and you must be proven on a plane all sides of the camera are at 0 ( the horizontal is horizontal and the vertical is vertical. Among them are everywhere 90 º) .

The camera on the tripod level is then placed . If you somehow rotates one of the three axes of the patella should start again.

Now is level and centered.

Use a Compass with inclinometer and measure addresses horizon and building height. Send these directions to your camera. A whole chamber without decentering anything.

Once you come here , you only need (and I think not) a slight adjustment of some mm.

The philosophy of this is to draw the compass parallel lines between reality and image. Do the same with the heights and the inclinometer . And using a conjugate distance enough to get our work approach.

for it is necessary, a longer focal length as far as possible and also the height of the optical axis of the lens as high as possible

Francisco J. Fernández
3-Apr-2014, 14:38
go seems I was late with my compass ... well, never mind

i use one Meridian MG 3002.

http://www.grube.de/meridian-geologen-kompass-mg-3002-81-150-variation.html

Rollinhofuji
4-Apr-2014, 00:28
Guys, thank you for these scientific approach and suggestions! I might really try the compass method. Currently I only own a Suunto MC-2 Global, the accuracy is surely not as good. But it also features a small inclinometer.
Francisco, I am not sure if I unerstand your system correctly...

For levelling, I recently bought a pocket spirit level (checked the accuracy, it is quite good). This allows easy horizontal and vertical aligment of the GG and the camera back on my MT 3000.

By the way, I usually have no chance to center vertically (by using a very high tripod or so). It is also not intended, the angle of view should be similar as mine. I use rise for vertical framing.

My series is evolving now, and it turns out that not many images really need this "full frontal" perspective. But I am glad that I found many techniques here how to accomplish it, if it is necessary. Thanks again!

Francisco J. Fernández
4-Apr-2014, 03:54
Read it slowly, and you'll know.

I've done that many years and in most cases just need to decentralize the optical axis.

No better explain, sorry.

Francisco J. Fernández
7-Apr-2014, 09:53
What I'm trying to say is ... further, then above, then farther up more and more focal length. always draw a compass direction of space ... copy this link in the image plane. Check with the verticality of the building clinometer and copy the image plane.

If all that does not work together, so if use THEO.

But never before

VictoriaPerelet
7-Apr-2014, 11:44
go seems I was late with my compass ... well, never mind

i use one Meridian MG 3002.

http://www.grube.de/meridian-geologen-kompass-mg-3002-81-150-variation.html

Unless you have allergies for digital - iphone (and other cell phones) have gps and map program...:rolleyes:

Francisco J. Fernández
7-Apr-2014, 12:13
no, no, I have the compass and use it because I do. (I'm a geologist and paleontologist) I have no allergies to anything digital. Using various digital equipment, but I enjoy more with my old film cameras.

what happens is that not waive my past ... I geologist, and was technical and scientific photograph ... and that's what you get. I do not pretend nothing but enjoy all that let me do my disease.

By the way, I looked at your website and you have wonderful work.






Re: View camera alignment for "full frontal architecture"
Originally Posted by Francisco J. Fernández
go seems I was late with my compass ... well, never mind

i use one Meridian MG 3002.

http://www.grube.de/meridian-geologe...variation.html

Francisco J. Fernández
8-Apr-2014, 11:54
What I'm trying to say is ... further, then above, then farther up more and more focal length. always draw a compass direction of space ... copy this link in the image plane. Check with the verticality of the building clinometer and copy the image plane.

If all that does not work together, so if use THEO.

But never before


I think this translation is more like what I'm saying
.




WWhat I'm trying to say is ... a little further first, second, and then a little higher, farther and third largest after rising above the focal length.

always a compass direction in space ... building this information was transmitted, then this direcion was made to the image plane. afther checked with the verticality of the building using the inclinometer and is fixed in the image plane.

If all that does not work together, so if I use THEO.

But never before

Francisco J. Fernández
8-Apr-2014, 17:40
I think this translation is more like what I'm saying
.




WWhat I'm trying to say is ... a little further first, second, and then a little higher, farther and third largest after rising above the focal length.

always a compass direction in space ... building this information was transmitted, then this direcion was made to the image plane. afther checked with the verticality of the building using the inclinometer and is fixed in the image plane.

If all that does not work together, so if I use THEO.

But never before

Damn.

I write right. I check the translations and correct.

I copy and paste in the post

and changes, there is order, that is no longer correct.

there is a correction in this damn browser that it changes

I give up ... I do not write more

I just read