PDA

View Full Version : Question on movement orders



A_Tabor
14-Aug-2015, 13:30
Greetings! I'm working my way toward getting into large format photography, and in the process of researching options for my first camera I've come across a question I haven't been able to find clear info on yet.

My goal is to get myself a 4x5 field camera setup for landscape and architectural photography, and I'm still stuck between deciding to buy an existing old camera to refurbish and to build a new custom one from scratch. One of the biggest factors that I'm unsure of is what I should really be looking for with regards to movement styles, and the impact of which movements are nested where. This is a little more important on the line of deciding to build my own as I then have full control over how things are done rather than simply accepting and adapting to whatever the setup is for a camera I buy.



For example, you could have your shifts on the exterior with the tilts nested inside them. Tilting the film plane in that case would set it to whatever angle, but you still move that now tilted plane up and down in the original vertical plane if you apply shifts.

Nesting shifts inside the tilts then mean that once tilted the shifts move the film along the new tilted plane, which in turn makes a very different movement pattern. Plus tilts being done from an edge vs tilt axis running through the centre of the plane seems to be another design choice that is going to slightly change how your workflow goes.



I'm seeing a mixed bag of options while looking at different designs and watching videos of photographers employing various models of cameras, but I haven't come across any decent discussions on the order and such of how photographers prefer to have the camera setup for different movements. Lots of information on Tilts X + Shifts Y to get Effect Z, but far less conversation about arriving at a given tilt and shift while keeping your framing as you're imagining things.


Do people feel that the mechanical order, whether tilting affects the plane of your shifts or not, really impacts how they work? And is this something that I really should be providing sketches with? (This really feels like a coffee and whiteboard kind of issue.)


I've seen one field camera where the rear standard could be moved left and right as the outermost movement, then the tilts, and finally the 'vertical' shift would always be along the plane set by the two shifts. Mechanically this seems to produce a full movement range while being mechanically robust, but having the shifts on either side of the tilt mechanics also means that the vectors for shifting converge slightly if both shifts are applied.
My background is in computer sciences, so it won't surprise me if I'm thinking too much about that issue.

And I'm also not seeing much in the way of hard details on ranges involved. Obviously the more range the better for oddball edge cases, but the more demand gets placed on your lens's image circle and the camera's bellows. What do you feel is a minimum distance and angle for a given movement, and at what range do you feel you are unlikely to ever really worry about needing?


Thanks for the input, and sorry if this is better suited for a different section of the forums.

Alan Gales
14-Aug-2015, 14:10
The normal advice that we give newbies about which camera to buy first is to just buy an inexpensive camera and lens and spend your money on film. Most people including me do not keep their first camera because they learn what they like and don't like and then buy the camera that they want. Everyone is different on what their preferences are. What is a perfect camera to one person, another doesn't care for. Everyone on here has opinions. What matters is what you like.

If you want to refinish an old camera that would be fine but I would not try to build one from scratch until you have quite a bit of experience shooting 4x5. :)

Welcome to the forum!

Alan Gales
14-Aug-2015, 14:41
Vinny Walsh built his own 8x10 field camera. It was quite a job but Vinny produced a fine camera. Click on the picture to see more.

http://www.vinnywalsh.com/#!camera/c65q

Bob Salomon
14-Aug-2015, 15:38
What about swings?

Jim Jones
14-Aug-2015, 15:50
The normal advice that we give newbies about which camera to buy first is to just buy an inexpensive camera and lens and spend your money on film. Most people including me do not keep their first camera because they learn what they like and don't like and then buy the camera that they want. Everyone is different on what their preferences are. What is a perfect camera to one person, another doesn't care for. Everyone on here has opinions. What matters is what you like. . . .


Yes, indeed! Also, refer to as many manuals on using view cameras as possible. Different writers have different viewpoints and different ways of explaining. I have books (in alphabetical order) by Ansel Adams, Harvey Shaman, Steve Simmons, Leslie Stroebel, and Jim Stone. They don't have to be new to get you started.

Handmade view cameras vary from as elegant as Vinny Walsh's, or as basic as Jay Bender's DIY kit http://www.jaybender.com/BPH/index.htm of years ago and Jon Grepstad's DIY design http://home.online.no/~gjon/large_format.htm. The difference between these basic DIY cameras and the best of manufactured view cameras is more a matter of convenience and elegance, not in the photographs they can produce.

Dan Fromm
14-Aug-2015, 17:36
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?62126-Base-Tilt-versus-Axis-Tilt

RSalles
14-Aug-2015, 18:26
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?62126-Base-Tilt-versus-Axis-Tilt

X2!

It's a daunting task to find a perfect camera for both architecture and landscape work, you always have to give some preference for one kind or another - actually you can do both works with the same camera but it could have been a better choice to get the intended use in count of the camera design when choosing,
At the end, it will have also the "available money factor" to drive your choice,

Good look,

Renato

John Kasaian
14-Aug-2015, 18:41
The most bang for your buck will be an old monorail in good condition. A Calumet 400-ish or GV/GVII. Expect to pay under $200 if you shop around. It may not be your ideal camera (or it may very well be) but it will give you a start and help you decide what features you just can't live without without spending a lot of loot and you should be able to recoup your investment if you decide to sell.
The lens, film holders, tripod, etc... can carry over to your next 4x5.
In 30 days you'll have access to WTS/WTB section here---a good resource. Keh Camera also has some very reasonably priced used stuff.
FWIW I find front rise important with architecture.
Also I'd avoid a "project" camera for your first camera unless you prefer restoring to making photographs. Consider getting something you can take out and play with right away. You can always take on a basket case later on, if that's what you want to do.

A_Tabor
15-Aug-2015, 09:09
Manufacturing something like a camera really doesn't worry me too much, given that I've built things from homes and fine cabinetry to drones and automated weapons platforms for work, and the general mechanics alone are as interesting and amusing to me as the photography itself is. I have a workspace that is more than enough to build a fairly detailed camera body, and I'm in no great rush to get started. I do plan to eventually get into grinding custom optics, but will need a far more suitable space to setup such a workshop.

Part of the goal is to minimize general costs while getting into things. I already have a fair bit of brass, seasoned maple, and carbon fibre sitting around from other projects, but I don't have a 4x5 camera already sitting around. I would rather focus the bulk of what I do spend on reusable equipment on glass as much as possible.

Of course ordering a ready to go camera to play with would give me a clearer idea of what to put into my own design down the road, and I expect to build a lot of custom gear a few years in the future as I get into larger and larger formats, but even if starting with an off the shelf camera I would still rather have a clearer idea of working details before picking a model.

I could order the cheapest thing of KEH that is in working condition and go from there, but that just feels like jumping in overly blind.

Alan Gales
15-Aug-2015, 09:58
It feels like you are jumping in overly blind because you are. That's why I recommended not building a camera until you have a better understanding on how one works and what you need and like in a camera.

A field camera works great for landscape photography. They can work for architectural photography too for some. It all depends upon what you are shooting. Back in the day architectural photographers used monorails. Do like John Kassaian suggests and buy a cheap monorail to learn on. Then later you can build your field camera. You may want to keep the monorail for certain subjects or you can always sell and get most of your money back.

Large Format is a bit daunting at first but there are some really great people on this forum willing to help you. I know they helped me plenty! :)

tgtaylor
15-Aug-2015, 11:20
Since you mentioned architectural photography and the shifting of focus planes when tilting, I'd recommend getting a yaw-free monorail such as a Toyo: http://toyoview.com/Products/45GII_45GX/45GII_45GX.html which can be found used in good condition at a reasonable price. You don't need all the movements of the above for landscape photography and I would suggest that you purchase a field camera such as the Toyo 45CF: http://toyoview.com/Products/45CF/45CF.html or AX http://toyoview.com/Products/45AX/45AXad.html for hiking/backpacking. I own and use all these cameras (the ROBOS instead of the GII/GX) and recommend them upon personal experience.

Thomas

A_Tabor
15-Aug-2015, 11:50
I am very well versed in the optics and mathematical principles behind the cameras, and have experience employing these techniques in robotic controlled imaging systems during their development and deployment, however my experience in using them involved me sitting at a keyboard watching data flow in and directing things to build a better and more accurate model of 3D spaces.

What I'm rather blind about is the hands on mechanics for dealing with these in a manual camera while adjusting the view on a ground glass, rather than wide spectrum high res digital sensors, and from a lens that wasn't a custom made unit that costs nearly a quarter mill. Whether I buy something off the shelf or build something doesn't change that, but before I get anything I would like to have a bit better of an idea of issues others have had with various designs and functionality in the past.


So to reshape the core question to this thread: What aspects of various camera's designs have frustrated you or caused headaches in the past, and what design elements have you found save you time or made using the camera easier for you?

Oren Grad
15-Aug-2015, 12:07
I wouldn't try to discourage you from building your own camera if building things is an activity you enjoy in its own right. But this...


Part of the goal is to minimize general costs while getting into things.

...will be true only if you value your time at zero, or very close to it.

Taste in LF camera design is such a personal thing. Our favorites vary; different design features please and/or annoy. So the answers to this...


So to reshape the core question to this thread: What aspects of various camera's designs have frustrated you or caused headaches in the past, and what design elements have you found save you time or made using the camera easier for you?

...will be all over the map, with no clear overall indication of "good" design features vs "bad" design features, except for obvious things like "rigid is better than floppy". But even there, you'll find different degrees of tolerance for less-than-perfect rigidity, and different preferences for tradeoffs of that against size, weight and price.

The best education in LF camera design really is to lay your hands on some cameras and work with them yourself.

Bob Salomon
15-Aug-2015, 12:26
Since you mentioned architectural photography and the shifting of focus planes when tilting, I'd recommend getting a yaw-free monorail such as a Toyo: http://toyoview.com/Products/45GII_45GX/45GII_45GX.html which can be found used in good condition at a reasonable price. You don't need all the movements of the above for landscape photography and I would suggest that you purchase a field camera such as the Toyo 45CF: http://toyoview.com/Products/45CF/45CF.html or AX http://toyoview.com/Products/45AX/45AXad.html for hiking/backpacking. I own and use all these cameras (the ROBOS instead of the GII/GX) and recommend them upon personal experience.

Thomas

Nonsense!
Every camera is yaw free. If the camera has the swing point above the tilt point then you just rotate the camera 90 degrees on the tripod head and it is now yaw free. Or use lenses with large image circles. Level the camera to the subject and use a camera with large amounts of rise fall shift. Then you just use these direct displacements to position the image on the gg and the only tilt or swing needed would be for Scheimpflug control. Linhof Kardans have exceptionally great amounts of direct displacement for this very purpose. And, if your camera has optical axis tilts, rather then base tilts, then the image won't change its position on the gg after doing the needed tilt.

Oren Grad
15-Aug-2015, 12:48
And not to be totally evasive about it: field cameras are my thing, the simpler the better (though I do own other types for special purposes). The only movement I use regularly is front rise/fall, of which I'll take as much as I can get. If I were regularly doing tabletop setups or architecture, rather than the general field snapshooting I currently do, I'd choose a monorail rather than trying to pile epicycles upon epicycles of control complexity on to a folding field camera design.

John Kasaian
15-Aug-2015, 14:44
So to reshape the core question to this thread: What aspects of various camera's designs have frustrated you or caused headaches in the past, and what design elements have you found save you time or made using the camera easier for you?
FWIW I'm happy as a clam with my old Deardorff, a 1920's design. Some guys like the latest Canham/Ebony/Ritter/Chamonix. It's all good but the crux of the matter is how you feel about any given design. They'll most all take you where you need to go but you will find some will be more intuitive to use than others and that's a good thing as LF is s-l-o-w. For times when the light is rapidly changing and you need to get the shot pronto, there is no manual nor directions to follow---your eyes and your fingers will make it happen and the gray matter will after the fact say "yes, of course that is what I meant to do."

tgtaylor
15-Aug-2015, 15:50
I am very well versed in the optics and mathematical principles behind the cameras, and have experience employing these techniques in robotic controlled imaging systems during their development and deployment, however my experience in using them involved me sitting at a keyboard watching data flow in and directing things to build a better and more accurate model of 3D spaces.

What I'm rather blind about is the hands on mechanics for dealing with these in a manual camera while adjusting the view on a ground glass, rather than wide spectrum high res digital sensors, and from a lens that wasn't a custom made unit that costs nearly a quarter mill. Whether I buy something off the shelf or build something doesn't change that, but before I get anything I would like to have a bit better of an idea of issues others have had with various designs and functionality in the past.

Then get a Toyo GX (or similar) which will do everything you want to so and then some. Why waste time and money with a lessor camera that can't? For landscape and portability, The Toyo CF or the technical AX (or similar). Be aware, though, that you will have to look for a used GX since only a few photographers need a camera with that capability (which also cost more) and they have a tendency to hold on to the GX.

Thomas

Thomas


So to reshape the core question to this thread: What aspects of various camera's designs have frustrated you or caused headaches in the past, and what design elements have you found save you time or made using the camera easier for you?

jp
15-Aug-2015, 17:31
There's lots of things that you think would drive you crazy and they don't, and things that drive you crazy you didn't think of. Best just get a camera, use it for a while, and if it's not ideal, use the forum to buy and sell till you get something that is good for you. Otherwise, go to some sort of LF workshop or gathering and see how everyone else's camera works.

Bruce Barlow
16-Aug-2015, 03:50
Building a camera before having used one is akin to building a car without a driver's license, or ever having been behind the wheel; theory deviating from practice as it usually does.

I agree with those who say buy an inexpensive, working one, use it, and later when it drives you nuts, find another one that fixes the problems you're having, none of which we can really anticipate here. We are all being armchair photographers guessing about what you will want to do based on what we have done.

And as far as cost? You sound like a really skilled guy. My secretary used to tell me that I should value my time on weekends at $100/hour. That was in 1992. What's your time worth? And having made furniture in my time, what's your REALSITIC estimate of how many new workshop toys - uh, I mean tools - you will have to invest in?

And then: I thought you wanted to photograph? If so, skip construction for now, get the stuff, and go do it. I bought a shiny new Wista in 1984, paid for express shipping, and was out in the field the day I received it. Figured I'd upgrade when it drove me nuts. I still use it as my go-to 4x5.

Go ye forth and photograph, methinks.