How to Focusing Foreground Elements that are at the top and bottom of the Scene

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I have been trying to photography a lovely white church. It has a large tree with drooping branches to one side that provides a nice visual counter weight to the church.
I tried the photo with a 215mm lens. It was sharp, but I decided that I wanted a more dynamic scene, so I reshot it, placing people in front of the church. I used a 90mm Super Angulon so that I could get closer to the people. I had to angle the camera up some and and then tilt the back forward to vertical in order to bring the church lines parallel.
I focused about 1/3 into the scene and exposed with a red filter for 1 second at f32. The foreground is sharp on the negatives (TMax 100 developed in TMax RS). However, the overhanging branches that drooped towards me and that helped frame the upper part of the photo were not sharp.
I want to reshoot the scene. What is the best way to bring foreground elements into focus that are both at the top and bottom of the scene without changing the angle of the back so that the church sides are kept parallel?
Do I angle the lens up? (Would this cause the foreground elements on the bottom of the scene close to the camera to go out of focus?). Do I stop down more? (Does diffraction come into play at f64? I'll need some TMax 400 film to keep the exposure from getting too long with since there are people in the scene ).
Thank you and best regards.

Mike

[David A. Goldfarb]

In that kind of scene, swing and tilt don't usually help much. The best option is to keep both standards parallel to the church and stop down to get it all in focus. If necessary, shoot a smaller format.

[Brian Ellis]

You'll need to stop down more and see if that helps. From your description of the scene it doesn't sound like this is a situation where tilts can be used effectively to change the plane of focus because the branches would still be above the revised plane.

FWIW, I would focus on the nearest part of the foreground you're including in the photograph, note the position of the front standard, then focus on the far, presumably the church facade or something to its rear, note the position of the front standard, and place the front standard half way between the two points (I have a mm scale on my camera to help in doing this). I'd then use a table to determine the aperture needed to make the near, far, and everything in between appear to be in focus. The table I use is made by Linhof but there are many others around. It's possible that this just can't be done depending on how near the near is and how far the far is but it might be possible at a smaller aperture than the one you used.

[Leonard Evens]

Your best bet is following Brian's advice. The "one third into the scene rule" generally works only in special circumstances and isn't of much use for general subjects, parts of which are at some distance from the lens.

But I'm still a bit puzzled. At f/32, the hyperfocal distance of a 90 mm lens is about 8.3 feet. If you focused at that distance everything from about 4.15 feet to infinity should be in focus, which should be more that enough to encompass a scene like what you describe. Even at f/22, the hyperfocal distance would be about 12 feet, and if you focused at that distance, everything from 6 feet to infinity would be in focus. My calculation of the hyperfocal distances uses a coc of 0.1 mm, but even if you chose a smaller value, it would seem that with the standards parallel, i.e., no tilt or swing, you would have more than enough depth of field for what you want.

One possibility is that when you pointed the lens up and then tilted the back to maintain parallel verticals, either you forgot about the front standard, or, if you titlted it, it was still ended up not parallel to the back. That would have changed the plane of exact focus. If the front was tilted back with respect to the rear, that would tilt the plane of exact focus backward toward the camera and as a result some elements not close to the lens at the top of the frame would be out of focus.

[Tom Westbrook]

Another table of apertures like the Linhof one Brian mentions can be found on in this Home Page article (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html).

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I didn't adjust the front lens when I tilted the camera up.
It looks like I need to tilt the lens forward so that it is parallel to the back and find the front and back focusing distances in order to calculate the appropriate f-stop and then place the front standard half way between these two distances. Thank you for your help. Best regards.

Mike

[Steve H]

Another possibility - Wind with a 1s exposure ?

[Paul Metcalf]

Hello! I didn't adjust the front lens when I tilted the camera up.
It looks like I need to tilt the lens forward so that it is parallel to the back and find the front and back focusing distances in order to calculate the appropriate f-stop and then place the front standard half way between these two distances. Thank you for your help. Best regards.

Mike

Don't forget about rise.

[Donald Qualls]

One word: Pinhole.

You'll need dead calm, and you might want to investigate curare to help keep your human subjects still... ;) Expect exposures of a minute or two in full sunshine...

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I don't think it is wind, since the main trunk also appears a little out of focus at the top edge of the frame.

Actually, I did take an 8x10 pinhole of the scene at the same time, though with a focal length of 300mm and a pinhole of 0.032 inches. Unfortunately, there was too much foreground grass included, so the scene is unbalanced to my eye. I may try again later in order to gt a better balance of the elements, but otherwise it turned out pretty well. Best regards.

Mike

[Ole Tjugen]

There's a third possibility: Use Harold Merklinger's "reverse focus method".

That means you focus on your main subject, and stop down until the foreground is acceptably sharp. Beats hyperfocal 10 times out of 10!

For an example, see my picture http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen_GF.jpg

[Frank Petronio]

The practical test is to shoot a Polaroid Type 55 negative, process it in the field (it's garbage) and inspect the negative with a loupe. That is how you KNOW you've captured focus and it was standard practice for many complex studio situations where it was iffy to hold focus over too far a range

Unfortunately the ISO is pretty slow but you can underexpose at ISO 100 for a test neg for sharpness (not exposure).

[Kendrick Pereira]

Paul suggests what came to my mind at once and is worth considering. Does your camera not provide simple rise for the front? If this is sufficient the way to make life easiest for yourself would be to level the camera and raise the front without putting anything out of square.

To focus close up both above and below camera level while also keeping the more distant church facade in critical focus in the middle of the picture space is impossible and the depth of field given by a small aperture - backwards and forwards from a compromise focussing distance, as suggested by Brian - will have to do.