PDA

View Full Version : Learning movements - How would you do this?



Scott --
18-Mar-2007, 11:49
Hi, all -

Ok, I have a 90mm coming, and I'm wanting to try shooting this building in 4x5:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/16_13.jpg

Is there a way with front standard movements to keep the facade sharp, other'n stopping way down? Noob question, I know, but I gots ta learn it somehow.

Thanks.
Scott

Ken Lee
18-Mar-2007, 12:10
If you have a tripod whose head rotates, then level the head of the tripod first. Then, any subsequent movements of the camera will be level.

That being said, level the camera next/first - both front/back and side-to-side.

If you point the camera elsewhere, make sure it is level - again and again. In particular, the back of the camera has to be straight up and down.

In the photo above, the camera back is tilted ever so slightly. Thus, the walls are not parallel. (This can be fixed in Photoshop - just find one of the tutorials.)

If your ground glass has lines on it, you can more easily detect that the camera back is out of alignment.

As to focus, you will need to swing either the front or rear, so that the near and far corners of the building (along the road) are in focus. It's best to do that with the front, rather than the back, because the relationship of the back to the subject determines the convergence.

If this is hard to follow, bring along a teacher or friend who can show you. One moment of hands-on is worth hours of reading.

Colin Graham
18-Mar-2007, 12:10
Do you have swing on the front or rear standard on you camera?

Scott --
18-Mar-2007, 12:23
Thanks for the description, Ken. Colin, I'm using a Super Speed Graphic, which has 25 degrees of front swing. Have to figure out how to swing it... ;)

The picture above was taken with a Zeiss Ikon folding Contina II, so it's more'n likely the camera wasn't parallel to the building. And it was just a snapshot, testing the camera out after I'd worked on it. But I'm drawn to this old mothballed mill; if I can work up the nerve to go set up a tripod on a sidewalk in town, I want to have a decent shot at getting the picture right. :)

Thanks for the help, guys.
Scott

Eric James
18-Mar-2007, 12:41
First off, I'm a novice; so better answers will certainly follow.

A bit of swing should help bring the right portion of this composition into critical focus. Perhaps you’re limited by your camera, but the swing could be achieved on either the front or back standard; likely you've chosen the front standard in order to eliminate the distortion inherent to rear swing (and tilt).

You will also have to determine the position of optimal focus, and your working f-stop; these factors will determine the degree (or range) of swing that will allow you to achieve your goal. You'll find great tutorials on the home page, particularly QT Luong’s articles on focus and f-stop selection.

You may want to begin by deciding how big your largest photo will be - the gymnastics that follow will depend on the print size. Others here will point out that there is an optimal camera configuration to achieve the largest print potential - but if your output is smaller, you'll be able to get away with less well-honed technique.

The best starting point is with dedicated tripod holes, and perfectly vertical and parallel front and rear standard. Have fun with it!

Louie Powell
18-Mar-2007, 12:54
Scott -

Interesting building. Where is it? (It looks like the place where I used to work.)

I would do two, and perhaps three things in photographing this building.

First, after leveling the camera in all directions, I would raise the front standards a bit to be able to include the very top of the building. There is area in the foreground at the bottom of the frame that doesn't contain useful information that could be eliminated.

Second, as others have noted, I would apply a bit of swing. I would probably apply front swing, rotating the front standard around its vertical axis with the left side moving toward the back of the camera, and the right side moving away. Then, as you stop down the lens, that should keep the facade of the building in focus.

The third thing is optional - I would consider trying to identify a time when I could photograph the building when the cars won't be parked in front of it. Don't have anything against cars, but they apply a definite time-stamp to the photograph. Without the cars, the image would be timeless and would be classic if printed in black and white on a warm-tone paper.

Eric James
18-Mar-2007, 13:15
Those are great points Louie: about the cars, about using front rise in order to view the top of the building (and minimize the foreground). All this may change when Scott's 90mm arrives, but that's very good compositional advice.

Will you be shooting it in color or B&W?

Eric Leppanen
18-Mar-2007, 13:18
This photograph is a nice, "real world" example of a complex subject which will require both camera movements and stopping down.

As previously noted, level the camera, then apply enough front rise to encompass the roof of the building as well as a suitable amount of sky. Then focus on the nearest corner of the building (roughly at the left third of the photograph), and apply enough swing (front swing is preferable to avoid distortion) to get the farthest (on the far right) portion of the building in simultaneous focus using the iterative process described in How to Focus the View Camera in the LF Photography home page. After several iterations, you should be able to get the near and far points of the building in simultaneous focus.

However, a complication from the swing movement will be that the cars in the right foreground will be pulled slightly out of focus. To correct for this, you'll have to stop down. Imagine the near and far points of the building (that you just simultaneously focused on) as defining the plane of focus, and look for the objects furthest in front (near point) or behind (far point) that plane. In this case, the cars in the right foreground are your near point, whereas your far point is probably the left edge of the building at the very left edge of the composition (normally infinity would be the farthest point, but the only visible infinity in your composition is along the line of the plane of focus on the far right (farthest point down the street), and is therefore already taken care of). Measure the focus spread (difference in bellows displacement measured in millimeters) between the near (cars) and far (left edge of building) points, set the bellows displacement to exactly the midpoint between the two, and look up the required f-stop in the table provided in the LF Home Page article on How to Select the F-Stop (e.g., if the difference in bellows displacement is 4mm then you will have to stop down to f/32.6). Now everything should be in focus and you are ready to take your shot!

This can seem complicated and a bit difficult to describe (I hope I didn't do too bad a job), but once you get the hang of it it is easy to do. The nice thing about this technique is that you maintain complete control of what is in and out of focus, which is not always possible with SLR's and other camera systems.

Good luck and have fun!

poco
18-Mar-2007, 14:55
Just to be a contrary cuss, I'll say I wouldn't use any movements except rise for this exact shot. If you lay the plane of focus along the receding building facade, you're going to have to stop way down to get that near car in focus -- easily to an fstop that would make a non-movement shot work. I'd focus on the second window, stop down and click.

domenico Foschi
18-Mar-2007, 16:07
I agree with both Loui Powell and poco, even though they take two different approaches.
The method of Loui is by the book, but in this case it's a bit overkill especially if you are using a 90 mm. Front rise seems to me a good choice in order to include the building's upper section and part of the sky.But again, if you are using this lens, you will need a lot of rising, I feel, since this lens will include much more street, and unless you are using a super angulon or similar lens( big coverage) you will probably have troubles with coverage, which can be solved by placing your camera highre than normal, that is why I have almost always a small ladder in my car.
I have always reservations using a 90 mm., because this lens will give me an unrealistic view of what I intend to photograph.
Looking at your image I think a 150 mm. could be enough and would preserve the proportions.
I would also bring with me really big insulated shears to get rid of the wires and post some "temporary no parking" signs for the day you are planning to shoot :D

Scott --
18-Mar-2007, 16:11
Thanks for all the great info, guys! I piddled around with swing in the living room, focusing on the drawn blinds at an angle. I was surprised how little swing was required to bring the edges in focus. I know it's not a scale example, but still - it was neat to see.

Louie, that's the (former) Birdsboro Corporation mill in scenic Birdsboro, PA. Mostly abandoned now, 'cept for a small plating operation in one part. I've done a lot of walk around shooting in Birdsboro, mostly testing old cameras I've worked on (and, consequently, repeating a lot of shots without much thought or effort. Which is, I think, why I'm so obsessed with using the Super now - it forces me to slow down, think, and work.). It's an interesting, if likely generic, town. Probably very representative of old Pennsylvania mill towns in decline.

Eric J., I'm likely doing B&W for the foreseeable future. Shoot it, bring it home, develop it, scan it. Near as instant gratification as it can be. Don't have a local lab that does 4x5, and sending out takes too long for my diminished attention span. :D

Eric L., I think I follow what you're saying. I really need to read the referenced pages. Time for some homework.

Poco, you're probably right, and considering that this picture, snapped in a hurry with the truck running, is almost acceptably sharp across the frame at, like, f/16, movements are probably overkill. I've been playing a lot with rise and tilt lately, though; swing and shift are next to figure out. This seemed like a good exercise, for the learning, anyway.

Domineco, I'll bring along the 135/4.7 (my only other lens) for a perspective comparison. In 35mm, I shot most of the time with a 28mm lens; the 90 seems like it should be at least comparable to the way I'm used to seeing.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts and help. When the 90 gets here, I'll post a result to this thread. (Gonna feel kinda funny with the camera and tripod on Furnace Street in downtown Birdsboro, I tell ya what... :o )

Scott

Photomax
18-Mar-2007, 17:13
Nice question and answer session! Obviously the Super Graphic is not a twisting monster like a Sinar P but it should be more than up for this task. I enjoyed reading the different approaches.

Not to hijack this thread but are there any similar posts like this? Posts that feature a straight 35mm shot with analysis on how to set movements etc, etc???

Max

PViapiano
19-Mar-2007, 09:12
Domenico is right...sometimes a 90mm from this distance can cause much perspective distortion in a tall building. Usually two stories aren't bad, but you need to try it yourself to see what works and doesn't.

I remember taking a photo of a church and steeple with my 90mm from across the street using front rise. The result was very distorted and unnatural once a certain height was reached...

But once again, you need to try all the shots you'd like to make, so that you can see for yourself. Keep good notes and learn from them...

Bill_1856
19-Mar-2007, 09:42
For a shot like that, make sure that your camera is level, and then just stop down for all the sharpness you'll ever need.

Brian C. Miller
19-Mar-2007, 10:19
OK, I noticed that nobody addressed the issue of how to actually use a Graflex Super Graphic. This beastie is my main machine, so here goes:

The Super Graphic front shift and swing are controlled by the release lever under the front standard. Take your camera, open the bed, and bring your front standard out to the infinity stops. Now, instead of locking it in place, press down on the catch below the locking lever. Slide the front standard left or right, and also twist it to swing it left or right.

Once you're done having fun with that, its time to move to some more movement fun. The rise and tilt are available when you loosen the nuts on the front standard. First we'll look at tilt. Loosen the bottom nuts and the front standard will tilt back. There are clips at the bottom. While pushing on the clips, you can move the standard to tilt forward.

Now its time for rise and fall. Since the nuts are loose, you can pull up on the standard for rise. For fall, first drop the bed by pressing on the bed catches and gently lowering the bed down. Tilt the front standard back to straighten it up. Use rise to adjust "fall." IIRC, max rise will set the lens equal to where the the lens is when the bed is level.

Anyways, play around with it and see what it does. The Super Graphic makes a decent field camera.

steve simmons
19-Mar-2007, 11:46
So, here are my thoughts.

Swing won't help and it may hurt. With the wires in the upper left swing will make them out of focus and closing down enough to get thm back will be tough and perhaps impossible depnding on how much swing.

Aways level the camera front to rear and left to right. Doing so will make your job much easier most of the time.

I would try and eliminate the cars. The shot will be cleaner without them and make the photo more timeless.

Pick a day with better weather and try and have sun on the long facade It will give more depth to the photo.

From this vantage point you just need a little more rise and you wll be fine with the lens you have. You could use less street anyway.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com

Scott --
19-Mar-2007, 13:15
Thanks, everyone. I'll have to try and see if swing is going to help or hinder the scene. FWIW, though, you lose the cars (if not those stinkin' wires...) if you shoot from the other end of the street:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/ca.jpg

I like the perspective from the other end of the block. It'll take some experimentation, for sure.

Also, the lens arrived today. It's a Raptar 90/6.8 in a Rapax shutter, and the thing's tiny (BTW - anyone know what size shutter it is?). I was able to kind of kludge it into my existing board, though the board's a bit thick for it, and there's slop to center it with. Don't know how usable the lens is going to be though: In order to get infinity with it, the bellows has to be almost completely compressed. If I drop the bed and tilt the standard back to make the lens parallel to the ground glass, I lose infinity.

Going to piddle with it s'more tonight and see what I can make it do. Thanks for the continued input - it's been very educational!

Scott

Colin Graham
19-Mar-2007, 13:25
The movements become very intuitive after awhile. I had a lot of fun learning by playing around with the possibilities, even if I made some woeful errors of taste & judgment!

Ernest Purdum
19-Mar-2007, 17:47
Rapax shutters were made to their own dimensions which differ from those described by numbers today.

Scott --
20-Mar-2007, 05:38
Bah. Figures. Oh, well - I'm not sure I'm keeping the lens now, anyway. With the lens focused at infinity there's just no room for any movements at all:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/IMG_1665.jpg

I can get a tiny amount of rise, but that's about it. Might be a limitation of this focal length on this camera. :(

I'm going to shoot a frame or two with it anyway today, just to see what it can do. But I think I might be in the market for a WF Ektar 100...

Jim Jones
20-Mar-2007, 06:12
Many 90mm lenses sold for use on 4x5 cameras have insufficient coverage for front camera movements. Even the 127 and 135mm lenses common on press cameras have similar limitations. A 90mm lens that covers at least 5x7 film will cost more, but will be much more useful. When you've found one that does all you need, you can likely sell the present lens at little loss.

steve simmons
20-Mar-2007, 06:50
Now that you have dived in may I suggest some background reading

User's Guide to the View Camera by Jim Stone
Large Format Nature Photography by Jack Dykinga
Using the View Camera that I wrote.

Check your local library or Amazon.com

There are also several articles inthe Free Articles section of the View Camera web ite that may be helpful to you

One problem you are having here is that you are asking spot questions and getting spot answers. This could go on for a long time before you understand the big picture (no pun intended).

More suggestions,

take a weekend workshop,


steve simmons

Leonard Evens
20-Mar-2007, 07:00
Looking at the picture, I would make the following suggestions. As everyone has noted, first level the camera and use a rise to include the top of the building. Then use a swing and focus so as to place the plane of exact focus somewhere in the street between the curb and the yellow line. You should keep in mind that the area in focus will be a wedge shaped region starting from the so-called hinge line. the hinge line would be a vertical line to the left of the camera and in the plane through the lens perpendicular to the lens axis (i.e, the line of sight). My guess is that it would be about 20 feet from the lens. In that case, the wedge would extend on either side that same 20 feet at the hyperfocal distance. If you use a relatively wide angle lens, the hyperfocal distance will be shorter at the same f-stop, which will make the wedge open more, but more will also need to be included in the scene. A longer lens will have a longer hyperfocal distance, so thee wedge will have a narrower opening, but less will also be included in the scene. My guess is that with a 90 mm lens at f/22, you should be able to have everything in focus, but that is based just on rough estimates of the distances. Of course, at f/22, you might be able to get everything in focus without a swing just by depth of field. I would guess that use of a swing would give you at most one stop advantage over just using depth of field and stopping down enough, if you want to have both the near car and the near wall to the left in focus.

Anupam
20-Mar-2007, 08:38
I uderstand that levelling the camera - i.e. ensuring it's absolutely horizontal - is a good way to begin. But I am wondering if another approach might be called for in certain circumstances. Let's say one doesn't have enough rise or lens coverage to bring the top of the building within the frame with the camera level. In that case wouldn't pointing the camera up and then correcting for the resulting perspective with back movements be a good idea? It seems it might be more efficient in terms of tight image circles.

-Anupam

steve simmons
20-Mar-2007, 08:43
Your suggestion won't work if the lens does not have enough coverage - you will still run out. If you tilt the camera up make the back vertical and don't make the front vertical you may have significant areas out of focus.

Again, I strongly suggest some of the reading I recommended above to answer these basic questions.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com

JW Dewdney
20-Mar-2007, 08:47
I guess steve beat me to the punch. Remember - the lens doesn't know the camera is tilted. Think about only these two things - the relationship of the lens(board) to the film(plane).


I uderstand that levelling the camera - i.e. ensuring it's absolutely horizontal - is a good way to begin. But I am wondering if another approach might be called for in certain circumstances. Let's say one doesn't have enough rise or lens coverage to bring the top of the building within the frame with the camera level. In that case wouldn't pointing the camera up and then correcting for the resulting perspective with back movements be a good idea? It seems it might be more efficient in terms of tight image circles.

-Anupam

Anupam
20-Mar-2007, 08:56
Your suggestion won't work if the lens does not have enough coverage - you will still run out. If you tilt the camera up make the back vertical and don't make the front vertical you may have significant areas out of focus.

Again, I strongly suggest some of the reading I recommended above to answer these basic questions.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com

Yes, that is true. But I wasn't clear about my suggestion. Of course if you tilt the back and then again compensate with the front then you are essentially back to front rise (yes, I know that the camera doesn't know that it is tilted). That part is obvious I think.

But if you stop down and try to make up with DOF and longer exposure (kind of like Poco suggests above) you might still be able to get the shot with a lens without enough coverage. Otherwise if one insists on levelling and then using rise, one would just not be able to make the shot if coverage runs out.

Yes, I have all the books you mention, including yours. It's a great book. Thank you.

-Anupam

Brian C. Miller
20-Mar-2007, 10:12
Bah. Figures. Oh, well - I'm not sure I'm keeping the lens now, anyway. With the lens focused at infinity there's just no room for any movements at all:

I can get a tiny amount of rise, but that's about it. Might be a limitation of this focal length on this camera. :(

What lens do you have on your camera?? I can't see the lens markings in the picture, but with a 135mm you should be able to pull the standard all the way out to the infinity stops on the bed. For a wide-angle lens on a Graflex, you need a recessed board.

Scott --
20-Mar-2007, 10:37
Brian, the lens in the picture was a Raptar 90/6.8 that I'm considering. Originally, I was interested in using it to shoot the building at the beginning of the thread. However, I got this today when I shot the lens for the first time:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/crop227.jpg

Now, the shutter's off a bit, and would need cleaning. There's your overexposure. But there was the tiniest of rise used on this shot, and it clearly vignetted the image. Doesn't look like this lens covers any movements at all, which makes me wonder if I really want to bother with it. Also, this was stopped down to f/22, shot on a tripod, used a cable release. Not nearly as sharp as I'd have thought. 'Nother bah humbug.

So, it looks like I'll be using the 135/4.7 Optar more for the time being, until I sell off enough old cameras to finance an upgrade in lens.

Steve, thanks for the tips and reading list. Will have to see what the local lending network has available.

Jim Jones
20-Mar-2007, 17:04
In addition to Steve's reading list:
View Camera Technique by Leslie Stroebel (My favorite, but early editions are decades old by now.)
The View Camera by Harvey Shaman.
Ansel Adams wrote a five book series on photography in 1970. A three volume series was published in 1983. I enjoy both of them.

Brian C. Miller
20-Mar-2007, 19:00
Brian, the lens in the picture was a Raptar 90/6.8 that I'm considering.
The Graflex cameras are not what you want for wide-angle, especially a 90mm. For that you want something which will take a bag bellows, like the Toyo 45CX (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=1119). Also, that lens may have been for a 6x7 folding camera.

steve simmons
21-Mar-2007, 07:42
If you are going to look for a different camera I suggest reading

Getting Started in Large Format

that is in the Free Articles section of the View Camera web site


steve simmons

Wilbur Wong
21-Mar-2007, 08:06
Thanks for the description, Ken. Colin, I'm using a Super Speed Graphic, which has 25 degrees of front swing. Have to figure out how to swing it... ;)

The picture above was taken with a Zeiss Ikon folding Contina II, so it's more'n likely the camera wasn't parallel to the building. And it was just a snapshot, testing the camera out after I'd worked on it. But I'm drawn to this old mothballed mill; if I can work up the nerve to go set up a tripod on a sidewalk in town, I want to have a decent shot at getting the picture right. :)

Thanks for the help, guys.
Scott

Scott,

From your later pic of the boarded up chapel and grave yard, it appears you have picked up quickly on the correction issues. Congrats! If the Contina has a 50 mm or thereabout lens on it, a 90 mm may put you out on to the street. I suggest you might bring a friend along to watch your back and you can safely approach the mill with confidence while capturing your image.