Why NotGalvin 2 X 3 meets DSLR

[Gustavo]

I hope this is the correct area to post this .
Thanks to the generosity of Bill Theis I own a Galvin 2 X 3 .
So I was bored today and figure why not I cut some lens boards and then It hit me !! why can't I make my own digi SLR / view camera and so 3 hour latter ,some pvc ,epoxy and a lens inverter I came up with this
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2554969250_6032795a46.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2554969312_739d5b7527.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/2554968862_8555aafd1e.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/2554145907_e70a8bb6aa.jpg

Comments welcome
Gustavo

[Brian Ellis]

Interesting. To me it combines the worst of both worlds - the inconvenience of large format (yeah, I know, it's 2x3, quibble, bicker, argue over whether that's large format) with the problems of digital. But if you want movements, and don't want to spring for a digital camera lens that tilts and shifts or don't want to use Photoshop to accomplish the bascially the same thing, I guess this does that. Not knocking your project, it's ingenious and something I sure couldn't do myself, but you asked for comments.

[Ernest Purdum]

I am quite ignorant about Photoshop, but I don't suppose it can perform the equivalent of rise, fall and shift movements.

Gustavo, I'm curious about the "lens inverter". Is this another example of my digital ignorance?

[Kuzano]

Using the Skew command. In fact, judicious use of the skew command can emulate movements that cannot be done by most cameras with movements. It's very easy to take a digital image of a tall building and straighten the sides to remove the convergence of the lines going up the image. You can actually deal with each side of the building separately as far as straightening lines go.

[John Voss]

Using the Skew command. In fact, judicious use of the skew command can emulate movements that cannot be done by most cameras with movements. It's very easy to take a digital image of a tall building and straighten the sides to remove the convergence of the lines going up the image. You can actually deal with each side of the building separately as far as straightening lines go.

Yes, but doesn't that distort the details of the image being straightened? In other words aren't the rectangular bricks that make up the side of a wall, say, changed from their rectangular shape to a distorted shape? There must be some good reason to be selling digital backs for view cameras, right?

[Marko]

Skew is only one of several very powerful tools. There is also a whole Lens Distortion filter which can correct perspective, either horizontal or vertical in either direction, vignetting, barrel and pincushion distortion, etc. Then there are Perspective and Warp tools...

There is something for everybody in Photoshop, and everything can be done in many different ways. All one has to do is approach it with an open mind and an eye toward learning and trying. If you treat it as some sort of your mother-in-law's step-daughter's bastard child, it will treat you back in the same way and then some.

[timparkin]

The problem with photoshop distortions is that you can end up losing a third or more of your image and having high resolution at the top and low resolution at the bottom. PS is OK for 'subtle' changes. If you want to keep your cameras resolution and do archtecture, you need movements.

[Gustavo]

It is simple ! as I see it .
If it was not there ....
you can change the file but you are loosing resolution no matter what

[Marko]

The problem with photoshop distortions is that you can end up losing a third or more of your image and having high resolution at the top and low resolution at the bottom. PS is OK for 'subtle' changes. If you want to keep your cameras resolution and do archtecture, you need movements.


Distortions? What "Photoshop distortions"? We were talking about Photoshop tools here.

The biggest problem with Photoshop is that so many comments about it are generated by too many people who know too little about it.

I don't know where did you get a third of your image lost, but that is definitely not my experience. And neither is "low resolution at the bottom". You'd have to REALLY go over the top to get such a radical impact.

BTW, camera with movements was precisely what the OP did - a digital camera with movements, that is - and got questioned about the purpose. When the purpose turns to be eliminating film and scanning and importing straight to Photoshop, the discussion turns toward "Photoshop distortions"...

[Kirk Gittings]

IMO PS is not a replacement for camera movements for correcting perspective for architecture, at least not for critical work. To correct serious convergence with PS involves significant interpolation, which I find an inferior approach to using a VC or shift lenses on a DSLR.

[Marko]

Kirk, of course it is inferior, it's a clear case of horses for courses, otherwise nobody would bother with expensive specialized gear.

What I am saying is that Photoshop corrections will do rather well in the absence of such equipment and that the changes the interpolation introduces are nowhere near as drastic as the opponents make them sound, at least when done competently.

[Frank Petronio]

If you shoot wider and at a higher resolution than you need so that you can reduce rather than expand your distortions... err transformations... PS works pretty well. At least as well as what the sample images are at the top of the page.

A lensbaby does tilt and swing really cheap!

[sanking]

The problem with photoshop distortions is that you can end up losing a third or more of your image and having high resolution at the top and low resolution at the bottom. PS is OK for 'subtle' changes. If you want to keep your cameras resolution and do archtecture, you need movements.

It really depends on how much resolution you start with. I have been using perspective control tools in Photoshop for many years with image files from scanned MF and LF film. These files are so large that you can usually apply as much control as you need without any evidence of distorting the image.

Image files from DSLR cameras are by contrast much smaller in total megapixel count than scanned files of MF and LF file and you have to be very careful in using perpspective control or you will introduce some unwanted artifacts. And surispingly, it is not in the areas of the image that have a lot of deail that you will notice the distortion but in the areas that have fine tonal transisition. Bob Carnie of Elevator Digital in Toronto has seen this in printing for clients and might comment further if he sees this thread.

Sandy King

[Gustavo]

How did this turn from a simple camera adapter build up to a PSD discussion???

[Kirk Gittings]

Image files from DSLR cameras are by contrast much smaller in total megapixel count than scanned files of MF and LF file and you have to be very careful in using perpspective control or you will introduce some unwanted artifacts.

Very true and I should have added that to my statement. For high quality architecture with a DSLR it is critical to use T/S lenses rather than PS corrections as the files are so small and interpolation artifacts are common.

[Gustavo]

I am with you Kirk .
to put it in lame man terms
is not there to start
it wont be there at the end
that is photographically speaking
If you want to render ( paint on the pc )
then as far as I am concern is not photography
but
ILLUSTRATION
and that is not the same as
Photography

[John Hennessy]

Gustavo, as to your original post: I love your camera and I have wondered about the same question and your solution. Galvins are rather rare these days I assume and of course Jim Galvin is gone and the other variations on this theme that I have seen are pricy. Tilt/shift lenses are a poor substitute for a view camera because of movement limitations and only two possible movements that are not independent of each other. And I think the consensus of the rest of this tread is that PS too is a poor substitute for getting it right in the first place.

What is the lens on your camera? I suppose your just compose through the DSLR or do you take it off and compose on the GG? Does it work with short lenses or work best with long lenses?

Tell us more!

[Gustavo]

I can do both no biggy as to the lenses the one on the photo is a 135 I am making a board for an 85mm and I have an old fish eye in the garage that is begging for experimentation will keep you posted

[Brad Rippe]

I love this kind of experiment Gustavo. It reminds me of the time someone, (I cant remember who) mounted an old Epson scanner on the back of an 8 by 10 camera. Results were interesting. I'm a film guy, but I think this kind of imagination with hybrid/film/digital is really great and will open up other techniques not yet even dreamed of.
Keep it up.

-Brad

[Bill L.]

Hi Gustavo,

I have one of the adapters to fit a Canon 35mm/DSLR to a Graflok back that I've tried with my Canham DLC45. Only problem is that the camera's sensor plane sits back farther than the film plane on the 4x5 camera, so you have less bellows extension than you normally would. You may find this a problem for your shorter lenses. With the two standards on the Canham squashed together as close as I can get them, my 125 mm won't focus on anything further away than a few feet. Great for macro though. Particularly using my 210 mm lens with a Canon 20D - nothing like the equivalent of a 330 mm macro lens!

Best of luck with the experiment.

Bill