Movements!

[PBimages]

I know some people might go Arghh not this again!

But one thing I think this site lacks is a search facility, I have been through quite a few pages and numerous threads, but I found myself getting more and more confused!

I am new to this, I have only ever shot two negatives using a Large Format Camera, and that was at college!

Since then I have obtained a Toyo View 45E

Tomorrow I plan on popping out to photograph some Architecture, as I need to complete a college assignment on this subject and as you can imagine I need to use a number of movements to make sure the image is perfect.

I may be limited as I only have a 150mm lens and a 90mm lens!

Can anyone offer me some words of wisdom, or advice on things to watch before I waste some film!

I am experianced with medium format photography, but I feel that using this as a larger version of a 35mm camera etc is wrong as this camera is capable of a lot more!

[Alan Rabe]

There is a search facility. It is the fourth link from the right in the darker blue band under your name in the top right corner.

[Bruce Barlow]

For all movements, thre are two things to remember:

1. Focus on the Far, Move for the Near
2. The Lens Looks, the Back Backs

So, rock in the foreground, sky far away? Focus on the sky (bottom of the inverted image on the ground glass), tilt until the rock is in focus. Sky goes a little out of focus, so adjust, then adjust tilt, etc. It's a little dance. When near and far are both focused, lock down focus and tilts. Middle fuzzy? Stop down until it looks sharp, then one more stop.

Rear tilt makes the rock loom, front doesn't. Try it both ways, and compare proofs.

Lens Looks: Tilting the lens forward (towards the rock) makes the rock sharper. Tilting the Back Back (away from the rock) gets the rock sharper.

"Swings are tilts on their sides," said good departed friend Ted Harris. I don't use swings much, myself, so it's OK for me to think about them as a variation on what I do use frequently. I use rear tilt, I like looming rocks.

Remember, you can see it all on the groundglass, and fiddle until it's right.

Good luck!

[PBimages]

Thanks for that, it's nice to understand the basics!

All being well if the weather hold up, I should be putting into practice all that I have learned!

Thank You!

[Scott Schroeder]

Don't forget to check out the main lf info site (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/)
For movements, here's (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/how-to-focus.html) a page.

[Bill_1856]

Don't expect to use large movements -- if needed at all they will be miniscule for 4x5, especially with your 90mm lens. Hyperfokal distance for f:16 is 11 feet, giving sharp images within the depth of field from 5.5 feet to infinity.

[Joanna Carter]

1. Focus on the Far, Move for the Near
Having said that, I have found that to be good for base tilt but the reverse applies to using axis movements or, at least, it seems to require fewer iterations to achieve a good result.

[Alan Davenport]

For architecture, you'll most likely want the rear standard -- the film plane -- to be perfectly vertical; that will make the vertical lines in the building remain vertical in your photos. Use front tilt if you need to vary the plane of focus to include a foreground area, but no rear tilts lest you lose your verticals. Shifts and swings as needed for framing and/or to achieve focus.

Last thing: trust the groundglass. If you don't already have a good dark cloth, I recommend getting or making one. Use a loupe, 3x to perhaps 6x, to check critical focus and spend time getting that right. The LF groundglass is the original WYSIWYG interface...

[lenser]

For architecture, remember to keep your camera back level with the building (parallel to the walls) unless you want to force perspectives This will keep all lines from 'keystoning'. If the buildings are tall, use lens rise and camera position to get the top of the building in the image area. If it is really tall and the camera's limits on simple lens rise wont get it all, you can tilt the whole camera upward, re-level the back by tilting it, do the same with the front standard and that extends the lens rise. If available, a bag bellows will make these movements much easier.

You will be using the 90mm for this and all lenses have an image circle that they throw. Some are very limited, and some are very wide field (even for lenses of the same focal length), allowing for more movements, so check your ground glass for corner cut off called vignetting. As you stop the lens down, the field of view expands a bit, so be sure to study the corners of the ground glass with the lens at shooting aperture. If vignetting is occurring, all you can do is back up your position and lower the lens rise until you get both the height of the building and eliminate the vignetting.

An important hint is to move the front (lens) standard to the front of the monorail and focus with the back standard. This makes sure that you don't get the rail in the bottom of the photo. This will happen with extreme WA lenses (65, 58, and 47mm) but can happen with the change in camera geometry that I just described even with much longer lenses if the front standard is farther back on the rail. On a monorail, you can then move the tripod block forward to reposition the center of gravity over the tripod and help avoid vibrations.

Another very useful camera movement is the lens shift (as described as being rise and fall on it's side). There are times when the perfect view of the room or building is from a spot that you can't physically get to or is blocked by a pillar or some other element, or the reflection of you and your camera will appear in windows or mirrors. You can often set up within a couple of feet of the "best" spot and then shift the lens to the side to get the same area of view, but avoiding the reflection or obstruction.

Lens tilts wont come into play very often in architecture, except for the whole camera tilt situation described above. This is because when you are off parallel, it will change the planes of focus and possibly leave either the top or bottom of the scene out of focus on a straight up and down building. (If you want to have part of the scene out of focus for creative reasons, that's how it's done.)

However, the tilt counterpart, swing, will be useful when you are off to one side of a building or room and working with one facade that recedes and needs to stay in focus throughout. By swinging the lens standard (rotating it on a horizontal plane around the central axis) you can bring all points on that plane into focus. Just remember that this is useful on one facade only as it will toss the other side of the building completely out of focus. If both need to stay in focus, you've got to center your movements and rely on depth of field to carry focus to all points.

When you get the chance, get Steve Simmon's Book "Using the View Camera" for a very comprehensive look at camera movements and overall technique. Two other really great view camera books are "The View Camera" by Harvey Shaman and Kodak's book "Photography with Large Format Cameras". All should be available through Amazon.

Good luck with your project and let us see the results.

Tim

[Bruce Barlow]

Having said that, I have found that to be good for base tilt but the reverse applies to using axis movements or, at least, it seems to require fewer iterations to achieve a good result.

Cool! I have no experience with axis tilts.

Base vs. axis tilt discussions border on the religious. Suffice to say that I learned base tilts, and that's how they work best. And base tilts are VASTLY superior to axis tilts!:D

Use what works, I say.

[Joanna Carter]

Base vs. axis tilt discussions border on the religious. Suffice to say that I learned base tilts, and that's how they work best. And base tilts are VASTLY superior to axis tilts!:D
It's not a matter of religious discussion, it's simply a matter that, if your camera only supports either base or axis tilts, then one technique can be easier than the other, depending on the tilts available.

But, of course, all real photographers only use axis tilts :p :rolleyes:

[PBimages]

WOW...

Thanks for this, I realy did not expect this much information in such a short period of time... thank you!

I will post the images once I have found a method of scanning in the Images in...

[poco]

All the replies have been great so far and I'd only add that one exercise I'd make any newbie to architectural shooting do is the following:

Set up the camera to shoot any simple flat-roofed, box type building. Position the camera facing straight onto it so it's like a perfect square or rectangle centered on the ground glass. Now pivot the camera a little to the right or left, which will obviously cause the building to drift off to one side on the ground glass, but use shift to bring it back into the center of the shot. The result will basically be the same view of the scene as before except now you've put a slope on that flat roof line that previously had been perfectly horizontal on the ground glass. Repeat this pivoting of the camera off in the other direction and you'll reverse that slope. The effect can be quite dramatic with the wider lenses usually used in shooting architecture.

Understanding the power of this use of shift was a real eye-opener for me. There've been a few occasions when it's allowed me to frame shots with impossible, but pleasing perspectives.

[Robbie Shymanski]

I have found the easiest way to shoot architecture, is just to use a level and square off the film and lens planes before you fine adjust. That's 90% of the work right there. It will guarantee that all your true vertical and horizontals will be parallel.

[erie patsellis]

It's not a matter of religious discussion, it's simply a matter that, if your camera only supports either base or axis tilts, then one technique can be easier than the other, depending on the tilts available.

But, of course, all real photographers only use axis tilts :p :rolleyes:

Real photographers use asymmetric tilts...

[Bill_1856]

Real photographers use asymmetric tilts...

I thought that they just stopped down for maximum DOF, and then "corrected" everything in Photoshop.

[PBimages]

Well I attempted it yesterday, the weather was perhaps a little too sunny at times, but we went early (me and Pete) but I screwed up somewhere!

I only shot 6 negatives, but 3 of them I screwed up 2 of them completly... I am seeing a half circular section where the images are OK Below but above nothing!

I think I must have used way too much front shift (If thats what you call it) and got the lens so much out of alignment that I only captured half the image!

The other three images are OK, one of them I could have done with a cloud passing overhead to block the sun, but the street was filling up with work vans when we got there it was empty... in less than half hour three work vans turned up!

I was there camera on tripod, but they just ignored me and parked straight infront of me!

[Robbie Shymanski]

You obviously exceeded the image circle. Which Lens were you using? Go to the INFO section and check the data on your lenses. It helps to know what the image diameter is for your lenses. Also, is your 90 lens a wide angle? For example, there's a huge difference between the Angulon 90 and the Super Angulon 90.

[Bruce Barlow]

It's not a matter of religious discussion, it's simply a matter that, if your camera only supports either base or axis tilts, then one technique can be easier than the other, depending on the tilts available.

But, of course, all real photographers only use axis tilts :p :rolleyes:

Axis tilts are for unbelievers. Axis tilters should be suffocated with their own darkcloths so as not to sully the world of the True Photographers.:D

Actually, I have seen discussions of axis vs. base tilts get heated. How weird is that? Especially when preferences mostly come from what one learned first.

As I said previously, use what works.

[PBimages]

Thanks for that!

I will check it out, looks like I have a lot to learn!

Been searching the internet for any material to help me learn, online books etc!

But as of yet found nothing, any suggestions!

[lenser]

[I][B]"You obviously exceeded the image circle. Which Lens were you using? Go to the INFO section and check the data on your lenses. It helps to know what the image diameter is for your lenses. Also, is your 90 lens a wide angle? For example, there's a huge difference between the Angulon 90 and the Super Angulon 90."

Robbie, I think you might have meant to say 'wide field' when you said "wide angle". Both lenses are the same wide angle focal length, but the Super Angulon has a much larger image circle or field, hence it is a wide field as well as a wide angle, allowing for far greater movements.

Agreed that he exceeded the image circle by a mile.

PB, are you using a dark focusing cloth? If so (and it is critical that you do) you should be able to see when you are moving out of the image circle quite easily. You may have to move your head from side to side and look at the ground glass from an angle, especially if your ground glass doesn't have a fresnel lens which helps to brighten the image.

Again, get Steve Simmons book as fast as you can and search this site (there is a search function) for info on view camera movements.

Good luck.

Tim

[PBimages]

Both me and another photographer, did not spot this fatal flaw the image was perfect on screen everything was there.

Ok the depth of field was not as sharp as it should have been, so we opted for f64 @ 7 Seconds to pull it in, and it appears to have done the trick!

Could this have been caused by anything else?

Faulty neg carrier, me... etc

[lenser]

PB,

If there is any way that you can scan and attach the images, it will help us all to help you figure this out. But, it really does sound like you went beyond the limits of the lens.

Don't think you are the first or will be the last. I've certainly done it (still do if I don't pay attention) and even the great Ansel Adams used an example of an image he did in a desert where he had most of the sky obscured by the rim of the lens circle.

It's all a learning process and that's a big part of the fun.

Tim

[ljb0904]

Get Steve Simmons book or Jack Dykinga's book. Then pull the camera out and start playing with it. You don't need to waste film to see what's going to happen. You can see it clearly on the ground glass.

[Robbie Shymanski]

Thanks Tim.

I have also been guilty of pointing at "muntins" on a window when I meant "mullions".

[lenser]

Robbie,

You have no idea how much spell check saves me from my every other word typing dyslexia.

Have a good one.

Tim

[JPlomley]

Just thought I would add that with an Arca Swiss sporting MicroOrbix, focus on the centre point and tilt the front axis until both the near point and far point defining the extremes of your plane come into focus. Very quick and efficient.

[PBimages]

Just working on a way to scan the images in, looks like I have no choice but to either contact print the images or build a neg holder somehow scan the neg in, most likely in sections and stich it back together.

When I have done that, then you can see the images!

One simple college assignment is making me think more than I have done before!

[Ole Tjugen]

I know of only one camera that can be adjusted so that the tilt axis passes through the optical center of any lens, which is what you need to really take advantage of axial tilt. I mean - if the tilt axis is a couple of mm away from the optical center, the image on the GG will move, so you will need to compensate for that with rise/fall, and then...

Most lenses have the optimum tilt axis point right in the middle of the shutter, but this is certainly not true for all lenses.

Oh BTW: A Super Angulon has "hard vignetting" at the edge of the image circle. An Angulon does not - so while the plain old Angulon has a smaller image circle than the SA, it has a greater circle of illumination. From this follows that if the vignetting was visibly in the shape of a half circle it can't have been a 90mm Angulon. ;)

[Mattg]

I know of only one camera that can be adjusted so that the tilt axis passes through the optical center of any lens, which is what you need to really take advantage of axial tilt. I mean - if the tilt axis is a couple of mm away from the optical center, the image on the GG will move, so you will need to compensate for that with rise/fall, and then...


Which camera Ole? I find it slightly frustrating that my Arca's Orbix isn't really axial, I'm using a recessed board so it's slightly worse than usual.

[Ole Tjugen]

It's the semi-mythical Carbon Infinity. Since there were only about 80 of these ever made, and most of them went straight to collectors, they have achieved mythical status. Since I happen to own (and use) one, it's only semi-mythical. ;)

[PBimages]

I have finally got round to looking at the actual lenses, not sure if this information means much to any one:-

-----------------------------------

Flush Mounted Board

150mm lens F5.6 - F45 (pretty standard info)

COPAL - N0.0

Symmar - S

Multicoating

Schneider - Kreuznach

-----------------------------------

Recessed Board

90mm Lens - 1:8

Sinar

Super - Angulon

Schneider - Kreuznach

Synchro - compur

-----------------------------------

Just need to understand what they are capable of, they are being used in a Toyo View 45E, I will look into the information on this site!

[PBimages]

You obviously exceeded the image circle. Which Lens were you using? Go to the INFO section and check the data on your lenses. It helps to know what the image diameter is for your lenses. Also, is your 90 lens a wide angle? For example, there's a huge difference between the Angulon 90 and the Super Angulon 90.

I must be having a thick moment, I just cannot find the INFO Section!

Any Idea where I should be looking?

[Ole Tjugen]

Click on "LF Home Page" on the top menu line. :)

[Ernest Purdum]

Your two lenses are both quite capable, with image circles large enough to enable use of your camera movements.

I would suggest using your 150mm for awhile before the 90mm. It's much easier to get used to. For architectural work, you will need the shorter lens frequently, but that's better tried after you are more comfortable with your equipment.

[Leonard Evens]

I've just read quickly through the previous responses, and I may have missed something, but it seems to me no one mentioned the main point. I've done quite a bit of architectural photography, and I rarely use swings and even more rarely tilts. As others have noted, unless you want some unusual effect, you want the back vertical to avoid convergence of verticals.

Your main problem will be to position the frame down far enough relative to the lens. There are two reasons to do that. First, you want to include the top of the building, and second, particularly for the 90 mm lens, you may want to exclude a wide expanse of empty uninteresting foreground from the image, You position the frame to accomplish those ends either by raising the front or dropping the rear or by some combination of the two. As someone already mentioned, you may also need to shift to one side because of an obstruction between you and the building. It is better if possible in such circumstances to move the camera, but that is not always possible.

I seldom use tilts for architectural photography. The main reason for tilting is to encompass near and far when stopping down alone is not sufficient. But the price you pay is a reduction in vertical depth of field. The vertical depth of field is zero right at the camera and increases linearly as you move away from the camera. A typical architectural scene will have considerable vertical extent in the moderate distance, and even a modest tilt may cut off enough vertical DOF to put the top of the building out of focus. In such circumstances, you are not much interested in the foreground. If you are and stopping down alone does not suffice, you might try a modest tilt, but since these two factors work against one another, there may just not be a compromise which works for both. In those circumstance you have to choose what you consider most important, and that would normally be the building.

Sometimes i do use swings when I am phtographing a building facade from one side. Here is roughly how I do it. I pick two points on the wall, one near and the other far. I start with a modest swing of about 5 degrees and focus on the far point. (All my focusing is done by moving the rear standard.) I then refocus on the near point and note whether I had to increase the distance between the standards or decrease it to get the near point in focus. In the first case I increase the tilt and in the seocnd I decrease it. After a few iterations of this, I have both in focus.

Usually in such a situation, I am not much interested in DOF to the side away from the wall. But the same principles apply. The horizontal DOF increases linearly from zero outward as you move away from the camera.. If for some reason you have something interesting to that side, which you want in focus, your best bet would be to increase the swing, which will move the exact subject plane away from the wall toward the other features and then try to get both wall and the features opposite it simultaneously in focus by stopping down. Use the same near far point methed to determine the swing, but this time choose a near point a short distance from the wall in the foreground and the far point further away from the wall in the distance. Try to set the exact plane so its splits the distance between the wall and interesting features to the other side.

If you are tempted to swing the back, just keep in mind that doing so is equivalent to just roataing the whole camera. You should try that first, accompanied by a front swing as above. You are as likely to do as well that way as swinging the back.

[PBimages]

Now that I have managed to scan in the negatives, here they are:-

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/2681689905_8400b7788d_m.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2681689689_7c9bbce67d_m.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2682507482_7833e43900_m.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/2681689455_1f7d7c7377_m.jpg

The above images, have not been touched in photoshop all that I have done is stitch them together as I had to part scan in the images!

Hopefully this will give someone a clue as to where I went wrong!

[poco]

Looks like you ran out of image circle on the first and third and snagged the compendium shade on the second.

A lens only a projects an image in a circle of a certain size. If you use too much rise, you can "run out" of projected image and get the dark circular crops you got in image 1 and 3. The solution is either to use less rise, or get a lens with a larger image circle. Also, the image circle of certain lenses expand as you stop down further, so you may give that a try.

The second really looks like a lens shade of some type drifted into the view. What you learned with the shot is that it's always necessary to double check all sides and corners of the ground glass to make sure nothing is obstructing the image.

These are mistakes we've all made.

[NoBob]

I intended to post a question about photographing buildings on this branch of the forum, but saw this post about movements, so thought I'd add my question here as it's related.

I'm looking into getting a view camera for architectural work, because at the moment my Canon DSLR and 24mm shift lens (or other wide angle lens if you can get the top of the building in and are standing at ground level [and not on the roof of a neighbouring building]) produce what I call a 'widow's peak' effect on tall buildings - roofline and building corner look pointed and stretched out.

My question is what kind of movements and lens combination is used to minimize or eliminate this kind of distortion? Shorter lens and a combination of particular movements?

Thanks.

[Ole Tjugen]

No - a longer lens and more distance is the best way to avoid the "stretch effect" you describe.

[NoBob]

Oops, yes, sorry, meant longer lens. I thought perhaps the greater range of movements would help compensate for the increased focal length...

I understand putting more distance between you and the building will help, but it's not always practical in a street with other buildings, trees and street furniture getting in the way.

[steve simmons]

Much of the advice you received here was about rocks not buildings. Perhaps people did not read your original question.

Architecture is a different and unique subject. It can not be photographed like landscape.

Here are my suggestions.

Level the camera front to rear and left to right.

Zero your swings and tilts.

Use rise and fall and shift, front or rear it rarely makes a difference with architecture, to decide what part of the image circle you want to record on film.

Unless you want your vertical lines skewed, keep the back of the camera vertical.

Use back swing to minimize or exaggerate horizontal convergence. This type of convergence is more visually and psychologically acceptable than vertical convergence. If you like things the way they are then leave the back swing in a neutral position.

Use front swing to finalize your side to side focus as best you can before stopping down. Unless you have forced the near to far perspective with foreground and background front tilt is rarely used to photograph architecture.

Base tilt vs axix tilt is one of those Ford vs Chevy arguments. Axix tilt usually does not require as much fussing with the focus as does base tilt. Take your pick.

Here is some reading that might be helpful

Using the View Camera that I wrote

Jim Stone's User's Guide to the View Camera

check your local library or Amazon.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com

[NoBob]

Thanks Steve. That's useful, thanks.

[CG]

It can help to look into the front of the camera.

Once you have everything focussed and ready to go ... stop. Take the darkcloth off the camera. Close down to the lens opening you will be using. Set up the lens hood / compendium the way you want.

Go around to the front of the camera. Look through the lens. If you can see the entire ground glass throught the lens at your working aperture, you shouldn't get image cutoff from either excessive movements or compendium obstruction.

If you cannot see the entire groundglass, it should be pretty clear where you need to adjust.

C

[Vlad Soare]

I tried to use this method instead of looking through the corners of the ground glass (because my Ebony 23S has no cut off corners), but I just can't seem to get it right. I guess I'm missing something.
How far from the camera do I have to be? If I put my eye next to the lens I can always see all corners of the ground glass, no matter how much the lens has been shifted. Besides, how does this depend on a lens hood or compendium shade? I always see the same thing regardless of any lens hood I might have installed. Also, what I see doesn't seem to depend on the aperture. It actually becomes a little harder to see the corners when I stop down, and not the other way around as I would expect. I should see the vignette disappear when stopping down, shouldn't I?
What am I missing? :confused: