Weston's lack of front tilt

I've been on a Weston's kick lately. Been reading about Edward and Brett and studying there images. Something I've noticed in all the photos I've come across of either of them with there cameras is the lack of front tilts. I often read posts on forums about which camera to buy. Which has the most movements etc... But they seemed to have done just fine with front rise only. The best answer I've been able to come with for this is that they ALMOST exclusively contact printed so careful focus and depth of field may have been enough. Any thoughts?

Rich

Rear tilt if needed I guess. It's actually easier to use rear movements on larger cameras in my opinion because you don't need long ape arms to reach the controls and see the ground glass at the same time. Just my guess.
Regards
Erik

I second the use of rear tilt to replace front tilt in EW's case. Along with front rise/fall, it can replace the need of front tilt.

Vaughn

Remember that many US LF cameras had no front tilt, so you had to use rear tilt, it was only the better models that came with front tilts and if you were very lucky front swing as well.

Ian

I believe Century Universals have front tilt.

Both Brett and Cole eventually used Calumet C-1's which have both front and rear axis tilts fwiw :)

How can you tell that they didn't use front tilt?

Jon

I am assuming there was something in the supporting text. If not, presumably some ability to communicate with the long-since departed :D I'm intrigued!

On a camera without front tilt, you can aim the camera down, and tilt the back to get the same effect. It can be a pain, but it is very doable. Having real front tilt is much nicer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Karp

On a camera without front tilt, you can aim the camera down, and tilt the back to get the same effect. It can be a pain, but it is very doable. Having real front tilt is much nicer.

---

Or just tilt the back backwards if perspective is no big deal...

I was lucky to sit in on a showing of Edward and Brett's prints as shown by Kim Weston on Friday evening. Many of these images I've seen in print and some I have not. The quality of these images which were printed by Cole and Kim is outstanding. Movements can help but it is the vision of the image that matters. We spoke about imagery and not technical stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaughn

Or just tilt the back backwards if perspective is no big deal...

---

Rear tilt does nothing to perspective. But it does change the shape of the subject as well as letting you control Scheimpflug. Front tilt controls scheimpflug without changing thE shape of the subject, or the perspective.
Changing the camera's position will change perspective.

I thought I remembered reading in Edward "Day Books" that at one point he used a Century Universal. The version of that camera that I've seen had front tilt. Of course it could have been different in Edward's time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Salomon - HP Marketing

Rear tilt does nothing to perspective. But it does change the shape of the subject as well as letting you control Scheimpflug. Front tilt controls scheimpflug without changing thE shape of the subject, or the perspective.
Changing the camera's position will change perspective.

---

Sorry -- I meant the trees (or buildings) leaning either in or out when the camera back is not aligned on the same vertical plane.

If that is not "perspective", what would be the proper name for it? Thanks...

PS...thinking about it...I think I was correct. Tilting the camera back would be "Changing the camera's position will change perspective." as one is changing the position of the film plane relative to the subject.

Mexico Years, or maybe a bit before-

Attachment 69038

1937-

Attachment 69039

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rich caramadre

I've been on a Weston's kick lately. Been reading about Edward and Brett and studying there images. Something I've noticed in all the photos I've come across of either of them with there cameras is the lack of front tilts. I often read posts on forums about which camera to buy. Which has the most movements etc... But they seemed to have done just fine with front rise only. The best answer I've been able to come with for this is that they ALMOST exclusively contact printed so careful focus and depth of field may have been enough. Any thoughts?

Rich

---

The effect of isolated front tilt can be accomplished with a simple combination of rear tilt, front rise/fall and tripod tilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ic-racer

The effect of isolated front tilt can be accomplished with a simple combination of rear tilt, front rise/fall and tripod tilt.

---

I guess since the only view cameras I've ever worked with all had front tilt so I never messed around trying the rear tilt for focus. I can see how it could be accomplished. You would get a bit of image distortion wouldn't you? ( I know distortion is probably the wrong word)

Rich

Rear tilt can also be helpful when the lens doesn't have enough coverage
for significant tilt itself. I'm guessing, but quite a few of EW's images might have been of the f/64 mentality, but certainly weren't shot at a small aperture! I thinking of relatively crisp waves and flotsam which must
have required a relatively large aperture for the slow film speeds of the era. The prints look crisp to us because the are contacts, but if you viewed the negs under a magnifier or enlarged them much, lots of them
probably wouldn't look very sharp at all. I have seen quite a few of his
contact prints and love them, but his game plan was different from those
of us who enlarge and have the luxury of faster film speeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rich caramadre

I guess since the only view cameras I've ever worked with all had front tilt so I never messed around trying the rear tilt for focus. I can see how it could be accomplished. You would get a bit of image distortion wouldn't you? ( I know distortion is probably the wrong word)

Rich

---

As I mentioned earlier, one would have to put up with some perspective changes if the back of camera was not on a parallel plane as one's subject. I will sometimes straighten or un-straighten trees in the landscape by tilting the camera back one way or the other. Sometimes I want straight-up trees to lean a little towards the center, sometimes I want trees that lean a little in (or out) to appear straight-up in the image...but still keep the camera level right-to-left. That is one of the reasons I like view cameras -- being able to "manage" the image. This does work a lot easier if both standards tilt, as one can do a lot more back movement and correct focus by tilting the front.

What I should have stated more directly is that rear tilt allows one to use a wider f-stop if necessary, since front tilt requires the lens to be well stopped down to prevent vignetting.

I distinctly recall seeing one or two of EW's prints at the recent exhibition in Monterrey where the foreground was not in sharp focus. At the time I attributed this to the quality of lens in those days but not having tilt on the lens stage would be the better explanation.

It was at that exhibition that I became a believer to the 8x10 contact print as a viable alternative to enlargement of the same print. Under the correct illumination the prints pop out without having to get nose close.

Thomas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rich caramadre

I guess since the only view cameras I've ever worked with all had front tilt so I never messed around trying the rear tilt for focus. I can see how it could be accomplished. You would get a bit of image distortion wouldn't you? ( I know distortion is probably the wrong word)

Rich

---

The film and lens will be in the exact position in space. It will be identical. Distortion would not be a good term. Lenses can have distortion but with LF lenses usually it is minimal or not observable. The camera does nothing to the light rays, it can't distort anything.

The lack of front tilt (or not) on EW's camera(s) is not really the issue. As ic-racer and others have pointed out, rear tilt in combination with other movements will place lens and film planes in exactly the same places in space as using front tilt.

And, don't think that this is really all that difficult; I do the similar trick of "pointing and swinging/tilting" all the time when I run out of shift on my field cameras. It only takes a few minutes longer to achieve the exact same thing as having more shift. EW could have easily compensated for a camera with no front tilts; he was an accomplished photographer and certainly knew his view camera movements.

The question is, did he? All of the Weston landscape prints I have seen, both in person and in reproduction, seem to have foreground and background well in focus (at least well enough for the contact printing he did with the 8x10 negs). That would indicate to me that he did something (back tilt alone, or in combination with "point and rise/fall") to adjust the plane of focus for these more contemplative shots with the 8x10. Many of the portraits have out-of-focus areas due to working fast with a hand-held camera and at a smaller aperture. This is fine too. I imagine Weston did as much image/focus management as he could when he had the time, but was maybe not as meticulous about it as many post-f/64 photographers are. I imagine overall razor-sharpness wasn't the highest thing on his priority list as it is for many today.

And please, ladies and gentlemen, let's not argue so much about "perspective" and "distortion." This has been discussed to death, and there are good arguments on all sides for practically all usages of the words. If we understand what is intended, then the language is doing its job just fine. If we don't, let's just ask for clarification.

As for me, anything that makes the image look different than "normal" qualifies as "distortion," and anything that changes how parallel lines are rendered in the image qualifies as something that changes "perspective." As an example, an extreme change in back tilt will cause verticals to converge, causing a change in "perspective," thereby "distorting" the image. There's a whole thread on this somewhere here or on APUG that I can't seem to find right now. Maybe someone will link to it?

Best,

Doremus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Karp

On a camera without front tilt, you can aim the camera down, and tilt the back to get the same effect.

---

Yes but not really.

I must be confused. If you tilt a lens forward a line from the back of the camera through the lens will still point toward the horizon, but if you tilt the camera forward and plumb the back a sight line from the center of the back through the lens will point towards the ground. I think?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Meisburger

I must be confused. If you tilt a lens forward a line from the back of the camera through the lens will still point toward the horizon, but if you tilt the camera forward and plumb the back a sight line from the center of the back through the lens will point towards the ground. I think?:confused:

---

You use front rise to move the lens back on level with the back.

Rick "noting a similar trick with a Graphic using the drop bed" Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Berry

Yes but not really.

---

Yes, but really, if the camera can otherwise support the positioning.

In free space, with no concern for the machinery at all, we might want a tilted lens in front of a vertical back, and both sharing a level centerline. We can draw those on a sheet of paper. We can now surround that drawing with all manner of machinery to hold the lens and back in those positions. You can draw in a horizontal bed/rail, or a downward-sloping bed/rail. If the former, front tilt is the movement you use. If the latter, back tilt and front rise are the movements you combine to achieve the same final positioning.

There is a difference in the way the focuser functions (among other movements) with these different arrangements, of course. Some of those are easier to manage than others. But it is possible to achieve a tilted lens and a vertical back with a camera that has only back tilts and front rise.

With the limited coverage of ancient lenses, photographers of the day used longer lenses (with whatever combination of movements needed and available), used rear movements and allowed geometric distortions (which exaggerate rather than correct perspective convergence) as appropriate to their subjects, stopped way the hell down and didn't worry about diffraction (contact printing helps there), or just didn't compose images that relied on strong Scheimpflug effects to be effective. They learned to see within the limitations of their equipment, just as we do.

Rick "it's just machinery" Denney

So tilt is limited by vertical rise, and rise will be further limited because the standards will not be vertical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Meisburger

So tilt is limited by vertical rise, and rise will be further limited because the standards will not be vertical.

---

In this scenario, exactly so.

Rick "noting that, over the decades, camera movements have goaded lens manufacturers into providing larger image circles and those larger image circles have goaded camera manufacturers into providing more movements" Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Shiu

How can you tell that they didn't use front tilt?

Jon

---

Both types of tilt will help with increasing depth of field.
When using rear tilt near objects will usually increase or 'Loom', in size and be slightly distorted. This phenomenon is the clue.
Front tilt will have no effect on the shape of objects, while still increasing depth of field.
As someone mentioned, many 8x10 cameras from this period were not fitted with tilt, as there primary usage was for portraiture. That is also
why they had rise/fall, to accommodate height differences.
A lens of limited coverage will sometimes benefit by use of back tilt for depth of field, where it's coverage does not allow for use of front tilt.
Hope this is useful.
Rod

My "go to" camera for many years (35) was an Ansco view. It had front rise and fall, so I just used the tripod tilt and rear tilt and swing to get what I "saw" in my minds eye. Probably I just learned how to work around the lack of front tilts. It's much easier to do this with the rear movements in my opinion.

For architectural work, front tilts and swings can be really a lot more convenient. However, as has been pointed out, the same result can be attained without those movements by using tripod tilt and front rise/shift. The real determining factor in controlling parallels in the image (or not) is the position of the back in relation to the subject. How the back gets there can be accomplished a number of ways.

Best,

Doremus

John: The OP wrote thyat he had seen photographs of the Westoins WITH their cameras, and the cameras had no provision for front tilt.

His Century Universal as used on the Guggenheim trips has plenty of movements, including front tilt.

Yes. And the cameras he used before the Guggenheim trips did not. I really prefer Weston's work to Adam's, but that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Crisp

His Century Universal as used on the Guggenheim trips has plenty of movements, including front tilt.

---

100% everything sharp from closest to most distant subject does not necessarily make the best picture.