Re: Weston's lack of front tilt
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.
Re: Weston's lack of front tilt
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.
Re: Weston's lack of front tilt
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.
Re: Weston's lack of front tilt
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.
2 Attachment(s)
Re: Weston's lack of front tilt
Mexico Years, or maybe a bit before-
Attachment 69038
1937-
Attachment 69039
Re: Weston's lack of front tilt
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.
Re: Weston's lack of front 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
Re: Weston's lack of front tilt
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.
Re: Weston's lack of front tilt
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.
Re: Weston's lack of front tilt
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.