Focusing help

[appletree]

You guys are so smart. I am lost when it comes to movements, light smears, etc etc. I have so much to learn.

[Alan Gales]

You guys are so smart. I am lost when it comes to movements, light smears, etc etc. I have so much to learn.

One step at a time and you will get there. Take your time and enjoy yourself.

[appletree]

Thanks for the pick me up. I am looking forward to it all! I am always amazed the printer at the local lab can look at a negative and tell you exactly where to start printing and areas that will need dodging and/or burning. Likewise, to those that can see a photo and understand taking multiple exposures, various changes with aperture, light flares from artificial lighting, etc. It's like the science behind the art.

I just go out and shoot and do my best to make sure I closed the shutter and have the aperture closed and not wide open still.

Hope the OP posts a photo of his additional attempts. Looks like a great scene!

[Lenny Eiger]

You guys are so smart. I am lost when it comes to movements, light smears, etc etc. I have so much to learn.

It's nice to acknowledge people. However, the swings and tilts are easy. If you read a book about Scheimphlug it will most likely confuse you, lots of diagrams, mathematical formulas etc. There's a lot of engineers on this site who enjoy that approach but I find it tedious...

The only thing you need to know, IMO, is that its all planes, the kind of 2-dimensional planes you learned about in Geometry. If both front and rear standards are squared up and vertical, then you can visualize a flat plane in front of the camera at whatever distance you focused at. If you tilt something, horizontally or vertically, on the camera, the plane of what's going to be in focus tilts as well. It's really simple. Most adjustments that people make are very slight.

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

Besides the lack of basic tilt control, there seems to be an unusual amount of flare in the shot that kinda washes out the middle.

[steveo]

For me, bridges may be a better subject for a panoramic type crop.

With this type of crop you may not need to work so hard to get everything in the foreground in focus. The foreground isn't really the subject with this beautiful evening lit bridge. Without needing to emphasize the foreground sharpness you may find a little front swing to work miracles here. If you are committed to the foreground then I would suggest while you are checking your local weather for the wind, check it out for high tides as well. It is more acceptable to the human eye to see water that is not "sharp" and some will even emphasize the water being "soft" with long exposures.

Thanks I'll have a play with some crops and try a higher tide next time.

If you really need the lights, I'd try to get the shot before the lights are turned on....and then run second exposure with lights. Naturally, balance of the exposure is required in order to minimize the lamp illumination. It's bit of an experiment, but worth a try.

Les

That is a great idea. Not sure how to execute it properly but I'll investigate further.

Hope the OP posts a photo of his additional attempts. Looks like a great scene!

Cheers will do.

Besides the lack of basic tilt control, there seems to be an unusual amount of flare in the shot that kinda washes out the middle.

Those lights are somewhat overpowered getting a balanced shot is a bit tricky. I don't think my 150mm is a very good copy, uncoated and has a couple of "cleaning marks" which I don't think will have helped any.

[steveo]

Developed the four frames I took the other day. 1 completely unexposed, 1 double exposed... The other two look okay to the eye but I've not had a chance to scan or take a loupe to them.

[appletree]

It's nice to acknowledge people. However, the swings and tilts are easy. If you read a book about Scheimphlug it will most likely confuse you, lots of diagrams, mathematical formulas etc. There's a lot of engineers on this site who enjoy that approach but I find it tedious...

The only thing you need to know, IMO, is that its all planes, the kind of 2-dimensional planes you learned about in Geometry. If both front and rear standards are squared up and vertical, then you can visualize a flat plane in front of the camera at whatever distance you focused at. If you tilt something, horizontally or vertically, on the camera, the plane of what's going to be in focus tilts as well. It's really simple. Most adjustments that people make are very slight.

Lenny

Thanks Lenny for the advice. Yeah I am an engineer myself, but try to steer clear of the too in-depth approach...even though it is easy for my mind to wander. Grasping the whole concept has been daunting for me and one I have not studied enough on. I understand the concept just not the affects, per se. For instance, I cannot visualize in my mind what the outcome is if I was to swing, tilt, rise, fall, or play with these. I am not sure if the these can even be seen on the ground glass or not. I will play with the movements tonight and see if I can notice it when wide open.

If I remember correctly swing would be to change the DOF to a line horizontally (or diagonally in your subject), whereas tilt is the same but for a line vertical (or diagonally but up/down). Rise and fall are keeping the lens plane and film plane on the same perspective but moving it up or down to affect the DOF or something. I believe people use rise and fall in the portraits where someone's face is in focus then the bottom portion of the photo is out of focus.

I will spend my lunch and actually read about it today. Only shot about 8 4x5s sheets so far and haven't messed with any of the movements.

[Lenny Eiger]

If I remember correctly swing would be to change the DOF to a line horizontally (or diagonally in your subject), whereas tilt is the same but for a line vertical (or diagonally but up/down). Rise and fall are keeping the lens plane and film plane on the same perspective but moving it up or down to affect the DOF or something. I believe people use rise and fall in the portraits where someone's face is in focus then the bottom portion of the photo is out of focus.

I will spend my lunch and actually read about it today. Only shot about 8 4x5s sheets so far and haven't messed with any of the movements.

There's plenty of time. Swings and tilts aren't "necessary" for most things, just closing down to a good depth of field will get you there. I shoot 95% at f45... However, to clarify, there is a plane out in front of the camera at the focused distance from the camera. It's almost like a projected image on a screen. That's the plane of focus when everything is squared up.

If you tilt the lens 10 degrees forward, the "projected focus plane" will tilt 10 degrees back, the top side away from you. If you are looking up a mountain that has a 10 degree slope, for example, this might be a good solution. It works the same going sideways. You might be looking at a fence that is diagonal to you...

There are drawbacks, however. As you vary the focus plane some things will be in tighter focus, while others will lose focus. A tree that is close will lose focus at the top if you have moved the focus down. I have made this mistake too many times.

Best thing is to get your depth of field. Learn how to make exposures that are a second or two, or ten... IT's easy...


Best of luck,

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah. I suspected the lens might have been uncoated. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Flare can be used creatively for certain images. But getting a more modern multicoated lens probably would have solved the wash-out problem in this case.