Rear Tilt - What am I Doing Wrong?

[Don Homewood]

I'm still new to LF photography (just shy of 6 months in) and I've become decently familiar with most the movements my camera is capable of, but still haven't really tried out tilting the rear standard. From what I understand, rear tilt distorts the image on the groundglass which can be used to enlarge/reduce elements in the foreground/background, but I can't seem to get it to work. The (in this case foreground) object stays the same size.

I'll compose the image, focus on the foreground object, tilt the rear standard back, and then refocus. I can't see a difference. My groundglass has a grid so I can directly compare the size of the object before and after the tilt. If the object takes up a 5x3 area on the grid before the tilt, it takes up the same area after the tilt as well.

I'm sure the problem is with my technique and not elsewhere. But, unlike with front standard tilt, I can't seem to find any good tutorials online/in books/etc. describing the steps of the process.

[mdarnton]

The best place to see the effect of rear movements is on rectangular things such as buildings. Take your camera out and aim it upwards to include a building's top. Then tilt the back so that the building is not smaller at the top. This will happen when the back is vertical like the building front. This will be very clear as you tilt the back because you are especially sensitive to things being nice and neatly square and parallel. Then tilt the front of the camera so that it is also vertical, and this will bring the top and bottom of the building into focus. That's the basic move. Same for sideways, looking sideways at something.

There are other, easier, ways to accomplish the same thing (a simple front rise, in the building's case). You won't see much effect in landscapes and things without rectangular shapes, even though the effect will be there, just the same. If you're counting on grotesque changes, no, that isn't going to happen much.

[Bob Salomon]

Rear tilts and swings change the shape of an object. Best way to see this is compose a building and then do front tilts to control Scheimpflug. Take a picture. Now recompose and use rear tilts to control Scheimpflug.

If you had set up and composed the front tilt shot properly, so that the camera's back was perpendicular to the building then the vertical lines of the house are straight and parallel to each other.
On the other hand, with the second shot, the back was not perpendicular to the building and now the vertical lines of the house are no longer straight and parallel to each other and they now keystone. That is one way the back movements change the shape of the object.

[Don Homewood]

You won't see much effect in landscapes and things without rectangular shapes, even though the effect will be there, just the same. If you're counting on grotesque changes, no, that isn't going to happen much.

Interesting. The way some people talk about it online makes it sound like you can make even the tiniest foreground elements take up a large portion of the composition. (See here for an example: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2013/0...rt-of-looming/)

EDIT: So I'm guessing the image in that article was just made with the usual "get-low-and-close-with-a-wide-lens" technique?

[Kevin Crisp]

Most movements can be subtle and get the job done. But that makes explaining it harder so people do often go with extreme examples to get the point across. In many landscape situations just a little rear tilt, or front tilt of the lens, will work wonders on getting near and far in focus, or at least close enough once you stop down.

[Peter Gomena]

Make a simple tabletop setup with a round object on it, like a small rubber ball. If you focus with rear tilt, the ball becomes an oval. If you focus with front tilts, it stays round as long as the back is perpendicular to the rail.

[AtlantaTerry]

Don,

Did you miss this part of the above linked article?

Ignore the extra rise on the rear standard and just look at the overall relationship and you'll see that effectively we've used drop front and front tilt. This explains one of the reasons why looming works...

So, evidently, you would be not be working with back movements as much as you believe.

Also, in the beach example, the photographer used a very wide angle 20mm tilt shift lens on a DSLR.
I'm not sure, but in 4x5" terms this might be something like using a 75mm lens.
(I know if I'm wrong I will be corrected.)
A bag bellows would be a very useful tool with such a wide angle lens.

[Bob Salomon]

Interesting. The way some people talk about it online makes it sound like you can make even the tiniest foreground elements take up a large portion of the composition. (See here for an example: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2013/0...rt-of-looming/)

EDIT: So I'm guessing the image in that article was just made with the usual "get-low-and-close-with-a-wide-lens" technique?

Those two pictures were not taken with the same focal length lens, so it really isn't a good comparison.

[Alan9940]

Hi Don,

Tilting the back standard backward (talking landscapes here) will cause close foreground elements to "loom" larger; in my experience (30+ years of LF work), this isn't something you can see on the groundglass. If you want to actually see the effect, compose an outdoor scene with boulders/rocks/etc in the close foreground, focus, etc, take picture. Move rear standard back to its normal position, ensure that foreground elements are in focus, take picture. Print both of these shots and you should notice the effect from tilting the rear standard rearward.

On a side note...not that you asked... If your camera has base tilts on the rear standard and you plan to tilt the rear standard rearward, an easy way to achieve proper focus is to: 1) focus on the most distant area, 2) then, as you tilt the rear standard rearward keep an eye on that distant area and turn the focus knob to keep that area in focus until the foreground is sharp. That's it! Simple and works beautifully. Of course, you may have to adjust the focus plane depending on the scene.

Have fun!

[Don Homewood]

Don,

Did you miss this part of the above linked article?

Ignore the extra rise on the rear standard and just look at the overall relationship and you'll see that effectively we've used drop front and front tilt. This explains one of the reasons why looming works...

So, evidently, you would be not be working with back movements as much as you believe.

I read that paragraph several times yesterday and I could make no sense of it. But re-reading it now at your suggestion it made a little sense. I just tried it and, with a little fall and a good amount of forward tilt on the lens, I could see a difference from before to after. Not much of one, but it was there.

I guess my question now is, if the same effect can be accomplished with the front standard why is it always suggested to do it with the back? Is it because you might run out of image circle doing it with the front?

Hi Don,

Tilting the back standard backward (talking landscapes here) will cause close foreground elements to "loom" larger; in my experience (30+ years of LF work), this isn't something you can see on the groundglass. If you want to actually see the effect, compose an outdoor scene with boulders/rocks/etc in the close foreground, focus, etc, take picture. Move rear standard back to its normal position, ensure that foreground elements are in focus, take picture. Print both of these shots and you should notice the effect from tilting the rear standard rearward.

This thought actually did cross my mind and I was planning on doing this exact experiment next time I was out.

Thanks to all of you for your help.