Yes. That's what my last post explained. but it's probably easier to just tilt the front to begin with.Originally Posted by Larry Gebhardt
Yes. That's what my last post explained. but it's probably easier to just tilt the front to begin with.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
I think, what I've learned the most from this thread, and the subsequent links, is for me to be a lot less dogmatic about the use and 'absolute division' of front and rear stand movements. Imposing my LF reflex or habit, regardless of whether the scene in front of me always, absolutely, necessarily, warrants a perpendicular film plane.
So thanks for that.
Although, I can imagine it won't be easy for me to unlearn or it may feel counter-intuitive. Ummm...
That’s good to know. I wonder if it’s helpful in the case of using the rear to control foreground to rearground perspective like the video darr linked to (thanks darr, most informative). Seems like it should help keep the focus a bit closer and make the changes easier to see. Something I should test for myself on my old monorail.
That’s my takeaway from this too. A few lights have gone off for me about improving my thinking about composition.
Hi Philip,
My error misspelling Leslie Stoebel's name. I know too many "Strobls" from my time in Austria; I simply conflated. Thanks for the quick catch and correction!
D
I’ll admit to usually using rear movements on my 8x10 except for I use rise/fall with the front standard. For me there is no dogma involved it really just comes down to my arms are too short to use front movements and view the ground glass at the same time as my face is smashed against the ground glass. With rear movements I can comfortably view the ground glass and manipulate movements at the same time. If I were using a smaller format with shorter focal lengths front movements would be more practical to me.
Doremus, thanks for the rather lengthy response. ...
I ignore experts, who always have vested interests, whenever productive. I question everything and make my determinations based on experimentation. The "experts" are the ones with closed minds.
"Strobl's book on view camera movements is the bible, as far as I'm concerned"
Yes, and what literature is fuller of fables and fiction than that?All kidding aside, I think it's good for many to have faith, but others seek facts. I suggest referencing a science text.
...
You are talking about geometrical distortion; I am talking about volume distortion. You're thinking two dimensionally, I am thinking three dimensionally. Maybe someone will chime in on the fourth dimension.Alan,
Sorry to have offended you. The last thing I was trying to do is stir up a hornet's nest. Let me address and explain some issues you bring up:
First, though, I would ask you to reconsider your opinion on experts. Not all of us who are competent practitioners and know their craft are trying to pull the wool over your eyes for personal gain. I'm certainly not. I'm just trying to help. That's the only reason I'm here on the forum, to help promote an art form I believe to be worthwhile and those learning to practice it.
It is possible that I misunderstood what you originally posted, so I'll just stick to the facts here. And, as far as my "Bible" comment goes, I was simply trying to point out that Stoebel's book on the view camera is a recognized and authoritative source that I hold in high esteem and deem to be the best reference available. It is a science text. Nothing more was intended.
First, both front and back tilts/swings will accomplish the same repositioning of the plane of sharp focus in a scene (what you call tilting/swinging for depth of field, I believe). No arguments there from me. I like back movements just fine and use them a lot.
The important difference between using front and back tilts and swings as concerns the image itself is that the back movements change the lens-to-film distance (not the lens focal length nor the planes of focus projected by the lens, but just that distance from the lens nodal point to the film).
Let's assume an axis tilt for the following. If you tilt the back backward, the center axis line remains stationary, but the top of the film is moved farther from the lens nodal point than it was before. This results in the image projected on that part of the film being rendered larger relative to the magnification at the axis line (regardless of it being in or out of focus - usually we tilt to get something into focus, but that is irrelevant to the fact that farther from the lens nodal point = more magnification). If the scene being photographed were a typical landscape, then the foreground would be the part that as rendered larger, the most magnification being at the edges of the film, with zero extra magnification at the center axis line. Conversely, the bottom of the film is moved closer to the lens nodal point when tilting the back, to the image there would be reduced in size (the distant parts at the top of the scene).
This is simply physics and geometry and happens whether you notice it or like it or not. If you make a very small back movement, the changes in relative image size from the part of the film nearest the lens nodal point to the part of the film farthest from the lens nodal point may be inconsequential. That's fine. If you make larger tilts with the back, it will soon become more apparent. If you like it that way, fine. If you don't, then use front tilts instead. EZPZ in theory really.
We need to keep in mind that tilting and swinging the lens, while moving the plane of sharp focus around in the scene (and behind the lens as well, so, hopefully, much of it lands on the film plane), does not change the lens-nodal-point-to-film distance and, hence, will not change the magnification of objects relative to each other on the film. This is the advantage of using front movements when we don't want that relationship to change and the advantage of using back movements when we do. The back movements do everything the front movements do plus introduce differences in relative magnification.
I like your reference to thinking in three dimensions when working with a scene. That's exactly what I do, visualizing carefully where the plane of sharp focus would best lie in the scene to get optimum depth of field with the largest aperture possible. Although the final image is two-dimensional, I also strive to get a feeling of three dimensions in the final image. Movements, and the changes in relative sizes of near and far (and left and right) objects really help me do this. That's why back movements are so important to me; I can refine the size relationships of elements in the scene with the back and then use front tilts and swings to get the focus plane where I want it to. Sometimes this requires using the opposite movements on the front as I applied to the back.
However, if I'm working with architecture and I want the vertical lines (and/or horizontal ones) to be rendered parallel on the film, then I have to make sure that the camera back is set up parallel to whichever planes I'm trying to render parallel on the film. This means that if I tilt the back out of parallel to the façade of a building, I'll end up with lines that aren't parallel on the film. So, if I want the lines parallel, I'll use front tilts to deal with any placement of the plane of sharp focus I need to do. If I want convergence, however, I may tilt the back way past the point of optimum placement of the plane of sharp focus just to emphasize the convergence. Then, I'll use the front tilt to reposition the plane of sharp focus so I get that in optimum position. It depends on what I want to do with the image, but I cannot ignore the change in size relationship introduced by tilting and swinging the back. I recognize and use it to my advantage.
Your response to Mark suggests that you are aware of all this, so maybe we're just not understanding each other's nomenclature. I'm happy to discuss any of the points I've outlined above if you disagree.
There are really only a few basic principles involved here. It is just that the possible combinations and the myriad of engineering solutions to dealing with camera movements introduce a lot of complexity. The only thing that really matters, however, is the relation of film plane and position to the position of the lens and orientation of the lens axis in space. I can arrive at the exact same tilt and shift on a full-featured camera in two or three different ways; the images made will be the same.
Still, increasing film-to-lens-nodal-point distance will always increase magnification, independently of focus. And, in order to render parallel lines in a subject parallel on the film, the film plane has to be parallel to the plane those parallel lines are in, otherwise, they will converge according to the laws of projection and perspective. (This applies for horizontal lines as well as vertical ones.) These are incontrovertible laws of nature that we just have to live with unless we have a subscription to Photoshop
Best,
Doremus
Well, I twist my poor little Wista SW field camera into a pretzel every now and then to get a shot I want. Here it is in action, with front rise at maximum and extra rise added using the point-and-tilt-parallel method, some horizontal shift and corresponding swings parallel used as well to compensate for a less-than-ideal camera position. Fortunately, I had my trusty WF Ektar 135mm with me that has a significantly larger image circle than 135mm Plasmats.Today I shoot a field camera with front rise & tilt only, as I do not need rear movements.
Rise is handy when I shoot buildings at street level as I prefer more sky than street in my photos.
Tilt is there if I need some help with DoF, but I do not tilt often because my lenses do the work for me, but I wanted it just the same.
My camera is an Ebony RSW; it is my second one, as I sold the first foolishly because I was too busy in the studio with production work during those years.
After I retired, I wanted an RSW again because I understood my needs for what I shoot now: landscapes and travel images.
I remember back in the day when camera manufacturers used to praise how their cameras could twist into a pretzel in advertisements.
I used to laugh and say no one will take that seriously, will they?
I end up using lots of movements quite a lot. I find I really need tilts and swings on both standards as well as shift and rise/fall on at least one.
Best,
Doremus
Well then, a little mustard for you! 🥨Well, I twist my poor little Wista SW field camera into a pretzel every now and then to get a shot I want. Here it is in action, with front rise at maximum and extra rise added using the point-and-tilt-parallel method, some horizontal shift and corresponding swings parallel used as well to compensate for a less-than-ideal camera position. Fortunately, I had my trusty WF Ektar 135mm with me that has a significantly larger image circle than 135mm Plasmats.
I end up using lots of movements quite a lot. I find I really need tilts and swings on both standards as well as shift and rise/fall on at least one.
Best,
Doremus
Best to you, Doremus.
Doremys,
Thanks for the kind response, I'm not offended.
When I took a collage class in view camera photography 50 years ago, I was taught that tilting the lens plane or tilting the film plane were equivalent ways to improve depth of focus. This does not factor in any need to control converging lines as in commercial or architectural photography.
Fifty years ago, the only people using view cameras were commercial photographers. Primarily product photographers for catalog photography or advertising. Architectural was a distant second place. The cameras used were pretty much monorails with all movements. There were a handful of fine art photographers I suppose.
Moving forward 50 years now, the cameras have changed, the people have changed. but the physics remain the same. Today, everyone's a fine art photographer using Deardorf style cameras that handicap rear movements other than drastic tilts, and were taught to use only front swings and tilts to control depth of field. They've been taught to photograph mountains, clouds and waterfalls as if they were architecture.
If you look at the diagrams showing the German guy's name that's impossible to remember or spell correctly who even claims an Englishman came up with the ideas he's given credit for...the wedge-shaped depth of field envelopes for near and far focus based on converging object, lens, and image planes, the tilts of lens and image(film) are reversable with very similar, although not identical, effects. In commercial photography, the rear standard is always plumb to control perspective which greatly limits the range of depth of field control and makes it harder to use rear tilts. The yin and the yang.
The class I took was not fun. I should have dropped it. It was mostly photographing 3-d shape blocks like cylinders, rectangles, spheres, cubes, rectangles, and other equally boring shapes on littles tables in the lab. There was some outdoor architectural work. It had nothing to do with fine art photography. Why modern fine art photographers want to work like this I don't get. Totally boring and technical. I just enjoyed photography as a hobby with semi-artistic recreational benefits.
The depth of field adjustments that I make on the ground glass tilt are very tiny to small, like the tiny adjustments many today make with the lens tilts. Tiny tilt adjustments do not enlarge anything. I strive to simpllify. I want a much simpler camera, so am now building it. I want a light weight backpackable camera that can use my 90-135-240-480mm lenses for a five to one focal length range. I want to operate quickly with minimum fuss, because in the woodland that's my photo grounds the lighting changes very quickly, and the shot is gone.
In the last month, I rigged a pack frame to carry my old calumet cc401, a fairly heavy tripod, and all my other gear, which together weighs 30 lbs. Yes, I got that 28 inch monorail into a back pack. I'm 71, but can carry this the five miles that I typically need on a day trip photo hike. This camera does work with all my lenses, but is way heavy to use long term. Also too slow to set up and use.
I do what I would call wilderness photography. Where I live, you have to walk to get into the wilderness we have. If you could drive, it wouldn't be a wilderness.So to me, my equipments needs to be simple, light, and fast to operate. The opposite of my Calumet. This dictates certain equipment and methods.
Regards,
Alan, who carries a clumsy nine pound 28-inch-long camera into the wilderness, Townsend
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks