Article on Scheimpflug in latest View Camera

[Leonard Evens]

The latest View Camera, which I just received has an article entitled "What Scheimpflug Didn't Tell You". I wonder if anyone has figured out what the author is trying to say.

It looks as if it might contain some kernels of useful truth, but I've been having an awful time trying to decipher it. Part of my problem may be that I am a mathematician and have studied and taught geometry for over 50 years, so for me certain terms have definite, well established meanings. What he says is often either false or meaningless with the conventional meaning of the words. . For example, he says that the plane of sharp focus in subject space "contains" two other planes, but when one plane contains another, in the usual meaning of the word "contains", the two places have to be identical. It is possible he means "intersects" rather than "contains". But perhaps a non-mathematician might read these words differently.

I don't mean to dump on the article because writing about mathematics, including geometry, can be difficult, and sometimes even skilled mathematics teachers have difficulty doing it clearly. I used to spend hours using preparing colored 3D diagrams for my classes. A non-mathematician may find it even more difficult to say what he means. I would just like to know if there is anything in this article which I don't already know. I am about halfway through, and I still don't see what the point is. I plan to dig my way through it, but if anyone has any clues as to what it is about, I would be glad to hear about it.

In trying to figure out what he is saying, i did come across one useful bit. Namely, if you use the distance from the lens to the image plane along the (tilted/swung) lens axis, some formulas take on a simpler form. Also, that image point always corresponds to a point in subject space (possibly at infinity.) T.here is another useful image point often considered, that along the original (un-tilted/swung) lens axis, perpendicular to the image plane. Its distance to the lens is useful because it is what you control directly as you focus, but there may or may not be a corresponding subject point, depending on how far you tilt/swing.

[Louie Powell]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that article incomprehensible.

[Doug Howk]

Harold Merklinger's explanations are more comprehensible than this article. The article's accompanying photos & sketches may be part of the problem.

[phil sweeney]

Hi Leonard,

I've read some of your posts and would consider you an expert. For me however, the first couple of paragraphs were input overload - I knew I would not be able to digest all to follow.

I did enjoy all the photographs this issue.

[Matt Blaze]

I, too, found that article incomprehensible, but I'm also in a mathematically pedantic line of work so perhaps that puts me at the same disadvantage. Aside from the non-standard (or incorrect) geometric terminology, I was confused by whether the piece was intended to be about theory (in which case I'd be reading to learn principles) or practice (in which case I'd be reading to learn techniques I could put to direct use).

Not trying to be snide or picky here, but that article definitely did give me a headache.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I had a tough time with this one, but these types or articles always leave me a bit lost! However, if I get a few hints and a little infor from them, all the better.

Steve mentioned in another thread that the article did have some printing issues, for example, the images were not cropped correctly. He tried to correct it before the printing ran the article (if I remember correctly) but it was too late.

He did print the corrected article on the free articles section of the VC website. I have not gone there to read it (heck, it wouldn't matter for me!) but a few of you might check it out, perhaps it would help with some of the confusion.

[Bruce Watson]

The latest View Camera, which I just received has an article entitled "What Scheimpflug Didn't Tell You". I wonder if anyone has figured out what the author is trying to say.

I'm a mechanical engineer. One of the things engineers learn is how to quickly find useful information. After the first paragraph I could tell that the author wasn't going to be sufficiently clear and concise to make the article useful for me. Sorry, I just gave it a pass, precisely because I couldn't figure out what the author was trying to say.

[steve simmons]

Yes, the photos were incorrectly cropped. As the publisher the buck stops at my desk and I apologize. We have placed a corrected version in the Free Articles section of the view camera web site.

I am curious about one thing. I have asked Leonard Evens on more than one occasion to write this type of article for View Camera. He either does not respond to my invitations or declines. Yet everytime we do something like this, we did an article two years ago on movements and landscape photography, he comes on and writes a long critique telling us about the mistakes in the other person' article. In the case of the movements and landscape he told us there was an error, never told us what it was, and then said it didn't matter anyway, but it took him many paragraphs of writing to do all of this. ?????????????????????????

Anyway, I do apologize for the errors in this issue and we are working with our printer to try and decide what to do. In the meantime this article, with the correctly cropped photos, is in the Free Articles section of the view camera web site.

www.viewcamera.com


steve simmons

[Peter Lewin]

Steve: When I go to the Subscribers Only section of the site, the page that comes up says "Last updated Nov 1, 2007." Any ideas what could be happening? By the way (and judging from prior posts, maybe this is a failing for all of us with degrees in mathematics ) I also found the article incomprehensible. Was it meant to illustrate theory, application of Scheimpflug, or both?

[steve simmons]

My web person is out at PMA but will be back Monday. At that time we will add

a slightly expanded version of the 7x17 article part 2 and a very thorough comparison between the old and new versions of T-Max 400 done by Sandy King.

The math in the article is not my thing - my mantra is "The ground glass is truth", but I can't just do a magazine for me and many people enjoy this kind of depth.

steve