Can someone explain asymmetric movements and why they're better?
Can someone explain asymmetric movements and why they're better?
Great read.
We currently have an interesting discussion on assymetric movements, in the UKLFPG forum : http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=819
Nice article, but it doesn't quite explain why asymmetrical movements are better, or more convenient, than symmetrical ones. I'm reading it more like "why asymmetrical movements are better than no movements at all" (especially those two examples).
With asymmetrical movements, you pick a part of the subject plane that falls on the dashed line (the tilt or swing axis, that is). Then you use this point as a pivot - focus on it and start tilting, and it will stay focused while the other parts of the subject come in focus, too.
With symmetrical movements, you pick a part of the subject plane that happens to fall in the center of the frame. Then you use this point as a pivot.
So, where's the difference? Why is an off-axis pivot better, or more convenient?
I'd understand the convenience if you could pick a tilt/swing axis of your choice (I mean, place the tilt/swing axis wherever you want). But, if I understand correctly, the tilt/swing axis is still fixed, only moved a little sideways. Am I missing something?
Depends on the camera. With a Linhof Master GTL, you can move the tilt and swing axes.
With a Sinar P or P2 what you can do if the axis isn't in a convenient place is use the rear rise/fall/shift movements to put the axis where you want it and measure the tilt/swing angle on the rear standard using the protractor scales, then you can leave the movement on the rear standard and return the rise and shift movements to the original composition, or transfer the tilt/swing to the front standard using the front standard scale and return the rear standard to the neutral position, and return to the original composition with the rear rise/fall/shift movements, and in either case the tilt/swing angle will not change. It sounds more complicated than it is, and once you get the hang of it, it's pretty quick to find tilt and swing angles this way.
I see. That makes sense.
But then, you can do the same with "normal" (symmetrical) axis tilts/swings. No need for asymmetrical movements.
As I see it, if you have asymmetrical movements and find a convenient pivot on the dashed line, great. If you have central axis movements and find a convenient pivot in the center of the frame, great. Otherwise it doesn't really matter which kind of movements you have, because you're going to be refocusing (or moving the tilt/swing axis by shifting the standard, like you say) anyway. Is this correct?
They're mainly a nice marketing ploy to sell more complex and expensive cameras to hobby photographers who want to buy "status symbol" cameras. Considering that 95% of the customer base for these cameras only does one kind of simple landscape photo with a little front tilt and maybe some rise/fall/shift, it's overkill.
Back "in the day" having asymmetrical movements was an advantage in mass-production studio catalog tabletop photography, where a camera might actually run into a problem with tilt and swing creating a unresolvable yaw situation -- shooting down onto a bottle and wanting to keep the bottle vertical and catch focus across a diagonal plane. But it was only unresolvable until the photographer stopped the lens down a couple of extra stops.
Bookmarks