Anyone to explain near-far simple technique?

[gregvds]

Hi,

I'll soon will have a Fujinon 75mm 5.6, and intend to use it on my Chamonix 45N-1 for near-fars.

I would like to have your advice on the way to proceed. All I got is this:

Tilt camera toward ground
make to point on the farest wanted in focus, tilt back the back, refocus the far, incrementally until the nearest and farest are in focus.

Anything else, or maybe I missed the hole thing? I want to use the back for tilt and sheimpflug so as to have a bigger enlarging factor on the far, mitigating the scale factor linked to the wide lens, but still have macro-like foreground. You follow me?

Many thanks for your help on this,

[Gem Singer]

"Focus on the far. Tilt for the near. Fiddle with the focus knob until everything is clear".

That's the technique i was taught more than 60 years ago.

You're on the right track.

You can tilt the lens forward, or the back backward. However, tilting the back backward changes the perspective and make objects in the foreground appear to loom into the picture.

[memorris]

I was taught a bit differently with less uncertainty involved.

How you start depends on whether you have a base or axial tilt camera.

For base tilt focus far, tile near, then refocus the far, then adjust the tilt for the near, going back and forth between the 2 until both are in focus.

For axial tilt, you do the opposite, focus near, tilt far, but everything else is about the same.

[Steve Gledhill]

Take a look here: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...checklist.html
and here: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-to-focus.html
for additional information and insight.

[dave_whatever]

For axial tilt, you do the opposite, focus near, tilt far, but everything else is about the same.

Yep, this is what I do with axis tilt. With my camera the focus is geared but the tilt is free/friction, so I find it easier to focus on the near (where the depth of field is less, and lighting generally darker) precisely with the geared focus. Then tilt for infinity, which is generally brighter on the glass, and the large depth of field at infinity means the adjustment need not be ultra prescise.

[Bob Salomon]

"

You can tilt the lens forward, or the back backward. However, tilting the back backward changes the perspective and make objects in the foreground appear to loom into the picture.

A clearer explanation would be that back tilts and swings will change the subject's shape. Front tilts and swings do not change the subject's shape.

[Gem Singer]

The OP asked for a simple technique. From his description, he is using a camera that has base tilts on it's rear standard.

The distance between the lens and the film changes when a base tilts are used, and re-focusing becomes necessary. Not so with axis tilts.

An even simpler method: Forget about tilting to extend the focal plane. With the lens wide open (maximum aperture), focus 1/3 into the scene. Then close down to f32 and shoot.

As Steve Simmons says, "It's not rocket science".

[gregvds]

On the Chamonix 45N-1, the back tilt is base, not axis.

I was wondering if tilting downwards the entire camera, placing roughly the horizon high on the picture was a good first action, before trying to achieve focus through sheimpflug tilt (front or rear, just a matter of subject deformation/perspective)?

[Greg Miller]

I don't know what movements are available on the Chamonix, but another option is to level the camera, then apply front drop or rear rise instead of pointing the camera down. Then use front or rear tilt to focus. This avoids converging line issues that you might encounter when pointing the camera down with a wide angle lens. If you want to add converging lines, then use back tilt to taste.

[gregvds]

Thanks Greg,

That I didn't think about, and could be helpful in case of vertical parallels in the view.

Good!