Tilting camera and hinge question

[Jeff Conrad]

I agree with the others that

• The math isn't that important.
• The best way to include more of the foreground is to use falling front.

I would add one thing: unless your subject is planar (and it sounds as if yours isn't), you usually want the rotation axis slightly below ground (and if you check most of Merklinger's examples, that's where he puts it), so you'd use less tilt than you calculated. I hardly ever calculate tilt, but it's possible to use the formula as you have done to calculate the maximum tilt you'd normally use. This really just another way of saying what's been said here time and time again: a little tilt goes a long way.

The effect of pointing the camera down? Recall that J is measured in a direction parallel to the image plane, so if you tilt the camera forward by 5 deg, you theoretically would divide the vertical distance by the cosine of 5 deg. But the cosine of 5 deg is 0.996, and the difference in the calculated tilt is far less than I can accurately read, so unless you point the camera waaay down, it's usually not something to worry about.

I think "look at the groundglass" may be a bit of an oversimplification for setting tilt. I'd suggest reading QT's How to focus the view camera for arriving at the optimal tilt in a systematic way.

[Alan Davenport]

I think "look at the groundglass" may be a bit of an oversimplification for setting tilt.

Every possible movement in a view camera affects one (or both) of only two things: what appears in the field of view, or what is in focus. And the image on the groundglass is the final arbiter of both. It really is that simple.

[Jeff Conrad]

And the image on the groundglass is the final arbiter of both. It really is that simple.

The groundglass is indeed the final arbiter, but unless you have a reasonable idea of how to approach setting tilt or swing, it's easy to fiddle around forever and simply confirm that you can't get everything sharp (or you need use f/64). QT's article discusses a couple of systematic approaches that can greatly reduce the time and effort to reach the point where the final arbitration is successful.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Every possible movement in a view camera affects one (or both) of only two things: what appears in the field of view, or what is in focus. And the image on the groundglass is the final arbiter of both. It really is that simple.

The third thing it sets it the geometric projection onto the film - elongating or foreshortening for example. But also quite visible on the ground glass.

[ki6mf]

Kirk is right. It can take several adjustments to get the look you want. In the days of Polaroid your burned many frames getting the shot. Make a movement, test or look in the ground glass, and then make movements again till its right is the only way to learn. I would keep notes and try measure rough angles to development a sense of what a particular scene takes to get the desired results.

[rdenney]

In the days of Polaroid your burned many frames getting the shot.

Not me. I never found it all that difficult to visualize how my focus plane, lens board plane, and film plane intersect. If the needed movements are subtle, I might have to stand away from the camera a bit and look at things. That is, to me, a better strategy than math. This is a three-dimensional problem best seen in the real three-dimensional world. I am not afraid of the math by any means, but it is not a practical solution in the field. No need to model it with math when the thing being modeled is right there and fully accessible.

And I never used Polaroid to check focus. If I can't see it on the ground glass with a 6X loupe, how am I going to see it on an unenlarged Polaroid print? But I did, and still do, use Polaroid/Fujiroid to check other things that are harder to sense on the ground glass, particularly when using really short lenses in the days before obtaining a Maxwell screen. And I used it to check exposure when I was in doubt concerning a difficult scene.

Rick "who uses the principles to know which direction to go, but the ground glass to determine the final settings" Denney

[jonathan_lipkin]

Thanks all. Went out to shoot yesterday, but left the lens at home!! Will try again this afternoon.
-jl

[Brian Ellis]

Every possible movement in a view camera affects one (or both) of only two things: what appears in the field of view, or what is in focus. And the image on the groundglass is the final arbiter of both. It really is that simple.

It really is that simple in theory, it really isn't that simple in practice. Tilt and swing by themselves aren't always enough. Sometimes you also need to stop down. And if you're photographing in dim light and stopping down it can be impossible to see the image on the ground glass well enough to make meaningful judgments about what's sharp and what isn't. Which is why some people don't rely exclusively on the ground glass.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks all. Went out to shoot yesterday, but left the lens at home!! Will try again this afternoon.
-jl

Ah, now you're officially a large format photographer. At least you didn't leave the camera.

[jonathan_lipkin]

Thanks for all the helpful and detailed information. I've found a little tilt works, and have read the various articles everyone suggested, practiced in the yard, etc. I think I've more or less got the hang of it.

One last question: is there a way to easily calculate depth of field with tilt? I have used DOFMaster to get a rough idea of DOF with no tilt, but I understand it's more complicated as the film plane tilts. And for some reason, even in bright sunlight I have trouble seeing the GG at f/64 or even f/32. I suppose I could use Merklingers rule that at one hyperfocus distance, the DOF extends above and below the plane of focus by a distance of J.

I'm going to be photographing on the beach, and if there is someone standing a few feet from the camera, and I set the plane of focus on the ground, their feet will be in focus but not their heads, which might look a bit odd. If the person is six feet tall, I would focus at a point two feet up their body and hope the DOF extends up and down enough.