Camera without swings? Does it limit too much?

[jvuokko]

As I have been looking for cheap 8x10 camera, I have realised that in fact most of older 8x10 field cameras and folding cameras does not have much movements. Practically only rise and fall + front tilt.

This is true also for old 5x7 cameras.


I use swing quite often with 4x5 cameras and I have feel that lack of swing would be even more limiting in 8x10 (and 5x7) than in 4x5 which after all will have more depth of field when lens is stopped really down.


The thing is... that the old masters did fine job with those cameras, at least my impression is that during pre-war times even Adams used cameras that didn't offer much movements. Something like Kodak 2D.

What I am partially wonder is that how did they do that? By simply choosing subjects so that movements were not essential? And by stopping all the way to the f/64 or f/128?

[Brian C. Miller]

Well, when you are out and about doing landscape photography, you don't need a lot of movements. Getting the foreground in focus just requires a bit of tilt, then you have it. The 8x10 monorail cameras were the beasts used for architecture, and even then the glass didn't offer a lot of movement. Lots of the photographers write about how they had to put the camera up on a ladder, or some kind of platform, to get the shot they wanted. Adams had a platform mounted on his station wagon for this purpose.

[Kirk Gittings]

Even shooting predominantly architecture, I'll bet it is one in fifty shots that I use swings for.

[Robbie Shymanski]

I have found a level to be much more useful than swings. Rise & shift are all about perfecting crop in the composition. Much easier than moving the tripod. I can really only think of one occasion where I really had to use swings on my 8x10 and that was the result to shooting down a small awkward interior where I could not back my camera into a corner. Swings are nice, but rise/shift with a big lens cone and a level do most of my work.

[Vaughn]

Some of the older cameras did have back swing and back tilt (such as the Kodak 2D). My recently bought 5x7 is this way. The front has rise/fall only, but as I use this set-up I am finding that it is not hard to figure out and to use it creatively.

It is kind of funny, but for years and years when I would point my 8x10 camera upwards a bit to frame my image, I would tilt the back to vertical (using the level, or just by how the trees look on the GG). I then tilt the lens for the best focus across the image area.

Finally one day I looked at the camera and realized that all I was doing (in several steps) was the same as keeping the camera nice and level and just using front rise. So even with limited movements, there are usually ways to control the image on the GG.

[jvuokko]

It seems that I use way more swing than many (most?) of photographers.
Perhaps it's simply because when I got my first LF I entered immediately to the world of swings, tilts and shifts..

With my current field camera, the shift has to be done like Vaughn describes the rise. Also rise had to to similarily when the front rise is not enough.

I think that the rear swing is enough for me. Perhaps I could adapt the photography without any swing movements.

[Drew Bedo]

I have been using a Kodak 2-D. These cameras are not expensive (why I own this one) and have only rise/fall up front. I have had success with table-top and landscapes by tilting and slewing the camera bed (effectively tilting and swinging the front standard), then using the rear swing/tilt movements to return the film plane to squre and perpendicular. This is not ideal and is somewhat limiting but gets the job done. Some shots need a little more movement . . .and I don't have it (so I don’t shoot it).

Most of the early photographers didn't have much in the way of movements either . . . and they worked with wet plates and mules.

The point is: Do the best photography you can with the gear you have. We would all like a studio big enough to park a 747 with gear and assistants enough to shoot The Ten Commandments. What I have is my 2-D and the dining room table. I make it work.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

What features you have or lack in a camera can influence how you start viewing compositions-- and whether or not you take a pass on a particular scene.

[AF-ULF]

I had an old Burke and James wooden field camera. It had front and back swings. Dirt cheap.

[Vaughn]

What features you have or lack in a camera can influence how you start viewing compositions-- and whether or not you take a pass on a particular scene.

This, plus what Drew just wrote, is pretty much the direction of my thinking. This, coupled with the idea that there are an infinite number of photographs possible. Thus any 'limitations" due to such things as movements, film, process, or whatever, by definition can not be limitations. Infinity has no limits. Thus, any limits placed on the photographer are self-imposed.

In other words, we use the cameras we have. And once one finds out the kind of photos the camera can take, one can start to discover what type of images s/he can make.

Note to self -- don't post after a pleasant lunch of Fish and Chips (done as best as one can find in the uncivilized NW) and a couple pints of Indica IPA.

Vaughn