Show me what you can do with LF! (That you can't with smaller formats.)

[Kirk Gittings]

No, I mean what is on your list of what you think LF is better at.

Well as I said in the second post in this thread (I know that was ages ago)

much of what is special in LF is in the fine detail, smooth tonal transitions, etc.

I would add that I have no problems controlling dynamic range in digital, but In b&w I still like the "look" of film tones.

[tgtaylor]

So Thomas give me an example that I can't do with a DSLR and a modern T/S lens. And that is the point, which I can't seem to make you understand, You move the back by moving the camera body.........

Mount Williamson - irrespective of whether or not it is indeed Mount Williamson. Adams never corrected it over the years so lets assume that is indeed Mount Williamson.

It may not be possible to capture the image as shown by a back movement alone and that may indeed be the reason that he found it necessary to point the camera down (i.e., the optical axis points down and into the foreground) and then apply a back tilt to change the size of both the foreground and background while bringing the latter into sharp focus. I'm sure his camera had both front fall and tilt but he pointed the entire camera down and then applied only a back tilt.

Recall that a tilt on the front standard affects the plane of focus only. If he had applied a front drop and forward tilt as Rick suggests, then he may not have been able to get the image that he wanted. Hence if it would have been necessary to first point the camera down into the foreground and only use a back tilt...well you can't do that with your camera.

Finally, refer to Bob Solomon's post above for other examples of images that require a view camera to execute. For everyday images your camera equipped with a T/S lens probably works fine. But for those images as noted above you need a view camera. This shouldn't pose a problem since you probably need to use a tripod with the T/S lens anyway and for the price of just one of those lens you can purchase a view camera designed to accept digital backs and have a far more capable imaging system.

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

Recall that a tilt on the front standard affects the plane of focus only. If he had applied a front drop and forward tilt as Rick suggests, then he may not have been able to get the image that he wanted. Hence if it would have been necessary to first point the camera down into the foreground and only use a back tilt...well you can't do that with your camera.

But when you point the camera down and the lens has full movements you are effectively tilting the back film plane whether it is on "standard" or not. You control the back tilt by how much you tilt the camera body.

[tgtaylor]

Adams states that he had his 8x10 camera mounted on a platform on top of his vehicle. When he pointed the camera down both standards were parallel. Hence there was no tilt until he physically tilted the back upwards - after he had pointed the camera down.

He says that he tilted the back only and not the front.

[Kirk Gittings]

The only thing that maters in the end is where the film plane and the lens end up in relation to each other and the subject not whether the camera is pointed up or down. Think of the dslr camera body as just a film plane, which can be leveled or tilted.

[tgtaylor]

Well once the lens plane is tilted , it's tilted.

[Jim Jones]

Although the small format shooters have brought the DSLR (and god forbid even the camera phone!) into the discussion, the issue is (or should be) whether one can create an image with a view camera that couldn't be duplicated using a small format camera.

Thomas

If the discussion was about film (or sensor) size rather than camera design, consider pinhole photography. The detail a pinhole camera can record is directly related to the area of the film. This limitation is imposed by pinhole optics.

[Brian Ellis]

So Thomas give me an example that I can't do with a DSLR and a modern T/S lens. And that is the point, which I can't seem to make you understand, You move the back by moving the camera body.........in relation to subject and the lens. But heck frankly i don't care-you are welcome to your myths.

For anyone else who may actually want to learn something here let me restate......There are plenty of good reasons to use a VC over a DSLR with t/s lenses (I nearly always choose a VC for my personal work), but everyday camera movements is not one of them.

In general I agree that there's little if anything of significance in terms of movements that can be done with a LF camera that can't be done with a smaller format. But as to this particular point - the need for back movement - assume the fairly common situation in which I want to include the top of a building or a tree or whatever in the photograph while keeping parallel lines in the subject parallel in the photograph. And I have to aim the camera upwards to do that because the LF camera and the small format camera with T/S lens have insufficient rise to allow me to keep the camera parallel with the subject and also include everything in the photograph that I want to include.

I accomplish the desired result with most LF cameras by pointing the camera up and tilting the back forward to keep the film plane parallel with the subject. How would I accomplish that result with a smaller format camera and a T/S lens if the amount of shift/rise in the lens was insufficient to allow me to keep the camera level?

[mrladewig]

I agree with Jay. The important thing is that the experience of photographing with a LF film camera can't be replicated by shooting digital, and if you enjoy the LF experience, then that's reason enough to use large format. This won't change no matter how many new developments happen with digital photography.

That is it for me as well. As Kirk points out, I think it is possible with a 35mm camera to capture most any combination of tilt/swing and rise/fall/shift. But 4X5 requires less enlargement for a given target print size. Neither is my primary reason for using the 4X5. I use some movements, but they are not the bread and butter of my photos. I enjoy the process of using the view camera and I enjoy the detail and fine color tonality that can be captured. I enjoy setting up the camera and love carrying it in the backcountry. But it isn't always the perfect tool and I frequently use smaller cameras too. For me, what I can do with LF that I can't with small format digital is that I just enjoy using the camera more.

[Kirk Gittings]

In general I agree that there's little if anything of significance in terms of movements that can be done with a LF camera that can't be done with a smaller format. But as to this particular point - the need for back movement - assume the fairly common situation in which I want to include the top of a building or a tree or whatever in the photograph while keeping parallel lines in the subject parallel in the photograph. And I have to aim the camera upwards to do that because the LF camera and the small format camera with T/S lens have insufficient rise to allow me to keep the camera parallel with the subject and also include everything in the photograph that I want to include.

I accomplish the desired result with most LF cameras by pointing the camera up and tilting the back forward to keep the film plane parallel with the subject. How would I accomplish that result with a smaller format camera and a T/S lens if the amount of shift/rise in the lens was insufficient to allow me to keep the camera level?

Very true Bryan. I wrote something about this on my blog a few years ago about a shoot in Chicago. What you describe is doable only when you have lenses with sufficient coverage and a bellows flexible enough for that trick-not every one does. So tall buildings are an issue with many VCs too. The guys at Hedrich-Blessing have cameras and lenses that allow for ultra shift movements, because they deal with this constantly. In New Mexico I have no problem with this. Current Canon T/S lenses can easily handle structures here, but I rarely see anything much over say 8-10 floors. When I work in Chicago or Vegas however it is a different story and I occasionally end up using full rise + some PS perspective correction-not ideal. So when in a larger city and have to photograph skyscrapers I bring the VC and my Nikkor SW 120 for those shots, but this is rare. 99% of the building I shoot anywhere are basically laid out horizontally. If I had the new Canon 17 T/S it would not be an issue with DSLR-though the distortion of a lens that wide might not appeal to either me or my clients.