Weston's lack of front tilt

[tgtaylor]

I distinctly recall seeing one or two of EW's prints at the recent exhibition in Monterrey where the foreground was not in sharp focus. At the time I attributed this to the quality of lens in those days but not having tilt on the lens stage would be the better explanation.

It was at that exhibition that I became a believer to the 8x10 contact print as a viable alternative to enlargement of the same print. Under the correct illumination the prints pop out without having to get nose close.

Thomas

[ic-racer]

I guess since the only view cameras I've ever worked with all had front tilt so I never messed around trying the rear tilt for focus. I can see how it could be accomplished. You would get a bit of image distortion wouldn't you? ( I know distortion is probably the wrong word)

Rich

The film and lens will be in the exact position in space. It will be identical. Distortion would not be a good term. Lenses can have distortion but with LF lenses usually it is minimal or not observable. The camera does nothing to the light rays, it can't distort anything.

[Doremus Scudder]

The lack of front tilt (or not) on EW's camera(s) is not really the issue. As ic-racer and others have pointed out, rear tilt in combination with other movements will place lens and film planes in exactly the same places in space as using front tilt.

And, don't think that this is really all that difficult; I do the similar trick of "pointing and swinging/tilting" all the time when I run out of shift on my field cameras. It only takes a few minutes longer to achieve the exact same thing as having more shift. EW could have easily compensated for a camera with no front tilts; he was an accomplished photographer and certainly knew his view camera movements.

The question is, did he? All of the Weston landscape prints I have seen, both in person and in reproduction, seem to have foreground and background well in focus (at least well enough for the contact printing he did with the 8x10 negs). That would indicate to me that he did something (back tilt alone, or in combination with "point and rise/fall") to adjust the plane of focus for these more contemplative shots with the 8x10. Many of the portraits have out-of-focus areas due to working fast with a hand-held camera and at a smaller aperture. This is fine too. I imagine Weston did as much image/focus management as he could when he had the time, but was maybe not as meticulous about it as many post-f/64 photographers are. I imagine overall razor-sharpness wasn't the highest thing on his priority list as it is for many today.

And please, ladies and gentlemen, let's not argue so much about "perspective" and "distortion." This has been discussed to death, and there are good arguments on all sides for practically all usages of the words. If we understand what is intended, then the language is doing its job just fine. If we don't, let's just ask for clarification.

As for me, anything that makes the image look different than "normal" qualifies as "distortion," and anything that changes how parallel lines are rendered in the image qualifies as something that changes "perspective." As an example, an extreme change in back tilt will cause verticals to converge, causing a change in "perspective," thereby "distorting" the image. There's a whole thread on this somewhere here or on APUG that I can't seem to find right now. Maybe someone will link to it?

Best,

Doremus

[John Berry]

On a camera without front tilt, you can aim the camera down, and tilt the back to get the same effect.

Yes but not really.

[Tim Meisburger]

I must be confused. If you tilt a lens forward a line from the back of the camera through the lens will still point toward the horizon, but if you tilt the camera forward and plumb the back a sight line from the center of the back through the lens will point towards the ground. I think?

[rdenney]

I must be confused. If you tilt a lens forward a line from the back of the camera through the lens will still point toward the horizon, but if you tilt the camera forward and plumb the back a sight line from the center of the back through the lens will point towards the ground. I think?

You use front rise to move the lens back on level with the back.

Rick "noting a similar trick with a Graphic using the drop bed" Denney

[rdenney]

Yes but not really.

Yes, but really, if the camera can otherwise support the positioning.

In free space, with no concern for the machinery at all, we might want a tilted lens in front of a vertical back, and both sharing a level centerline. We can draw those on a sheet of paper. We can now surround that drawing with all manner of machinery to hold the lens and back in those positions. You can draw in a horizontal bed/rail, or a downward-sloping bed/rail. If the former, front tilt is the movement you use. If the latter, back tilt and front rise are the movements you combine to achieve the same final positioning.

There is a difference in the way the focuser functions (among other movements) with these different arrangements, of course. Some of those are easier to manage than others. But it is possible to achieve a tilted lens and a vertical back with a camera that has only back tilts and front rise.

With the limited coverage of ancient lenses, photographers of the day used longer lenses (with whatever combination of movements needed and available), used rear movements and allowed geometric distortions (which exaggerate rather than correct perspective convergence) as appropriate to their subjects, stopped way the hell down and didn't worry about diffraction (contact printing helps there), or just didn't compose images that relied on strong Scheimpflug effects to be effective. They learned to see within the limitations of their equipment, just as we do.

Rick "it's just machinery" Denney

[Tim Meisburger]

So tilt is limited by vertical rise, and rise will be further limited because the standards will not be vertical.

[rdenney]

So tilt is limited by vertical rise, and rise will be further limited because the standards will not be vertical.

In this scenario, exactly so.

Rick "noting that, over the decades, camera movements have goaded lens manufacturers into providing larger image circles and those larger image circles have goaded camera manufacturers into providing more movements" Denney

[Rod Klukas]

How can you tell that they didn't use front tilt?

Jon

Both types of tilt will help with increasing depth of field.
When using rear tilt near objects will usually increase or 'Loom', in size and be slightly distorted. This phenomenon is the clue.
Front tilt will have no effect on the shape of objects, while still increasing depth of field.
As someone mentioned, many 8x10 cameras from this period were not fitted with tilt, as there primary usage was for portraiture. That is also
why they had rise/fall, to accommodate height differences.
A lens of limited coverage will sometimes benefit by use of back tilt for depth of field, where it's coverage does not allow for use of front tilt.
Hope this is useful.
Rod