I photograph in the forests quite often. It can be a fun challange to bring a little order from chaos. But swings and tilts are difficult to use because of all the blasted trees! If it were not for all the trees, photography in the forest would be a breeze!
Love It!! lol
"WOW! Now thats a big camera. By the way, how many megapixels is that thing?"
Some images need a strategy for placing the focus plane so that it makes it possible to stop down enough to get the needed depth of field. This one, for example, required a very long time for me to find the right spot, but then the camera was positioned where it was difficult for me to put my eye up to the loupe so I had to take frequent rests to keep from dripping sweat on the ground glass.
The camera is pointed straight down, and I used a bit of downward lens tilt and right swing, looking for sharp focus at the middle of the top stair, the middle of the stair halfway down, and the middle of the bottom stair. But I still had to stop it down to f/45 to get the rest of it sharp. The key is that the scene presented a desired focus plane--that plane that approximately skims the stair edges. A couple of times I zeroed the movements and started over because I was working against myself.
This one is in the same room, turned around and pointed away from those stairs. No tilts would do any good here--the scene presents no single focus plane--getting the floor sharp would kill the ceiling and vice versa. But I did use just a touch of left swing to get the window frame and the pot on the table both sharp, and stopped down (to f/32) to get the rest. That move was obvious and easy--one minute.
(pardon the magenta cast--I'm fixing this batch that was tainted by a whacked monitor profile. I just linked the image here; it will correct itself when I replace it at the source.)
The question you ask is whether there is a plane of sharp focus that would make an easier starting point to get the needed depth of field by stopping down. Often, there is no aperture small enough to get the needed depth of field without applying tilts or swings.
One might read the responses and conclude that tilts and swings are a toy for those who like to fiddle and not a useful tool outside the studio, while others might imply that movements should make it possible to never stop down more than f/16 or f/22. Neither of those assertions work across my experience.
But poles and tree trunks look wrong if they are not uniformly sharp or unsharp. So, in a forest, I would probably reject using tilts out of hand--whatever plane I would be seeking would likely still be vertical. But I would not reject using swings. I would decide which two tree trunks needed to be in the focus plane, swing to achieve that, and then stop down from there. Two parallel lines (as in, tree trunks) define a plane. Three may not fall on one plane, however.
If find it generally easier to apply too much movement as a starting point and then back off until I get the focus plane I want. That has always seemed less fiddly than working up to it and being afraid to go too far.
Rick "noting that short lenses are particularly fiddly" Denney
One of the great advantages (and sometimes disadvantaes) in shooting LF is that when the lens is stopped 'way-down, even though you are well into the range of diffraction, prints will still appear quite sharp. Generally, if you need lots of DOF, then the best way to get it is to stop down the aperture as much as you need.
It's also necessary to point out that when "movements" are used, only a very few degrees (venerally less than 5 degrees) will do the job -- no need to reconfigure the camera like a pretzel.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Vaughn, I hope you’ll allow me to name your poem “Focus in the Forest,” though you might have a better title:
Focus in the Forest
--by Vaughn
If it were not
For all the trees
Photography in the forest
Would be a breeze!
BTW, I’ve also taken the liberty of forwarding it to the Pulitzer committee for poetry.
;^)
Yeah. I'll let you know when the Pulitzer folks get a hold of me.
Sand dunes are another place where it is hard to photograph. All my prints tend to look grainy. Eureka Vally Sands Dunes (Death Valley NP) are pretty neat...a bit sandy, though.
Pretty straight forward front tilt with this one...and no trees.
Near the top of the Eureka Valley Sand Dunes
Gowland 4x5, Caltar IIN 150/5.6. TMax 100 probably, HC110
16x20 Silver Gelatin print
Thanks everyone for your contributions, especially Rick with your examples.
Cheers
Graham
Hi Folks,
Just wanted to say that after some practice at home, I returned to the same woods/forests this past weekend found focussing much easier and walked away having taken three photos! My first large format photos with my own large format camera!!
Cheers
Graham
Congrats!
My final thought on focusing, while tilt affords the opportunity to bring near (generally shorter objects) and far (generally taller objects) elements in focus at the same time, it also limits DoF because DoF gets narrower closer to a tilted lens. So, in all cases, DoF can be maximized with an untilted lens, but never tilting the lens is not always the most efficient use of DoF (a Merklinger paraphrase). This is why I always look first to see if I can get away without using any tilt. But it has also become easier for me to recognize, rather quickly, when tilt is going to be needed, and even swings.
Keep per-severing!
Graham, I had posted a thread on the forum a while back, as I had some focus questions also. Take a look.
Hi Folks,
And received the processed images back.
I am even more surprised....exposures seem good (even 16 second one counted in my head with velvia 50), focus is good and I like them! OK, never, ever be good photos bearing in mind this was more of an exercise in getting used to trying to focus very three-dimensional pictures but given me confidence that my camera and secondhand holders work well. Confidence to keep on going and try to take some decent images!
I like!
Graham
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks