Focusing help

[steveo]

This is the Forth Bridge a big Victorian over designed railway bridge near Edinburgh, I've had a few attempts at this and can't quite seem to get it quite right I'd like the whole structure in (reasonably) sharp focus but I'm trying to shoot it at night to fit in a series of architectural night shot. I'm trying not to stop right down because I'm cheap I've not got any Acros in 54 so I've been making do with delta and the reciprocity gets really silly really quickly.

Would any movements help bring this into focus or will I need to either stump up for acros or wait for a flat calm day and stand there for 10 minutes.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8895/17791183488_6c94ab9a18_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/t79t1U)Forth Bridge Evening (https://flic.kr/p/t79t1U) by Steven (https://www.flickr.com/photos/49248828@N06/), on Flickr

https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7766/17791186328_4c76f8a766_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/t79tRS)Forth Bridge Night (https://flic.kr/p/t79tRS) by Steven (https://www.flickr.com/photos/49248828@N06/), on Flickr

[Nathan Potter]

If you want maximum sharpness in the bridge then treat the bridge itself as a pretty flat Schiempflug plane running from right foreground to left end of bridge. Thus you could use backplane tilt by moving the right edge of the rear standard slightly backward (toward you) such that the entire length of the bridge is in focus with the lens wide open. To the degree that you want the area to the left and right of the bridge in focus you'll have to then use a smaller aperture especially at the left and right edge of the image.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[steveo]

I was using a little bit of front tilt, I take it that would not have the same effect? I'll need to get down in day time I think to be able to more clearly see the changes but it would be helpful to have where I've messed up pointed out to me.

[rbultman]

Front swing to get the bridge in focus front to back and a little forward tilt to get the foreground? Sorry, total newb here, so feel free to discard.

You might return to the site during the day with a loupe and a darkcloth. That might help you understand the movements you need to acheive the focus you want.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I was using a little bit of front tilt

I would stick to Nathan's suggestion. Just a few degrees should do the trick. And regarding standing for 10 minutes, take it as time to relax. It is worth it, and a smaller stop might help with the light-source interference.

[steveo]

I would stick to Nathan's suggestion. Just a few degrees should do the trick. And regarding standing for 10 minutes, take it as time to relax. It is worth it, and a smaller stop might help with the light-source interference.


I meant swing not tilt but the advice stands. I'll give it a try.

Problem with the very long exposures is camera shake, the bridge is over and estuary and it gets pretty windy even when it's basically flat calm inshore.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Problem with the very long exposures is camera shake, the bridge is over and estuary and it gets pretty windy even when it's basically flat calm inshore.

Of course. I wasn't thinking. I've used an umbrella to help shield a camera from the wind. Sometimes it even works.

Best of luck to you.
I look forward to your final picture of that scene.

[Doremus Scudder]

A little tilt (front forward with the back plumb if you want no perspective change) combined with swing (rear or front depending on if you want to emphasize the closer part of the bridge or not) should help some.

Choose focus points near and far as well as left and right and check focus spread between them as you apply movements. The position with the least focus spread is what you're after. Keep in mind that applying tilt will throw the nearest high areas out of the plane first and that swing will affect the left foreground first, so make sure you choose those areas for a couple of your focus points.

FWIW, to beat the wind, you might try stopping down and then making a series of shorter exposures that add up to one longer one. Make your exposure when the wind is calm, close the shutter when it comes up again, and repeat till you have reached your total exposure time. I've done this successfully a number of times for exposures up to 15 or 20 minutes.

Best,

Doremus

[tgtaylor]

The foreground in the first looks reasonable sharp but it has too much black for my taste. I would bring the camera up a little to eliminate most of the black at the very bottom and start the composition with the little promontory at thee center. That way you will have alternating bands of darkness and light in the immediate foreground instead of mostly darkness.

I did a similar composition of the San Francisco Bay bridge from the SF side to Treasure Island with a 150mm apo-Sironar-S and IIRC I focused on one of the bulbs hanging from the cables. Back then the decorative lighting on the Bay Bridge was done with something like large light bulbs if you will which were hung from the suspension cables. I then stopped down to f16 to make sure that all the vertical cables running up to the large suspension cable were sharp. I forget what the actual exposure time was - no doubt on the order of a full minute with Acros. But the long exposure smoothed the currents in the bay and I got a nice black bay with streaks of silver - which was exactly what I was looking for. You can do it with Delta or other Ilford films but you need to have the Ilford reciprocity curve which I have found to be very accurate with you.

You don't have bulbs to focus on but you have the actual structure itself which is well-lit instead. A little front tilt for the foreground should do it: focus on the X and tilt for the Y is the drill.

Thomas

[Jim Jones]

Shooting a little earlier on an overcast evening could provide a hint of detail in the shadows and a shorter exposure. Wait until the artificial lights are on to provide the feeling of a night shot. Make sure your lens is perfectly clean and don't stop down so far that diffraction smears the bright lights.

[steveo]

Thanks for the help guys, I'll go try again once the wind drops below gale force.

[Liquid Artist]

Interesting bridge, I'm looking forward to seeing your finished product.

I love the exposure in your top pic (on a tiny BlackBerry screen though)

[Nathan Potter]

If you want maximum sharpness in the bridge then treat the bridge itself as a pretty flat Schiempflug plane running from right foreground to left end of bridge. Thus you could use backplane tilt by moving the right edge of the rear standard slightly backward (toward you) such that the entire length of the bridge is in focus with the lens wide open. To the degree that you want the area to the left and right of the bridge in focus you'll have to then use a smaller aperture especially at the left and right edge of the image.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Sorry, I meant backplane swing not tilt.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Lenny Eiger]

There was an earlier thread where participants suggested that the focusing ground glass was a bit off. You might check this. I agree with a couple of degrees of swing to match the bridge's angle a bit, but close down to f45 and see what happens...

[steveo]

Interesting bridge, I'm looking forward to seeing your finished product.

I love the exposure in your top pic (on a tiny BlackBerry screen though)


Thanks I'll get it posted just as soon as I get a chance to get out and reshoot.


Sorry, I meant backplane swing not tilt.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Thats okay I knew what you meant. :)


There was an earlier thread where participants suggested that the focusing ground glass was a bit off. You might check this. I agree with a couple of degrees of swing to match the bridge's angle a bit, but close down to f45 and see what happens...

I relatively confident the screen is fine, I've shot a couple of frames since that and they were fine. F45 EV2 with Illford film I'd be there till day break :D

[Lenny Eiger]

F45 EV2 with Illford film I'd be there till day break :D

Fair enough. However, I get a lot of film to scan here that is less sharp than people wanted. All the calculations, swings and tilts in the world seem to add up to something just a bit shy of what most intended. Try just one stop down from where you are and see if things fall into place...

Lenny

[steveo]

Probably a stupid question but wide open, should I be able to see this all sharp on the gg or is it one of those intuitive least out of focus situations?

[steveo]

Fair enough. However, I get a lot of film to scan here that is less sharp than people wanted. All the calculations, swings and tilts in the world seem to add up to something just a bit shy of what most intended. Try just one stop down from where you are and see if things fall into place...

Lenny

Cheers lenny took your advice and stopped down an extra couple of stops helped it was still daylight when I got there,hopefully I'll get a decent one this time.


Unfortunately the lights don't come on till after 10 now so I'm not sure when I'll get a chance to reshoot the flood light scene.

[john borrelli]

For me, bridges may be a better subject for a panoramic type crop.

With this type of crop you may not need to work so hard to get everything in the foreground in focus. The foreground isn't really the subject with this beautiful evening lit bridge. Without needing to emphasize the foreground sharpness you may find a little front swing to work miracles here. If you are committed to the foreground then I would suggest while you are checking your local weather for the wind, check it out for high tides as well. It is more acceptable to the human eye to see water that is not "sharp" and some will even emphasize the water being "soft" with long exposures.

[Leszek Vogt]

If you really need the lights, I'd try to get the shot before the lights are turned on....and then run second exposure with lights. Naturally, balance of the exposure is required in order to minimize the lamp illumination. It's bit of an experiment, but worth a try.

Les

[appletree]

You guys are so smart. I am lost when it comes to movements, light smears, etc etc. I have so much to learn.

[Alan Gales]

You guys are so smart. I am lost when it comes to movements, light smears, etc etc. I have so much to learn.

One step at a time and you will get there. Take your time and enjoy yourself. :)

[appletree]

Thanks for the pick me up. I am looking forward to it all! I am always amazed the printer at the local lab can look at a negative and tell you exactly where to start printing and areas that will need dodging and/or burning. Likewise, to those that can see a photo and understand taking multiple exposures, various changes with aperture, light flares from artificial lighting, etc. It's like the science behind the art.

I just go out and shoot and do my best to make sure I closed the shutter and have the aperture closed and not wide open still. :)

Hope the OP posts a photo of his additional attempts. Looks like a great scene!

[Lenny Eiger]

You guys are so smart. I am lost when it comes to movements, light smears, etc etc. I have so much to learn.

It's nice to acknowledge people. However, the swings and tilts are easy. If you read a book about Scheimphlug it will most likely confuse you, lots of diagrams, mathematical formulas etc. There's a lot of engineers on this site who enjoy that approach but I find it tedious...

The only thing you need to know, IMO, is that its all planes, the kind of 2-dimensional planes you learned about in Geometry. If both front and rear standards are squared up and vertical, then you can visualize a flat plane in front of the camera at whatever distance you focused at. If you tilt something, horizontally or vertically, on the camera, the plane of what's going to be in focus tilts as well. It's really simple. Most adjustments that people make are very slight.

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

Besides the lack of basic tilt control, there seems to be an unusual amount of flare in the shot that kinda washes out the middle.

[steveo]

For me, bridges may be a better subject for a panoramic type crop.

With this type of crop you may not need to work so hard to get everything in the foreground in focus. The foreground isn't really the subject with this beautiful evening lit bridge. Without needing to emphasize the foreground sharpness you may find a little front swing to work miracles here. If you are committed to the foreground then I would suggest while you are checking your local weather for the wind, check it out for high tides as well. It is more acceptable to the human eye to see water that is not "sharp" and some will even emphasize the water being "soft" with long exposures.

Thanks I'll have a play with some crops and try a higher tide next time.



If you really need the lights, I'd try to get the shot before the lights are turned on....and then run second exposure with lights. Naturally, balance of the exposure is required in order to minimize the lamp illumination. It's bit of an experiment, but worth a try.

Les

That is a great idea. Not sure how to execute it properly but I'll investigate further.



Hope the OP posts a photo of his additional attempts. Looks like a great scene!


Cheers will do.


Besides the lack of basic tilt control, there seems to be an unusual amount of flare in the shot that kinda washes out the middle.

Those lights are somewhat overpowered getting a balanced shot is a bit tricky. I don't think my 150mm is a very good copy, uncoated and has a couple of "cleaning marks" which I don't think will have helped any.

[steveo]

Developed the four frames I took the other day. 1 completely unexposed, 1 double exposed... The other two look okay to the eye but I've not had a chance to scan or take a loupe to them.

[appletree]

It's nice to acknowledge people. However, the swings and tilts are easy. If you read a book about Scheimphlug it will most likely confuse you, lots of diagrams, mathematical formulas etc. There's a lot of engineers on this site who enjoy that approach but I find it tedious...

The only thing you need to know, IMO, is that its all planes, the kind of 2-dimensional planes you learned about in Geometry. If both front and rear standards are squared up and vertical, then you can visualize a flat plane in front of the camera at whatever distance you focused at. If you tilt something, horizontally or vertically, on the camera, the plane of what's going to be in focus tilts as well. It's really simple. Most adjustments that people make are very slight.

Lenny

Thanks Lenny for the advice. Yeah I am an engineer myself, but try to steer clear of the too in-depth approach...even though it is easy for my mind to wander. Grasping the whole concept has been daunting for me and one I have not studied enough on. I understand the concept just not the affects, per se. For instance, I cannot visualize in my mind what the outcome is if I was to swing, tilt, rise, fall, or play with these. I am not sure if the these can even be seen on the ground glass or not. I will play with the movements tonight and see if I can notice it when wide open.

If I remember correctly swing would be to change the DOF to a line horizontally (or diagonally in your subject), whereas tilt is the same but for a line vertical (or diagonally but up/down). Rise and fall are keeping the lens plane and film plane on the same perspective but moving it up or down to affect the DOF or something. I believe people use rise and fall in the portraits where someone's face is in focus then the bottom portion of the photo is out of focus.

I will spend my lunch and actually read about it today. Only shot about 8 4x5s sheets so far and haven't messed with any of the movements.

[Lenny Eiger]

If I remember correctly swing would be to change the DOF to a line horizontally (or diagonally in your subject), whereas tilt is the same but for a line vertical (or diagonally but up/down). Rise and fall are keeping the lens plane and film plane on the same perspective but moving it up or down to affect the DOF or something. I believe people use rise and fall in the portraits where someone's face is in focus then the bottom portion of the photo is out of focus.

I will spend my lunch and actually read about it today. Only shot about 8 4x5s sheets so far and haven't messed with any of the movements.

There's plenty of time. Swings and tilts aren't "necessary" for most things, just closing down to a good depth of field will get you there. I shoot 95% at f45... However, to clarify, there is a plane out in front of the camera at the focused distance from the camera. It's almost like a projected image on a screen. That's the plane of focus when everything is squared up.

If you tilt the lens 10 degrees forward, the "projected focus plane" will tilt 10 degrees back, the top side away from you. If you are looking up a mountain that has a 10 degree slope, for example, this might be a good solution. It works the same going sideways. You might be looking at a fence that is diagonal to you...

There are drawbacks, however. As you vary the focus plane some things will be in tighter focus, while others will lose focus. A tree that is close will lose focus at the top if you have moved the focus down. I have made this mistake too many times.

Best thing is to get your depth of field. Learn how to make exposures that are a second or two, or ten... IT's easy...


Best of luck,

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah. I suspected the lens might have been uncoated. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Flare can be used creatively for certain images. But getting a more modern multicoated lens probably would have solved the wash-out problem in this case.

[steveo]

Yeah. I suspected the lens might have been uncoated. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Flare can be used creatively for certain images. But getting a more modern multicoated lens probably would have solved the wash-out problem in this case.

I'm keeping my eye out for a 180 fujinon to go with the 125 and 210. I'm not really a fan of 150 any way feels bit too inbetween.

[steveo]

I don't like them nearly as much as the night shots and actually I'm less than convinced by the overall composition but this one is at least sharp and in focus at quite a large zoom. I took the advice further up and stopped down to f32 seems to have helped though I think I forgot about reciprocity so its a little under exposed and a bit grainy when big.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3922/18871395385_3f9e6f2cf8_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/uKAQnX)2015-05-FP4-LF001 (https://flic.kr/p/uKAQnX) by Steven (https://www.flickr.com/photos/49248828@N06/), on Flickr

This one looks fine at web resolutions but has a general, even, softness about it when viewed large.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5513/18866070742_753176158c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/uK8xxL)2015-05-FP4-LF002 (https://flic.kr/p/uK8xxL) by Steven (https://www.flickr.com/photos/49248828@N06/), on Flickr


All in all another fairly disappointing outing. Four frames and nothing I'm all that happy with. I know I need to spend more time with the camera its just trying to find the time.