Tilt/Shift with Wide Angle

[alanmcd]

I'm getting into my new 4x5 Shen Hao. I have a couple of nice Fujinon lenses (180mm and 65mm). Now the 180, I can see myself having some fun with the tilt movements etc but with the 65mm, I can't see so much need for it.
I was planning on getting a wide angle bellows for it but I have tested using just perpendicular back and front and find the DOF so good, that I can't see a need for tilting.
Maybe someone can tell me what situation they would use tilting on such a short lens? It's pretty easy to work out my DOF and set a nice small aperture. Another help is using stand development with my B&W film. It seems to give me such a good dynamic range that I can easily push it without loss. So that helps my DOF as well. In any case, I love a bit of movement, things don't all have to be cuaght in action for me. So shutter speeds of 1/4 is not uncommon for me.
I can only think of a need with color film and a desire to actually put something out of focus. Love to hear some thoughts on this.
Alan

[LabRat]

You don't usually have to use too many movements with a SWA lens (maybe front rise)... The distortion/falloff looks more natural with the lens on-axis, and focus/DOF is usually OK if stopped down enough, so you don't have too much to worry about if you use less movement...

But find out where your hyperfocal focusing point for your lens is...

Steve K

[alanmcd]

You don't usually have to use too many movements with a SWA lens (maybe front rise)... The distortion/falloff looks more natural with the lens on-axis, and focus/DOF is usually OK if stopped down enough, so you don't have too much to worry about if you use less movement...

But find out where your hyperfocal focusing point for your lens is...

Steve K

According to this: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
At f45 I have 3.28ft hyperfocal to get 1.64ft to infinity. So I suppose this is a good starting point. I'll work on this, give it some latitude and see how I go. Does that sound like a plan? Or should I consider something else as well?
Alan

[Mick Fagan]

It really depends whether or not your 65mm lens is mounted on a flat board or on a recessed board, as to whether or not you require a bag bellows.

I have a Fujinon SWA 65 mounted on a recessed board, I can get away with the standard bellows on my Shen Hao like that. However I had the 65mm off the board and just for a lark I whacked it onto a flat board, bit iffy is all I can say. I have a bag bellows for my Shen Hao and found it quite useful with my Fujinon 150 when I had a situation where I was using quite a bit of rise as well as maximum shift on the rear. That was the only time I have required my bag bellows, so far.

With the 65 mounted on a flat board, using the bag bellows made life a lot easier.

There is not much in the way of practical movement available without having some coverage issues with the 65mm lens, well maybe a small amount, but precious little. So little, that I routinely do not even consider attempting movement away from dead centre. The 65mm, to be honest, is super wide, and within reason you can have pretty much most things in front of you and you will cover the entire scene you envisage, then some.

Rather than a bag bellows, perhaps a centre graduated filter for your 65mm lens may be a slightly better value addition to your bag of tricks. After I picked up a graduated centre filter for my 65mm lens, I haven't used it without that filter attached to the front. Very noticeable difference when enlarging negatives, also unbelievably easier to print.

Mick.

[alanmcd]

It really depends whether or not your 65mm lens is mounted on a flat board or on a recessed board, as to whether or not you require a bag bellows.

I have a Fujinon SWA 65 mounted on a recessed board, I can get away with the standard bellows on my Shen Hao like that. However I had the 65mm off the board and just for a lark I whacked it onto a flat board, bit iffy is all I can say. I have a bag bellows for my Shen Hao and found it quite useful with my Fujinon 150 when I had a situation where I was using quite a bit of rise as well as maximum shift on the rear. That was the only time I have required my bag bellows, so far.

With the 65 mounted on a flat board, using the bag bellows made life a lot easier.

There is not much in the way of practical movement available without having some coverage issues with the 65mm lens, well maybe a small amount, but precious little. So little, that I routinely do not even consider attempting movement away from dead centre. The 65mm, to be honest, is super wide, and within reason you can have pretty much most things in front of you and you will cover the entire scene you envisage, then some.

Rather than a bag bellows, perhaps a centre graduated filter for your 65mm lens may be a slightly better value addition to your bag of tricks. After I picked up a graduated centre filter for my 65mm lens, I haven't used it without that filter attached to the front. Very noticeable difference when enlarging negatives, also unbelievably easier to print.

Mick.

Tell me more about the center gradated filter?
Alan

[Lachlan 717]

1) Perspective control; and/or
2) Forground distortion/exaggeration.

[Mick Fagan]

Alan, a centre graduated filter is usually needed more, the closer you use the extremes of any wide or super wide lens. The two formats I am most familiar with are 135 and 4x5". When I'm using my 24mm lens on 35mm it covers the format reasonably well, fall off in the corners is there but not too bad. When I switch to my 18mm lens the coverage of the lens is not as great as the 24mm, meaning I am closer to the edge of the image circle, this lens shows a marked fall off in comparison.

With my Fujinon f/5.6 65mm SWD lens, the image circle is 169mm. The image circle of the 4x5" format is approximately 154mm. Subtract 154mm from 169mm and you are left with 15mm, or to put it into other words, you are working approximately 7.5mm from the edge of the coverage of the lens in each of your corners. I do not know about other makes or types of 65mm lenses, but my Fujinon certainly exhibited a marked fall off in all four corners.

I acquired a Heliopan Centre graduated Filter, (67mm) a few days before a three month trip last year. Quick tests with and without the filter, confirmed that the difference was chalk and cheese. My negatives and subsequent prints with the 65mm lens have been exemplary.

You need to add 1.5 stops and have the lens stopped down by a couple of stops to allow the centre filter to work. I generally used f22, although I once used f32 on a flowing creek shot with excellent results.

This thread may help you understand a bit more.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?92474-Why-do-we-need-center-filters&highlight=center+filter


Mick.

[Doremus Scudder]

A bit of tilt, even with very short lenses, will enable you to focus on both a very near and a very far object and still use a relatively large aperture. Whether that's something you want or need to do often is another question, but there are times when a bit of tilt will definitely help focus, even with a 65mm lens.

FWIW, the most-used movements with shorter focal-length lenses are rise and fall in order to correct converging verticals. The problem with a 65mm lens is that the coverage is extremely limited and you won't get much rise or fall out of it before it vignettes. The same goes for front tilts and swings. Applying a bit of back tilt to get foreground and background in focus and still use an optimum aperture is more realistic if you find the need. Otherwise, just stop down, keeping in mind that apertures smaller than f/22 or f/32 will introduce a bit of degradation due to diffraction. I won't print larger than 11x14 from a 4x5 negative that was shot at f/45 and even then you can see a bit of softness due to diffraction. f/22 is where most lenses perform best; I find f/32 a good compromise in most situations.

And, you can always use tilts to selectively de-focus areas of your image; the same caveats apply.

About center filters: If you shoot color transparency film, you'll probably want one of these. If, like me, you shoot black-and-white negative film, you can correct the light fall-off in printing; just remember to give the negative another stop of exposure to compensate for the fall-off if you need shadow detail at the edges.

Best,

Doremus

[alanmcd]

A bit of tilt, even with very short lenses, will enable you to focus on both a very near and a very far object and still use a relatively large aperture. Whether that's something you want or need to do often is another question, but there are times when a bit of tilt will definitely help focus, even with a 65mm lens.

FWIW, the most-used movements with shorter focal-length lenses are rise and fall in order to correct converging verticals. The problem with a 65mm lens is that the coverage is extremely limited and you won't get much rise or fall out of it before it vignettes. The same goes for front tilts and swings. Applying a bit of back tilt to get foreground and background in focus and still use an optimum aperture is more realistic if you find the need. Otherwise, just stop down, keeping in mind that apertures smaller than f/22 or f/32 will introduce a bit of degradation due to diffraction. I won't print larger than 11x14 from a 4x5 negative that was shot at f/45 and even then you can see a bit of softness due to diffraction. f/22 is where most lenses perform best; I find f/32 a good compromise in most situations.

And, you can always use tilts to selectively de-focus areas of your image; the same caveats apply.

About center filters: If you shoot color transparency film, you'll probably want one of these. If, like me, you shoot black-and-white negative film, you can correct the light fall-off in printing; just remember to give the negative another stop of exposure to compensate for the fall-off if you need shadow detail at the edges.

Best,

Doremus

OK thanks, this is all very informative - love it. I didn't realize the f/45 diffraction issue. I'd like to see an example of the diffraction degradation - do you know one?
Also, I am using B&W (iso400) and I am using stand development. I am very impressed by the dynamic range delivered in the negative by this process. Because of this, I suspect that light fall off is less an issue than compared with regular development processes. I will be looking closely at the scans I do for this effect. I'll post some examples in a few days.
I suppose what I was thinking about when I took the 'gamble' on the 65mm, was that I would learn how to take advantage of its best characteristics and tailor my subject/project ambitions around what it can deliver. Sometimes learning the quirky/unique characteristics of a lens can help you compose your subject.
I am quite prepared to make little use of camera movements with this lens. I am already impressed with the negative quality (stand dev). I am making comprehensive tests with DoF and being landscape 'focused', the horizon is often the only element I need to attend to WRT distortion.
It's a pity to have f/45 on the lens and be excluding this aperture from my repertoire. Maybe diffraction can be put to good use artistically. Maybe I need to learn how to emphasize it rather than let it be a subtle component.

Alan

[alanmcd]

Of course, these centre weighted filters aren't easy to get. I'm in Australia and no local suppler has them So they're costly.
But surely the centre diameter of the filter is also an element to consider? Do they come in varying weights and centre diameter fall-offs? Using one at f/45 must be very different to using one at f/5.6. My (lack of) knowledge of optics might be failing me here.
Alan

[Doremus Scudder]

OK thanks, this is all very informative - love it. I didn't realize the f/45 diffraction issue. I'd like to see an example of the diffraction degradation - ... It's a pity to have f/45 on the lens and be excluding this aperture from my repertoire. Maybe diffraction can be put to good use artistically. Maybe I need to learn how to emphasize it rather than let it be a subtle component.

Alan

Alan,

Don't let me scare you away from using a smaller aperture when necessary. However, be aware that an "optimum" aperture exists for just about every situation that balances depth-of-field and degradation due to diffraction. Many simply ignore diffraction, since its effects are small and really only become apparent at very small apertures together with a high degree of enlargement. I use f/45 occasionally when I need it; I just plan to keep the print size small enough that the diffraction doesn't bother me.

For more info see the article on the LF home page here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html . There are lots of other great articles there as well, which I highly recommend.

Best,

Doremus

[alanmcd]

A bit of tilt, even with very short lenses, will enable you to focus on both a very near and a very far object and still use a relatively large aperture. Whether that's something you want or need to do often is another question, but there are times when a bit of tilt will definitely help focus, even with a 65mm lens.

FWIW, the most-used movements with shorter focal-length lenses are rise and fall in order to correct converging verticals. The problem with a 65mm lens is that the coverage is extremely limited and you won't get much rise or fall out of it before it vignettes. The same goes for front tilts and swings. Applying a bit of back tilt to get foreground and background in focus and still use an optimum aperture is more realistic if you find the need. Otherwise, just stop down, keeping in mind that apertures smaller than f/22 or f/32 will introduce a bit of degradation due to diffraction. I won't print larger than 11x14 from a 4x5 negative that was shot at f/45 and even then you can see a bit of softness due to diffraction. f/22 is where most lenses perform best; I find f/32 a good compromise in most situations.

And, you can always use tilts to selectively de-focus areas of your image; the same caveats apply.

About center filters: If you shoot color transparency film, you'll probably want one of these. If, like me, you shoot black-and-white negative film, you can correct the light fall-off in printing; just remember to give the negative another stop of exposure to compensate for the fall-off if you need shadow detail at the edges.

Best,

Doremus

wow - these centre weighted filters are more expensive than my camera and lenses! I think I'll have to stick to using Lightroom filtering on the scan. Seems a lot more flexible to me and cheaper too.
Alan

[Lachlan 717]

It's not more flexible, as it complies to the SI/SO* rule.

You still need a quality scan of a quality image. You might/can get by with some neg film; you won't get by with most positive film.

Digital processing is NOT a silver bullet.

*Shit in/Shit out.

[Mick Fagan]

Of course, these centre weighted filters aren't easy to get. I'm in Australia and no local suppler has them So they're costly.
But surely the centre diameter of the filter is also an element to consider? Do they come in varying weights and centre diameter fall-offs? Using one at f/45 must be very different to using one at f/5.6. My (lack of) knowledge of optics might be failing me here.
Alan

Are you near Melbourne? If so, we could meet up and you could try mine, or at the very least look through the ground glass.

They are not cheap, but second hand they are around and can be surprisingly well priced. I picked mine up from Australia at a reasonable to me price, you just have to know if you want something, then wait for the correct to you price, to pop up.

They are available new locally, however with the Australia tax, they are prohibitively priced. I know as I priced and sourced them locally.

Just looking through the ground glass will give you a very good idea of the difference with the Fujinon f/5.6 SWD 65mm and a centre graduated filter attached and not attached, it is that noticeable with that lens.

Mick.

[Lachlan 717]

I've got a test shot comparison using a 72mm SAXL somewhere, shot down in the Otways. I'll try to find it. It clearly shows the difference in image quality. One was usable; one was not. Huge difference.

[LabRat]

Another good thing about using a center filter is if your film has a severe reciprocity effect, and you shoot in dimmer light without one, the falloff can be exaggerated at tiny stops/longer times...

Steve K