PDA

View Full Version : Crazy Movements of View Cameras



snommisbor
8-Nov-2017, 08:01
I have seen pictures of view cameras with the bellows all twisted and turned and tilted. Is there ever a situation that you would do something that extreme or is it just showing how much movement a particular camera can do? I might do rise and tilt and maybe a little swing but my camera never looks that contorted.

kenj8246
8-Nov-2017, 08:20
By and large, that's hype. If you got an image from those contortions, it'd be amazing. IMO.

xkaes
8-Nov-2017, 08:24
View camera makers and users like to show off what they can do. Most of the time, only one movement is needed -- and occasionally pretty extreme -- and sometimes two movements are needed, but less extreme. But before most photographers would ever get close to the contortions you mention, the Image Circle created by the lens would not even hit the film!

Doremus Scudder
8-Nov-2017, 10:26
I end up using pretty extreme movements more often than I'd like. I define extreme as 1) being at the very edge of a lens' coverage and/or 2) pushing the limits of what my camera can do. I shoot field cameras, so there are more limitations as concerns movements than a monorail. Still when you run out of both rise and shift and have to add tilts and swings in order to get enough of both, that's rather a lot of movement. Below is a shot of my Wista SW with both rise and shift at maximum and added swings and tilts to get a bit more of both. Note the angle of the bed.

171686

The shot was successful, but right at the edge of the lens' coverage. This is about as far as I ever push movements. I don't know if you'd call it "crazy," though.


Best,

Doremus

Pfsor
8-Nov-2017, 11:04
I have seen pictures of view cameras with the bellows all twisted and turned and tilted. Is there ever a situation that you would do something that extreme or is it just showing how much movement a particular camera can do? I might do rise and tilt and maybe a little swing but my camera never looks that contorted.

The meaning of these pictures is indeed to prove/show the mechanical possibility of camera movements. Nothing bad with it. The way you recognize this sense of the pictures is the photographically often illogical nature of the movements that are shown. The front left swing and upwards tilt combined with right back swing with downward tilt etc.

Graham Patterson
8-Nov-2017, 12:30
You know the movements were set up for marketing when the light would never reach the film...unless the inside of the bellows was reflective!

Pfsor
8-Nov-2017, 12:40
You know the movements were set up for marketing when the light would never reach the film...unless the inside of the bellows was reflective!

:) Once, in a photo shop I overheard a son looking at such pictures and asking his father with a 35mm camera - how can you take pictures with the lens going in that direction? The father answered - the bellow must somehow reflect the light... :)

Jac@stafford.net
8-Nov-2017, 12:59
And then some good old view cameras have a tab near the middle of the bellows to which one attaches a strap, rod or a string to keep the bellows from sagging into the light path when there are no movements at all.

snommisbor
8-Nov-2017, 13:45
Yeah I was on Thalmann.com and he had his camera looking like a Chinese dragons �� you see in parades. I thought to myself, surely one doesn’t need that extreme movement. Just a slight tilt will do wonders.

Leigh
8-Nov-2017, 13:57
The shot was successful, but right at the edge of the lens' coverage. This is about as far as I ever push movements.Hi Doremus,

Why don't you show us the image that resulted from those movements?

- Leigh

LabRat
8-Nov-2017, 14:13
Yes and no...

For landscape use, not much movements need to be applied, but in a commercial studio with large multi-plane objects (say, a washing machine shot from an oblique high and side angle etc) after applying correction for multiple different planes, longer FL, and in a severe fall where (yaw starts showing it's ugly head), it's not unusual to take a look at the camera after set-up and see it twisted into an origami shape for the final shot... And sometimes in architecture shots (with complex planes) that the camera has to be tilted up and corrected later will twist up the camera pretty good...

Never say never...

Steve K

neil poulsen
8-Nov-2017, 14:25
I think it helps attract attention to (my) listings on EBay. :)

John Layton
8-Nov-2017, 15:08
171706171707

Luis-F-S
8-Nov-2017, 15:09
By and large, that's hype. If you got an image from those contortions, it'd be amazing. IMO.

++1 Plus I've always thought they're made by individuals with none or for those with no view camera knowledge.

Cor
9-Nov-2017, 00:58
171706171707

So nice John, and it's a pity your camera never "made" it..but surely in the first image the light never reaches the ground glass ?

Best,

Cor

Doremus Scudder
9-Nov-2017, 02:15
Hi Doremus,

Why don't you show us the image that resulted from those movements?

- Leigh

Hi Leigh,

I looked to find the negative here in Vienna, but, alas, it's in my Oregon darkroom waiting for me to get back and print it. I won't be there till June... It was a building fašade with windows. I had to move myself way off-center in order to avoid my own reflection in the windows; that's why all the shift. The amount of front rise I used was a bit more than usual for me too, as I wanted to include details up high. If this thread is still active when I get to my neg, I'll post the image.

Best

Doremus

John Layton
9-Nov-2017, 07:11
Thanks Cor! In another life the camera would be wildly successful! In the meantime...I'm still waiting for the light to bend - having been told by a trusted friend that with just a bit of patience (preferably augmented by a nip bourbon and/or a pint of Guiness) - that it will happen! (thank goodness for trusted friends!)
Happy Trails,
John

Jerry Bodine
9-Nov-2017, 11:36
Might a fisheye lens be helpful? No idea what the coverage of those things is and could NOT care less. :D

rdenney
14-Nov-2017, 14:56
Might a fisheye lens be helpful? No idea what the coverage of those things is and could NOT care less. :D

No, you need that elusive 800mm Super Angulon XL.

(I suspect the photos are like those of passenger cars on race tracks--if they can do extreme things, they won't be a constraint when doing normal things.)

Rick "who has used some fairly extreme tilts with long lenses and close focus distances, such as for the product photography many of those rail cameras were made for" Denney

xkaes
14-Nov-2017, 15:32
Might a fisheye lens be helpful? No idea what the coverage of those things is and could NOT care less. :D

A fisheye lens sees 180 degree of the subject, but behind the lens it does not project it 180 degrees.

Jac@stafford.net
14-Nov-2017, 15:57
A fisheye lens sees 180 degree of the subject, but behind the lens it does not project it 180 degrees.

I am not sure that is true - especially for miniature (35mm) formats.

MAubrey
14-Nov-2017, 16:26
I am not sure that is true - especially for miniature (35mm) formats.

Especially when it's a 220 degree AoV fisheye for miniature!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRxUc22xfyE

xkaes
14-Nov-2017, 16:32
I am not sure that is true - especially for miniature (35mm) formats.

I can assure you that my Minolta Rokkor-X 16mm f2.8 and 7.5mm f4 fisheyes both see 180 degrees in the front and "compress" it all to produce an image for 24x36mm film. Much like my Mamiya 37mm f4.5 fisheye sees 180 degrees in the front and "compresses" it all to produce an image for 4x5" film. I suppose I could create a fisheye for a submini, as well. Since my Minox has a 15mm lens, it would have to be about a 5mm lens. I'll think about it.

rdenney
14-Nov-2017, 20:51
I am not sure that is true - especially for miniature (35mm) formats.

A 180-degree fisheye generally illuminates a circle of diameter three times its focal length. I have several examples, including a 30mm Arsat that would make a nice full-circle fisheye on 4x5.

Rick "a fan of (full frame) fisheyes" Denney

Jody_S
15-Nov-2017, 07:26
In 25 years and thousands of images taken, I think I've used extreme movements on my B&J exactly once. But I was really happy to have a camera that twisted into a pretzel that day.

xkaes
15-Nov-2017, 07:27
A 180-degree fisheye generally illuminates a circle of diameter three times its focal length. I have several examples, including a 30mm Arsat that would make a nice full-circle fisheye on 4x5.

Rick "a fan of (full frame) fisheyes" Denney

My 37mm Mamiya Fisheye creates a circle with a diameter of 3.75" -- perfect for 4x5". I assume your 30mm creates an image of about 3.5" at infinity. That's great, too. Have you measured the diameter, by chance? What do you use as a shutter?

xkaes
15-Nov-2017, 08:07
In 25 years and thousands of images taken, I think I've used extreme movements on my B&J exactly once. But I was really happy to have a camera that twisted into a pretzel that day.

I use front standard swing and tilt often in my landscapes, frequently at the same time. Although I would never call any of these movements extreme, I'm more likely to use them with wider lenses which, in my case, the lens IC becomes the limiting factor -- not the camera's abilities. I then have to use some front rise/fall or rear (that's all I have) shift to cover the film.

Bob Salomon
15-Nov-2017, 08:14
In 25 years and thousands of images taken, I think I've used extreme movements on my B&J exactly once. But I was really happy to have a camera that twisted into a pretzel that day.

How many of those shots were product shots for catalogs or ads? The common movements used for scenery are different then the movements used when trying to capture the side, front and top of a cereal box while maintaining all of the right angles of the box. Or when shooting a table of jewelry without distortion.

rdenney
15-Nov-2017, 08:17
My 37mm Mamiya Fisheye creates a circle with a diameter of 3.75" -- perfect for 4x5". I assume your 30mm creates an image of about 3.5" at infinity. That's great, too. Have you measured the diameter, by chance? What do you use as a shutter?

It has never made it past the thought experiment, to be honest. I prefer full-frame fisheyes, and have them for several camera systems, including my Pentax 67.

Rick "no time for silly projects these days" Denney

xkaes
15-Nov-2017, 09:02
It has never made it past the thought experiment, to be honest. I prefer full-frame fisheyes, and have them for several camera systems, including my Pentax 67.

Rick "no time for silly projects these days" Denney

I sometimes prefer a full-frame fisheye, and I can still get that by cropping my 4x5" circular fisheye image down to a 70x70mm square or whatever rectangle I want. The results are still great because the Mamiya lens is great. There is an example in my article:

www.subclub.org/fujinon/gonefishin.pdf

Jody_S
15-Nov-2017, 21:41
How many of those shots were product shots for catalogs or ads? The common movements used for scenery are different then the movements used when trying to capture the side, front and top of a cereal box while maintaining all of the right angles of the box. Or when shooting a table of jewelry without distortion.

I have never worked as a commercial photographer, so I've never practised much with perspective corrections other than shooting buildings occasionally, which is usually quite straightforward. My 'pretzel' shot was of a rather decrepit pair of diverging overhead concrete roadways, where I used movements to greatly exaggerate certain features to make it look a little post-apocalyptic. It took me half an hour to set up the shot, and I ruined it with a light leak. Silly me, I only took one shot.