Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

[Andrew Bennett]

Hi
I would be very grateful for any advice on how to obtain adequate depth of firld with my field camera. I am using a Tachihara 5 x 4 camera and on this occasion a Fuji 135mm f 5.6 wide-angle lens. I attach a photo taken with my phone of the subject. The camera to subject distance was about five feet. The camera was pointed down at an angle of about 40 degrees. The exposure was 1/15 at f32 and was taken on Ilford FP4+. The focus point was on one of the central logs.

When I processed the negative I was disappointed to see that the foreground was not adequately shorp and the background even more so. The centre section was pin sharp.

I have read the relevant section Ansel Adams' book 'The Camera' until I think I could recite it word for word ! Initially, I tried levelling the back plate until it was vertical, as suggested in the Master's book as the correct technique when the camera is pointed down. However, I was totally unable to acquire any kind of satisfactory focus when focusing on the ground glass. In the end I gave up trying to use movements at all and simply hoped that f32 would provide sufficient depth of field. I tried stopping down the lens when checking the focus, but obviously it's hard to see clearly at f32.

Any advice would be most welcome.

Thanks

Andrew Bennett202518

[Mark Stahlke]

It sounds like you needed a little front tilt.

[fotopfw]

Indeed front tilt, but putting you film holder vertical makes it more difficult to obtain Scheimplug's planes. You are going to need even more front tilt. It is mandatory if you want to retain the right perspective, but in landscapes, who notices that?

[Peter De Smidt]

Keeping the back plumb is important for photos with parallel vertical lines, but it's not very important in other situations. In this case, it wasn't needed. So, point the camera straight at the subject, and then use some front or back tilt to give the plane of focus that you desire.

[Vaughn]

I agree...just a little front tilt was all it needed -- and be focused at the proper place in the scene. A visual method of noticing if you have the focus plane in the best place is to look carefully at your GG and start reducing the aperture -- both far and near should come into focus at the same time. If the far comes into focus first, you are focused to far out...etc.

[Alan9940]

When pointing the camera down at your subject, do not move the rear standard; tilt the front standard forward (a little tilt goes a long way.) To obtain focus, what I do (taught by my mentor) is focus on the background before beginning the tilt, then slowly tilt simultaneously refocusing to keep the background sharp. When the foreground is sharp, you're done. This is harder to write, then to do. If the subject plane is mostly flat, as in the attached image, then you can choose whatever aperture you want/need. If there are some vertical elements, then you'll need to adjust focus and stop the lens down to obtain DOF. Depending on the height of vertical elements, you may not be able to obtain critical focus over the entire subject; at which point you need to decide what's important and needs to be in sharp focus or, maybe, camera movements won't work in this instance and you need to resort to neutral standards and using DOF to obtain best focus. It's a learning process, but once you have it down it will become second nature.

[Bruce Watson]

Keeping the back plumb is important for photos with parallel vertical lines, but it's not very important in other situations. In this case, it wasn't needed. So, point the camera straight at the subject, and then use some front or back tilt to give the plane of focus that you desire.

Exactly this.

There are learning curves associated with learning camera movements. Initially it can be frustrating, but at some point most of us have an "aha moment" where it all clicks together. After that, it's just fun stuff, and your image is an illustration of the kind of image that's fun after you've learned movements.

And you if you stick with it, you'll find images that demand it all. That is, movements to get near and far points in the same plane of focus, then moving the whole plane to a mid point between spaces front and back that you also want in focus, then stopping down to bring the front and back points into focus. Those images are more challenging. But to get to them, you have to master your example.

I'm just sayin' to keep at it. It'll all make sense in the end. If you make enough photographs, it'll become automatic. Sorta like looking at the ground glass and having it look normal to you instead of upside down and backwards.

The more LF photographs you make, the better you get at LF.

[Andrew Bennett]

Hi
I would be very grateful for any advice on how to obtain adequate depth of firld with my field camera. I am using a Tachihara 5 x 4 camera and on this occasion a Fuji 135mm f 5.6 wide-angle lens. I attach a photo taken with my phone of the subject. The camera to subject distance was about five feet. The camera was pointed down at an angle of about 40 degrees. The exposure was 1/15 at f32 and was taken on Ilford FP4+. The focus point was on one of the central logs.

When I processed the negative I was disappointed to see that the foreground was not adequately shorp and the background even more so. The centre section was pin sharp.

I have read the relevant section Ansel Adams' book 'The Camera' until I think I could recite it word for word ! Initially, I tried levelling the back plate until it was vertical, as suggested in the Master's book as the correct technique when the camera is pointed down. However, I was totally unable to acquire any kind of satisfactory focus when focusing on the ground glass. In the end I gave up trying to use movements at all and simply hoped that f32 would provide sufficient depth of field. I tried stopping down the lens when checking the focus, but obviously it's hard to see clearly at f32.

Any advice would be most welcome.

Thanks

Andrew Bennett202518

[Andrew Bennett]

Thank you to everybody who has replied. It always astonishes me how quickly people respond on this forum and the care and thought which goes into the replies.
The answer seems to be-forward tilt and don't worry about levelling the back unless you have parallel verticals.
It's easy for me to retake this photo so I will persevere with these new insights.
Thanks again.

Andrew Bennett

[Bob Salomon]

Thank you to everybody who has replied. It always astonishes me how quickly people respond on this forum and the care and thought which goes into the replies.
The answer seems to be-forward tilt and don't worry about levelling the back unless you have parallel verticals.
It's easy for me to retake this photo so I will persevere with these new insights.
Thanks again.

Andrew Bennett
Whenever you tilt or swing the back you change the shape of the subject and control the plane of sharp focus. Doing the same on the front does not change subject shape.
Photographing buildings is only one reason to use back tilts.

[Corran]

Aiming the camera slightly down and tilting the rear back functionally is the same as setting the camera plumb and tilting the front standard forward. Tilting the rear standard is not what changes the subject shape, the orientation of the film in relation to the object is, which can change regardless of where you apply tilt.

[Bob Salomon]

Aiming the camera slightly down and tilting the rear back functionally is the same as setting the camera plumb and tilting the front standard forward. Tilting the rear standard is not what changes the subject shape, the orientation of the film in relation to the object is, which can change regardless of where you apply tilt.

Tilting or swinging the back controls subject shape regardless if you are using direct or indirect movements.

[Corran]

But that's incorrect, one can use only front movements and control image shape by angling the entire camera just the same. There is functionally no difference between front and rear movements if the standards are in the same place in space.

[Bob Salomon]

But that's incorrect, one can use only front movements and control image shape by angling the entire camera just the same. There is functionally no difference between front and rear movements if the standards are in the same place in space.

No, back tilts and swings control shape. That is why back tilts control converging verticals due to keystoning.

[Corran]

There would be functionally no difference in the photograph made by these two cameras. One uses front movements with the camera tilted upwards, one uses rear movements with the camera plumb.

http://www.esearing.com/Bryan/AV/photosharing/cammov11.jpg

Do you dispute this?

[Bob Salomon]

There would be functionally no difference in the photograph made by these two cameras. One uses front movements with the camera tilted upwards, one uses rear movements with the camera plumb.

http://www.esearing.com/Bryan/AV/photosharing/cammov11.jpg

Do you dispute this?

Bryan, back movements control image shape. And Scheimpflug. Front movements control Scheimpflug only.

[Corran]

And yet I have shown how front movements can be used in lieu of rear movements or vice-versa, for those using cameras without one or the other. Saying that rear movements only can control image shape fundamentally mischaracterizes what is actually happening, relative to perspective.

[Bob Salomon]

And yet I have shown how front movements can be used in lieu of rear movements or vice-versa, for those using cameras without one or the other. Saying that rear movements only can control image shape fundamentally mischaracterizes what is actually happening, relative to perspective.

You are leaving the subject out of your illustrations.
If your back is plumb to, say a building, there will be no converging verticals. If your back is not plumb to the building there will be converging or diverging verticals, depending on which direction your back is tilted.

That is controlling image shape. Doesn’t matter what you do with the front standard.

[Corran]

Bob, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You can have the back plumb to a building regardless of whether the rear standard is tilted or not, in relation to the camera.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You can have the back plumb to a building regardless of whether the rear standard is tilted or not, in relation to the camera.

Film (the back) controls the shape. Period. Just tilt your fixed back up at a building and watch what happens to it. If you don’t have a convenient building use a doorway.

[Corran]

Bob, I'm not sure if you are actively arguing with me or just restating what I'm saying and acting like I didn't say it. Do you actually think I don't know how keystoning works? Re-read what I've written.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I'm not sure if you are actively arguing with me or just restating what I'm saying and acting like I didn't say it. Do you actually think I don't know how keystoning works? Re-read what I've written.

Yes, I don’t think you know. Or can’t express it correctly.

I have no idea how old you are, how long you have been using movements, what your photographic education is. But I have used large format since 1960 and graduated photo school and taught classes at the university level. Besides having been the mLinhof,Wista and Rollei product manager since, depending on the company, since 1970.
To put it in simpler terms. The orientation of the film, back, determines image shape.

[Vaughn]

For many years I would point the camera down (or up) and then get both standards perpendicular to the ground...then do any tilting of the front I might need to do.

Don't know why it took so long for me to realize that it was basically the same as setting the camera all level and just dropping the lens down. And, of course, the opposite-way around (using front rise instead of pointing the camera up).

Such is life in the fast lane. I can also remember tying the camera in knots before finally re-zeroing and keeping it simple. Most of all that is figured out now before I even set the camera up, with occasional surprises, thankfully. All my attention can be on the image...not on the mechanics unless I want to.

[Corran]

Exactly.


The orientation of the film, back, determines image shape.

As I said, multiple times.

[rfesk]

What is missing in these discussions is "the plane of the back relative to the subject."

[Bob Salomon]

For many years I would point the camera down (or up) and then get both standards perpendicular to the ground...then do any tilting of the front I might need to do.

Don't know why it took so long for me to realize that it was basically the same as setting the camera all level and just dropping the lens down. And, of course, the opposite-way around (using front rise instead of pointing the camera up).

Such is life in the fast lane. I can also remember tying the camera in knots before finally re-zeroing and keeping it simple. Most of all that is figured out now before I even set the camera up, with occasional surprises, thankfully. All my attention can be on the image...not on the mechanics unless I want to.

So, you went from indirect displacements to direct displacements.

[Alan Klein]

I just started with a Chamonix 45H-1 which has asymmetrical back standard only. You focus on the far point on the asymmetric axis line then tilt the back to focus the front point and the far point stays in focus. If the far point isn't on the line, you can use rise to get it there, focus, then move the rise back to where it was.

Of course you can use the traditional way using the front standard. But that require a number of iterations to get it all in focus.

Anyone have experience with this and have recommendation to improve the process?

[Vaughn]

So, you went from indirect displacements to direct displacements.

Exactly -- I was adding another level of complexity that was not needed by going indirect. Of course, if one has a lens of huge coverage, one might want to use both (indirect displacements/direct displacement) to increase the usable front rise, for example. Interior mechanical vignetting becomes an issue (bellows, etc).

Generally with my landscapes I let the image determine level and the needs for any back tilt. Sometimes the image calls for trees to be leaning inwards (or outwards) from both sides and sometimes for them to be nicely vertical across the back of the image. And sometimes 'level' does not look level, so why be normal? Setting up for an image in the forest can be challenging...a lot of time having fun under the darkcloth. With the image below, I spent a bit of time standing there, moving a few inches either way, maybe a foot, getting the world to line up in the light.

But in the end, nothing like setting the camera up and seeing how things show up on the GG, and have fun messing with it, like the OP is doing.

Bull Creek Redwoods, Light Rain Falling, 4x10 Pt/pd Print:

[Doremus Scudder]

The relation of the film plane to the subject determines the projection perspective - period.

The relation of the film and lens planes determines the position of the the plane of sharp focus in the scene - period.

There are many ways to position the film plane. The most obvious is how you set up your camera. From there, you can use back swings and tilts. The parallel verticals in the scene don't know if you've set up your camera with the back parallel to them or whether you've used tilt to bring the back parallel to them.


For the OP:
You need to learn the basics of the Scheimplug principle. In a nutshell, the film plane, the plane perpendicular to the lens axis (think lensboard plane) and the plane of sharp focus all intersect in a line somewhere in space (in the ground below your feet when you use front tilt). Think of a book with one page: the the page being the lens plane, the covers being the film and subject planes.

So, in your case, try to visualize the three planes, back, lens and subject, and position your tilt accordingly. In practice, one chooses two points on the plane, one near and one far, and plays around with the tilt till both points are sharp.

Once you've done it a time or two, it gets easy.

Best,

Doremus

[Andrew Plume]

Looks like I've missed the latest episode of the 'Bob and Bryan show' :rolleyes:- I have a feeling that another episode may be screened shortly

Andrew